Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 10:34 AM
349 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, Larni, RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,318 Year: 23,924/21,208 Month: 1,889/2,468 Week: 398/822 Day: 8/50 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1080 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 16 of 82 (698401)
05-06-2013 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
05-05-2013 11:29 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
It seems to me that you have simply made a pass at addressing a particular God hypothesis and then concluded that you have disproved "all known God Hypothesis(s) [sic]"

No not really my OP was not about disproving all God Hypothesis. I mentioned Carlin because religion doesn't offer anything better then the God he mentions. Therefore Theology has nothing to defend.

That is I could list all the Theological arguments for God here and why they don't hold water but what would be the point? At the end of the day we are still taking about an invisible man in the sky.

One that gets jealous and angry and has mercy and forgives and therefore not only has the typical personality of a narcissist human but a petty tyrant as well.

If we could start with a clean slate admitting that the Bible and all the other holy books have nothing to do with what God really is then atleast we would have a reasonable starting point.

If we could admit that all the theological arguments for believing in God thus far are irrational and deceptive as well as easily demolished by any thinking person...then maybe we would be one step closer to understanding what the concept of God could mean.

But even going so far as to being complete skeptics of God and using Atheism as a starting point then tentatively approaching agnosticism to see if there is anything deeper then simple atheism would only be a step in the right direction.

If there is a God then no concept of God or any amount of theological apologetics will get you anywhere close to apprehending let alone understanding the nature of God.

If it were not for people like Spinoza or Einstein I wouldn't even bother using the word God in a sentence let alone claiming that there is evidence for or against the reality of Gods existence.

As long as God is a "person" and as long as religion has anything to say about it Atheism will be presented with an easy target and we will get no where near the true nature of reality which is God.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2013 11:29 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1080 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 17 of 82 (698424)
05-06-2013 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ProtoTypical
05-06-2013 4:24 AM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
Recognizing that I exist and that I have an ability to pursue my desires is in no way comparable to believing that the universe was created for my benefit. The theist believes that this is all a big birthday party in their honour whereas the atheist sees some cake and has at it.

One position requires the fabrication of a construct and the other requires only observation. The social engineering that results from observing the way things work is bound to be more successful than social designs based on the way we wish that things worked.

While consciousness is indeed a phenomenal and grand thing where is the delusion of grandeur in recognizing my abilities?

No no I am not saying that an Atheist automatically has delusions of grandeur. I am saying when you watch Atheist like Dawkins and Dennett in debate or better yet read their books you will get the distinct impression they think that complete total Atheism solves everything . That science as it is now in biology and evolution and neuroscience on the brain explains everything to do with life and consciousness.

And these philosophers and scientist believe that they personally have solved everything. Dennet has his book Consciousness Explained and Dawkins has The God Delusion. So there is no further reason to look into the nature of reality or God or ask about a soul because Science and Atheism and Materialism covers anything and everything you could or would want to know. There are no questions left to ask except questions in details. That is the Delusion of Grandeur I am talking about .

And the Theist are no better. Arguing that scientist think they know everything then pointing out some of the same things people like me say using ideas of real philosophers to show that maybe there is a limit to what materialistic science can know. And then concluding that justifies any pseudo science like Irreducible Complexity and that if there are questions that only philosophy can answer we should accept theological apologetics or obviously mythological based religions that are outdated by almost the entire history of human kind and have already been sufficiently refuted.

And on what basis?

Because they can dress up creationism in more scientific clothing? The same science they mock they use to justify religion for some political agenda to get prayers in schools and eliminate cutting edge science on evolution. But they represent themselves as honest philosophers seeking the truth.

I may not have all the answers but at least I'm willing to ask the real questions.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-06-2013 4:24 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-06-2013 11:37 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2013 11:02 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2013 11:04 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 2:17 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1753
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 18 of 82 (698433)
05-06-2013 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-06-2013 9:45 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
I am saying when you watch Atheist like Dawkins and Dennett in debate or better yet read their books you will get the distinct impression they think that complete total Atheism solves everything .

Well sure but taking a polemic approach really helps to sell books. The fact that Dawkins is a 6/7 on the atheist scale indicates that there is room for new information. This is not so with your hard core theists.

The established foundations of scientific knowledge are not the same as the dogma of religion. One is alive and the other is dead. One is a tree and the other is a statue.

There is a bit of delusional thinking in everyone I guess though. We all think that we have some kind of importance in the universe or at least start out that way. Most of us finish off that way too. In reality we have some level of relative importance to those around us but it doesn't go much further than that. There is certainly no good reason to think that our importance extends to the universe in general.

Isn't pantheism another case of anthropomorphism in action? Attributing consciousness to the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-06-2013 9:45 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 19 of 82 (698457)
05-07-2013 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-05-2013 8:24 PM


Re: My summary thus far
I will be happy to clarify my OP point by point if necessary.

Could you state just the main point of the OP in one or two sentences with like 30 words or less?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-05-2013 8:24 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 20 of 82 (698465)
05-07-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-06-2013 9:45 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
SA writes:

I am saying when you watch Atheist like Dawkins and Dennett in debate or better yet read their books you will get the distinct impression they think that complete total Atheism solves everything . That science as it is now in biology and evolution and neuroscience on the brain explains everything to do with life and consciousness.

And these philosophers and scientist believe that they personally have solved everything. Dennet has his book Consciousness Explained and Dawkins has The God Delusion. So there is no further reason to look into the nature of reality or God or ask about a soul because Science and Atheism and Materialism covers anything and everything you could or would want to know. There are no questions left to ask except questions in details. That is the Delusion of Grandeur I am talking about.

I think you have missed the point being made by Dawkins, Dennet et al. The claim is not that science and atheism have somehow answered every question, solved every problem and explained everything that there is to possibly explain. Very far from it in fact.

The point being made by this group is, I think, twofold: 1) Some question are inherently nonsensical unless you make the unwarranted assumption that there is some sort of human-like-but-cosmically-scaled-conscious-intent involved. 2) If we are to gain answers to the remaining big questions then a scientific approach is the only demonstrably reliable and thus sensible way forwards. Invoking mystical conscious intelligent entities (no matter how ambiguously defined they may be) is as pointless and anthropomorphic as it always has been.

So the "delusions of grandeur" you are seeing aren't really there in the way you are suggesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-06-2013 9:45 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5064
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 21 of 82 (698466)
05-07-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-06-2013 9:45 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
Spiritual Atheist writes:

No no I am not saying that an Atheist automatically has delusions of grandeur. I am saying when you watch Atheist like Dawkins and Dennett in debate or better yet read their books you will get the distinct impression they think that complete total Atheism solves everything .

Well I've read Dennett and Dawkins and I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Dawkins doesn't even call himself a complete and total atheist - he leaves a little space for a deistic god, not much, but a little.

But atheism, by it's definition solves nothing - it's just a non-belief in god, not a solution.

That science as it is now in biology and evolution and neuroscience on the brain explains everything to do with life and consciousness.

Well this is just an obvious truth - biology explains life and neuroscience will probably explain consciousness. But it'll take a while yet - we've only just started.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-06-2013 9:45 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1080 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 22 of 82 (698510)
05-07-2013 4:46 PM


So Far So Good
OK now I think we are having a real discussion. So I will reply individually after I read all the responses and think on how to get my points across with more brevity.

So far I think the main objection to my points are 1. That I should use less words. And 2. that science as it is ...is all we have to work with.

So I do not think that science as it stands today is a complete method although it is close.

And I do not think that the Universe has thoughts and feelings like you and me let alone that the Universe should be called God because he/she/(it?) is a person.

This is where I see Theism failing by starting with the premise that God is a person that exist outside our Universe and is also the designer of our Universe.

But let me make it clear as a Pantheist I disagree on both premises.
Premises of Theist and don't really understand what is meant by the 3rd one.

1. God is a person (I submit is False)
2. God exist separate from the Universe (I submit is also False)
3. God is a "mystical" consciousness ? Not sure what is meant here so I can not clarify

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 5:10 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Stile, posted 05-08-2013 8:26 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 25 by petrophysics1, posted 05-08-2013 8:45 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2013 2:41 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 23 of 82 (698511)
05-07-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-07-2013 4:46 PM


Re: So Far So Good
o far I think the main objection to my points are 1. That I should use less words.

Its nice to have a concise point that is made up front, and then have all the supporting to stuff to read while you already know what the person is getting at. Kinda like a scientific paper having an abstract.

Its a lot harder for me to get meaning out of your words if I don't really know where you're going with them already.

This can also be accomplished with a good title.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-07-2013 4:46 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2964
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 24 of 82 (698568)
05-08-2013 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-07-2013 4:46 PM


Confidence in Science
Spiritual Anarchist writes:

2. that science as it is ...is all we have to work with.

Science is all we have to work with when trying to find out facts about reality that we can be confident in, yes.

There are plenty of other methods that "we can work with," though... they just don't produce results that we can be confident in. There's just too high a chance that they're going to be wrong or useless.

Let's say I want to go North.

I could use a compass.
That's a method I can work with, and it produces results I can be confident with.

I could also hold a bat upright, bend over to put my forehead on it and spin around until I fall over.
That's a method I can work with too... it just doesn't produce any results I can be confident with.

Using the compass is using Science.
Spinning around on a bat is like every other method other than Science.

If you can think of another method that can produce results we can be confident with, there are many people who would like to hear about it.
Science isn't perfect, it's still wrong a bunch of times.
It's just so much better than spinning around on a bat, that's all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-07-2013 4:46 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

    
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 82 (698571)
05-08-2013 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-07-2013 4:46 PM


Re: So Far So Good
Hi SA,

I see some problems with how you are going about explaining this. Most people here think you are your body/or brain and you can be explained using classical physics and chemistry. They think your awarness/consciousness results from chemical activity in your brain. They don't see the problems with this.

Here is a paper by Henry Stapp, Theoretical Physics Group at Laurence Livermore Labs, who has also worked with Pauli and Heisenberg. He goes through a step by step look about why the clasical physics approach doesn't work concerning the brain/mind/awareness and how QM does.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9502012

It may give you some better ideas on how to present your viewpoint.

This second paper by Mr. Stapp, easier reading, goes into a few QM ideas concerning consciousness. An interesting experiment is also presented.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/25f3c80w#page-1

Since the observer is part of the math in QM, the papers show that your connection to that around you is probably much more profound then you think.

I can see your point on how this creates problems for both theists and atheists as both are based on a classical physics viewpoint. I'm here, you're there, and God is way way over there someplace, or I'm here, you're there, and God doesn't exist. The Buddhist and QM idea that you are related to or part of what you observe is much more interesting.

There is more I can say perhaps later, but I'd like to thank you for your first thread. It got me looking at QM and consciousness and there a quite a few more papers on the subject than the two I've posted.

Thanks

P.S. Don't write long large blocks of type, break it up, it makes it much easier to read quickly

Edited by petrophysics1, : Add P.S.

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-07-2013 4:46 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-09-2013 7:40 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 82 (698644)
05-08-2013 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-07-2013 4:46 PM


Re: So Far So Good
SA writes:

God is a "mystical" consciousness ? Not sure what is meant here so I can not clarify.

Is this God you speak of conscious? Is this God you speak of intelligent?

Does this God you speak of have a physical brain of any sort? Or is it a sort of ethereal consciousness immaterially existing in some way?

Please clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-07-2013 4:46 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 27 of 82 (698711)
05-09-2013 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-06-2013 9:45 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
Dennet has his book Consciousness Explained and Dawkins has The God Delusion. So there is no further reason to look into the nature of reality or God or ask about a soul because Science and Atheism and Materialism covers anything and everything you could or would want to know.

Then you totally misunderstand the issue being addressed. There are major problems in this world, in this species, and superstition has not, will not, can not, solve them. Indeed superstition is a major cause of many of these problems and, as we have seen, any solutions based upon the tenants of superstition not only fail to address the problems but exacerbate them even more.

Doing away with errant analysis by superstition leaves only one other choice: reason from objective reality.

No one ever said atheism solves everything. No one. No one ever said there is no further reason to look into the nature of reality or that atheism and materialism covers anything and everything you could or would want to know. No one.

Except you.

What they did say is that if we want real solutions to our real problems then superstition, be it monotheist, polytheist or pantheist must go away. Reason by objective reality must rule. Anything else, as we have sadly experienced for the last 5,000 years, results in abject failure.

I suggest you re-read both Dawkins and Dennett more carefully.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-06-2013 9:45 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-09-2013 6:35 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1080 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 28 of 82 (698811)
05-09-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AZPaul3
05-09-2013 2:17 AM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
I think by your reply that you are missing my point. I am not targeting only Dennet or Atheist specifically. I know that superstition and religion is a problem. I also know that superstition doesn't solve problems. I am 90% Atheist and support the movement to minimize religion and superstitious thinking.

If you read my post I also target Theist equally as thinking there is only two ways of seeing things. Atheism being the wrong way and Theism solving what Atheist can't like problems of morality. Theist know there are gaps in scientific knowledge so many Theist use Intelligent Design as an alternate hypothesis to Natural Selection.

The problem is ID is disguised Theology.

So I think at least the Atheist are honest here. Atheist admit they are materialist but the ID proponent hides behind science preaching theology.

In fact I think there is very little in your post that I don't agree with. Maybe it was my fault for not pointing out my criticism applies equally to Michael Behe and William Dembski?

I was pointing out that Atheist and Theist are presenting an either or proposition.

I would like to know why you lump Pantheism in with monotheism and polytheism?

Would you call Einstein a superstitious thinker or would you call him a clear thinker?

Monotheist and Polytheist argue how many Gods there are. And both Mono/Poly Theist understand God to be a person based on mythology or religion which is just a mythological construct passing itself off as actual history. Pantheism does not agree with either Monotheism or Polytheism in any way. In fact I wish I could call Pantheism just Pan... ...well something else because there is no "theology" in Pantheism so in some ways there is no real theism in it either. What I mean by God is completely different from a what a Theist means by God.

So I really do not want to waste my time defending Judeao Christian Theism while Atheist attack it . For the Atheists that want to argue with Christians or Theologian please go argue with Theist . I know Pantheism has the word Theism in it but it is nothing like theism. If you go to Pantheist org you will see it is run almost entirely by Atheist. Even Richard Dawkins called Pantheism Sexed up Atheism. So I suggest you read up on Pantheism and read Dawkins more carefully yourself.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 2:17 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 10:34 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2013 5:36 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1080 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 29 of 82 (698830)
05-09-2013 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by petrophysics1
05-08-2013 8:45 AM


Re: So Far So Good
I want to thank you for providing those links.

Here is a paper by Henry Stapp, Theoretical Physics Group at Laurence Livermore Labs, who has also worked with Pauli and Heisenberg. He goes through a step by step look about why the clasical physics approach doesn't work concerning the brain/mind/awareness and how QM does.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9502012

It may give you some better ideas on how to present your viewpoint.

This second paper by Mr. Stapp, easier reading, goes into a few QM ideas concerning consciousness. An interesting experiment is also presented.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/25f3c80w#page-1

Because you are right the issue of Pantheism is not an issue of promoting the idea of "God" but of giving people a perspective on the mind that is not completely materialistic.

I hope other people on this board besides me will explore the links you just provided.

Also for those interested please contrast the views of The Discovery Institute which is now out of the closet as a religious right group with that of Noetic Science. (http://noetic.org/about/overview/) because I belong to the Noetic Science view not the Discovery Institute view.

See below

Discovery Institute (Promoting Theism)

"Board of Directors Mission:

The mission of Discovery Institute is to advance a culture of purpose, creativity and innovation.

Program:

Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West."

Noetic Science (Promoting Actual Science)

"
The Institute of Noetic Sciences™, founded in 1973 by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research, education, and membership organization whose mission is supporting individual and collective transformation through consciousness research, educational outreach, and engaging a global learning community in the realization of our human potential. “Noetic” comes from the Greek word nous, which means “intuitive mind” or “inner knowing.” IONS™ conducts, sponsors, and collaborates on leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness, exploring phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor.

The Institute’s primary program areas are consciousness and healing, extended human capacities, and emerging worldviews. The specific work of the Institute includes the following:

Sponsorship of and participation in original research and publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals
Application of findings into educational products and trainings"


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by petrophysics1, posted 05-08-2013 8:45 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 30 of 82 (698836)
05-09-2013 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-09-2013 6:35 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
I understand quite well the degrees of pantheistic thought and your own views as expressed in this and other threads.

You mention Einstein as if he were a defense of your pantheistic views. I have read almost all of Einstein's available letters on the subject and I believe I know as well as any his beliefs as he himself states them and, regardless of his invoking Spinoza at some points, he carries on at length in a decidedly non-Spinozan fashion.

Spinoza had more of a theistic nature to his philosophy than Einstein. Einstein invoked Spinoza to emphasize to those pushing him that he had no beliefs in any type of personal anthropomorphic god. This led to the thought that Einstein was a pantheist in the same way as Spinoza (sorta) with a transcendent god with infinite attributes of which Thought and Extension permeate our universe and the human soul a manifestation of its immanence. The same as you describe for your pantheism with your ideas on the soul. Einstein could not bring himself to invoke atheism, though it most definitely fit. He, instead, invoked the public miss-understanding of Spinoza as god-is-nature and nature-is-god. But he definitely rejected Spinoza's transcendent entity of thought and immanence of soul. Einstein believed in nature. The wonder. The beauty of a nature wholly contained by the physical laws with nothing supernatural or transcendent over anything. Very like Spinoza in some ways but very different to Spinoza, and your expressed beliefs, in other major ways.

I would like to know why you lump Pantheism in with monotheism and polytheism?

Your own views, like Spinoza's, contain elements of supernatural processes not evidenced in our world.

quote:
The only reason that my Pantheism has any inclination towards the Pantheism of Spinoza is because I believe that the soul has more validity then any God Concept.

You will call it a principle of philosophy. I call it an unnecessary intrusion by your incredulity and emotional-based wishful thinking. Such a person is not basing their philosophy, their personal decisions or their decisions in regard to others on reason by objective reality alone. Further, given this shallow level of critical thinking, such a person, given the right emotional stimulus, might be brought to believe in any number of other questionable ideas.

In my view your expression of belief belongs with the other classifications of theism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-09-2013 6:35 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-11-2013 8:15 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017