I don't understand your combativeness. You keep doing this to me, where it seems you're trying to pick a fight where there is none. In a previous post I said how I hoped to be inclusive, but you were probably right in that a general discussion will be too difficult. I then took a small step toward that definition by specifying that we talk about "God" rather than "moral forms". What exactly am I refusing to do?
I could ... actually I think I do ... but I don't get the feeling you'd accept that testimony based on what you've said here.
Even so, God is more than my testimony. He can speak to you directly, or act directly in your life in irrefutable ways if he so chooses. Taking the pharoh of Exodus as an example, however, there is always a way to deny what happens if you look hard enough.
But I'm going to refrain from attacking your approach to God as a form because that's not what I'm after. Instead, let's do this. Let's take your approach, allowing each person to define "virtue" as fits their need. Why do they need to define it differently?
And, Fido, this tirade was simply not helpful. If you actually set out to defend what you've said, you'll find it very prejudiced and unjustified since atheistic nations (such as the USSR) have been just as brutal and oppressive. You can try to play to the extremes as if they are the norm, but they aren't. The true problem exists in all people, not in a single institution like a church.
But what would you do? Would you ban churches? Would you deny me - someone who happens to belong to a church - the right to express my opinion, to vote, to support those government officials who agree with me, to band together with others of similar thought and lobby? Am I supposed to be quiet so you can have your way? Am I supposed to pretend I don't believe what I believe?
Exactly. So why is that? If we were all sitting around my desk staring at a pencil, I think we'd agree it was a pencil (though there is always the anal guy who insists it's a stick of wood with a piece of lead in the middle - which is followed by the guy who insists it is a collection of atoms - which is followed by ...) Assuming we're all making an honest effort to describe the same thing, why do we come to different conclusions?
Resha Caner wrote:Fido,
Venting feels good sometimes, doesn't it? But it rarely makes a point to the recipient. I'm sure you realize this is way off topic, but I'm willing to deal with it before we move on if you're willing to discuss this calmly.
Sorray, but I was being calm... Ask why people do not believe...Maybe because Chrisitians are such crooks and hypocrits...Maybe because those charged with belief clearly do not believe... Maybe because they expect others to behave, but they only take advantage... Count the reasons droogie...
Quote:
If we address everything you said, we'll never get back to the topic. Is there one thing in particular we could narrow this too? For example, I do trust God, but I don't see what that has to do with excluding reason. Second, Christians do things wrong. I know that. But it has nothing to do with being Christian. Failing is part of being human. Agnostics and atheists fail, too. You can try to persuade people to give up religion, but I don't think you'll succeed. And, even if you did, it wouldn't solve the problem. The world would still have a lot of nasty people.
If you do trust in God you have already excluded reason...People do not believe in God because it is reasonable, but in spite of the fact that we know better... So if you want others to believe on the power of your testimony, live a perfect life... Set an example...It is not that Christians do the wrong thing, but that they are perfectly anti Christian, and often purely hateful creatures...Now I will agree that failing is a part of being human... So is turning every form to a personal advantage... If you get around little kids in school, you can see what little heartless shits they are... They do not get better, but get worse with age... And the ones that never grow out of it go to church and live in small towns where they can snipe and gossip at each other constantly... I have never heard such hatred of humanity come out of a Muslims's mouth as I have heard often from the mouths of Christians...
Quote:That was my point about the USSR. Yes, at an ideological level communism is attractive - peace, love, motherhood, and apple pie. I was speaking specifically of the atheistic implementation of the Soviets to point out that the cruelty continued even after the church was supressed. I don't see how you could reasonably deny that. But, anyway. You want Christians to split off and form a separate nation. Many would be willing to do that, but I doubt any established nation would allow a mass exodus complete with all the property, wealth, intellectual rights, and manpower that would go with it. If you want to propose that to Congress, be my guest, but I don't think it's called a democracy anymore when you want to ship away everyone who disagrees with you. Of course, I don't know your political preferences. Maybe that's what you want. If so, there is also the option for you to secede and start a new nation. I'm content with staying where I am.
It would be better for them to set themselves apart and have to deal with the consequences of their own stupidity... History has shown that there is no natural limit to their fractiousness...Once the calvinists broke from the Catholics is has just continued to fracture... Even a town full of Baptists compete on every imaginable issue of trivia...And one other point; the thought that belief does not exclude reason...It was the protestants who brought into being the age of reason, the enlightenment...What that amounted to was understanding mechanics enough to make a factory run to exploit people and the environment, and lay away profits that as soon drew the rich from their faith...And yet the churches championed the same process time and again, and do so yet today...Capitalism is the economic face of Protestantism just as feudalism was the economic face of Catholicism... There is no way around the fact that each group molded the world according to their faith; but in every respect it placed an artificial limit on humanity, and on human knowledge for which there is no excuse...
Quote:
As for converting people, I always try to be a witness to my faith, but I don't agree with the disingenuous approach of some. I'm not going to chase you, Fido. If you choose not to speak with me, I'll respect that. But it was you who chose to respond to this thread, and I intend to speak my mind. At the same time, I'll do my best to hear you out. As I said to Gosh, I probably was unfair to you in a few places. I didn't mean to be, but it can be a struggle to carry on two conversations - one confrontational and one rational - without emotions leaking back and forth.
Convert away... The weak minded are always willing... But trust me on this, that you may do more good making your life speak and your mouth be silent...
Quote:
With that said, I happen to believe that you take the whole package or none at all. So, if Matt 28:19 says to make disciples of all nations, I will play my part. I understand the "faith is a personal thing, keep it to yourself" idea that some promote. I wish those who do could understand that though they say they aren't pushing their ideas on anyone, they are. If I were to adhere to that, I would have to ignore Matt 28:19. I would have to change my beliefs to comply with someone else's.
So, you may reply to what I've said, or we can go back to my question about the form of virtue.
I'd like to refer you to another thread currently active delving into the same issues presented here ... More specifically, I'd like you to see a post of mine, #13.
The reason we do not see the same intersubjectivity with spirituality as we would with a pencil on your desk is because: There are no defined ontological properties. Conditions which can be properly displayed and verified allow humans to come to consensus regarding propositions regarding the physical.
Second, though, there are implicit (or maybe "intuitive" is a better word) properties that words fail to capture. Here is where people who take an extreme view of reason, where they demand that only explicit definitions are acceptable, or that only repeatable physical evidence is acceptable, begin to struggle. It allows them a firm basis for denying God's existence, but in so doing they end up chasing their tail on every other issue as well.
I don't mean to say the intuitive is sufficient. That would allow a neo-Platonic approach where one can sit in an ivory tower and reason from intuition to the "thing" without any experience of the "thing". In that regard, I agree with Hume. But I do think accepting the implicit as valid even in the absence of the explicit is an important step.
Given that we are all human, and therefore have similar inate qualities (I think someone earlier mentioned that if God exists, it seems he would implant in us the seeds that would initiate our growth, and indeed I think he does). Given two people who have had a spiritual experience, I think that experience provides common ground for a discussion.
We shouldn't assume we are on common ground simply because we hear the words "spiritual" or "God". These notions vary tremendously in their interpretation. We should enter each discussion with a kindred heart, but more importantly, a mind which is willing to make the effort in using language as a means for effective communication. It can be done, but from my experience, it often is not.
If I may be allowed a short breach of flow here, and ask one question:
I have noticed that you keep using the word "God," here, Resha Caner. I have also found that you mention "monotheistic Christian"--possibly, but not absolutely clearly determined, referring to yourself. Am I correct, then, in taking your "God" to be the YHWH/Christian Trinity model?
Thanks for your consideration and allowance. KJ
I see the reasons as distinct from the thing being accepted/rejected.
it might not be so comparable a thing to offer, in an analogical manner, one's not believing in Mohammed, with one's not believing in the YHWH model. If I have understood you correctly, it might be better to compare one's believing (in whatever applicable way) Mohammed with one's believing the authors of According to John.
I cannot get around understanding that for one to believe in a god, one must first have information of that god--knowledge just seems to be necessary thing. I can go out in nature and see 'god,' and the knowledge I get may help me understand the character of this 'god.' I may then compare that 'observed-in-and-learned-from-nature god' to a described/prescribed god that someone else has presented. If that fits, then I can believe it--because nature came before all know models presented by the Homo sapien.
This is a very narrow question (at least as I ask it). Hence, I understand that it will be difficult to get a serious answer, but I thought I'd give it a try.
Let's start with the antithesis - physicalism - that there is nothing to believe in. I always liked the comment by Stephen Barr in his article "The Soul and Its Enemies"
"Stephen Hawking worried that if physics produced a 'theory of everything' then that theory would have to explain why some people believed in it and some didn't; and their respective beliefs would then be the inevitable consequence of physical processes taking place in their brains rather than the validity of their reasoning."
I get the physicalist view, though I don't agree with it, and don't think it will ever get anywhere in explaining anything because of the above conundrum. But can we put that aside for now?
I'm asking this question of those who do believe in something spiritual. Given that you believe the spiritual exists, and given that not everyone agrees on what the spiritual is, how do you explain these differences?
hue-man,
OK, you gave a reason to answer the flip side question: why do people believe. But what would your answer be to: why don't people believe.
According to what you've said, I would conclude you think people are denying their instinct by not believing. So why do they do that?
