Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Still small voice of God found
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 45 of 77 (789797)
08-19-2016 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
08-19-2016 8:38 AM


Re: God In A Box
Hi everyone, I'm looking to start my own topic when I have time, I couldn't let this blatant hypocrisy slide however.
Phat writes:
Also...all three of these documents are arrogant, unsubstantiated, and far from conclusive. Jesus lives...regardless of what the puny human animal thinks about itself and its place in the universe.
Humanist Manifesto
Humanist Manifesti II
Humanist Manifesto III
Phat writes:
I would argue that if you think your original source was mindless and that there is no God, you are still mindless.
You assert that the humanist manifesto is arrogant, obviously because it rejects god/s. Then you go on to insult people who value evidence and reason as puny human animals for simply not believing in your particular brand of fantasy. Treating your own beliefs as fact and deriding others for not accepting your nonsense is far more arrogant than rejecting fantasy in favour of just looking out for people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 08-19-2016 8:38 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 08-19-2016 5:20 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 50 of 77 (789840)
08-20-2016 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
08-19-2016 5:20 PM


Re: God In A Box
You can delete the other thread.
Perhaps they are sincere? What are you trying to imply here? That they know god exists, but are using the guise of helping others as a method to convince people to reject him? You realise it's not just your pet jesus they reject, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 08-19-2016 5:20 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 08-20-2016 6:48 PM Riggamortis has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 54 of 77 (789844)
08-20-2016 8:28 PM


Still small voice of.. Us?
There is no reason to believe that our conscience is anything other than the name we give to our reasoning process while asking ourselves a moral question. The fact that everyone has a different process and reasoning abilities explains rather nicely the variation in the choices we make.
The way I experience thought is basically talking to myself in my head. I know this is all subjective but I'd be interested to see if/how much our experiences vary in this regard. If my regular thoughts are my own and my thoughts during my 'conscience' reasoning process are not, why do they feel identical? The thoughts that may be attempting to rationalise the the immoral option are depicted as coming from a little devil while the thoughts leading me to the moral option are depicted as coming from an angel.
I would now like to apply the angel/devil theory to a recent dilemma I faced.
I was angered by the arrogance and hypocrisy displayed by Phat and the devil popped up on my shoulder.
"Rip him a new one! Don't hold back" he said.*
I'd had a few beers and I began to reply. My tone was much the same as the condescending tone that Phat had used. I had several unnecessary insults in there. I stopped writing for a moment. The angel popped up now.
"Don't be so harsh. If you really believed in fairy tales, you'd likely get offended on behalf of a supreme being and reject a movement that actually aligns very closely with Jesus' teachings on that basis alone" she said.*
So I went back through and settled with just labelling his fantastical beliefs as fantasy.
* I don't remember the exact thoughts but they were along those lines.
In this scenario, the 'still small voice of god' was telling me to back off a bit and it seemed to feel sorry for Phat, that he wholeheartedly believes something that is almost surely false. I don't mean to pick on Phat, I just thought it was a good way to explain why, to me at least, the idea that god is driving our consicences is silly. Nor are our 'conscience' thoughts anything different from normal thoughts.

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 55 of 77 (789845)
08-20-2016 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by GDR
08-20-2016 7:12 PM


Re: God In A Box
GDR writes:
Actually the fact that we can use science and biology to intelligently find a natural process is indicative that there is an intelligence that is responsible for the process because . . . . . .
Italics added by me. The reason only the faithful will accept your statement is simple. It is incomplete. As it stands it is a baseless assertion, fill in the blanks and maybe we'll have something to talk about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 08-20-2016 7:12 PM GDR has 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