Listen folks, here's the rule of Priority...

I think 'God' is a concept thought up by humans to control humans.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

neologist and joefromchicago,

Come on guys , I spent a lot of time writing many paragraphs of text copy, trying to explain the reasons behind my conclusions.
I presented my evidence/reasoning, it's time you present yours. It's easy to dismiss something with a "one-liner statement" equivalent to "whatever", without backing it up.

When someone says "God wouldn't do that," I think it is eminently sensible to ask "how do you know that?"

Most epistemologists would say that there are two ways of "knowing" something: inductively or deductively. Inductive knowledge involves information derived from sense perceptions, while deductive knowledge involves conclusions based on logical inferences. Some would argue that there is a third kind of knowledge: revelatory knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from direct revelation or special insight.

Now, from your previous posts, it seems that you are saying that you "know" god wouldn't become directly involved in the common affairs of mankind because of some kind of logical deduction: God prioritizes among the potential recipients of his assistance, with those in the most need getting help first. According to you, those who think they receive assistance for trivial needs, such as success in sporting endeavors, are thus deluded: they always stand at the end of the line for god's assistance, so it is simply not possible that they ever get it.

Why this conclusion is logical, however, completely eludes me. In the first place, it assumes that god is subject to the rules of logic. That seems to be a completely unwarranted assumption. Certainly, many religions consider the supreme deity to be free from all logical constraints (e.g. god can be in two places at once -- you, on the other hand, can't). To say, then, that it is illogical for god to bestow his largesse on the least deserving as well as the most deserving is not supported by any kind of logical necessity. Likewise, you seem to assume that god's assistance is available in a limited quantity, and that it runs out before all of the possible recipients of that assistance are satisfied. Again, I see no logical reason to make that assumption. For all we know, god has an unlimited reserve of power to assist all who are in need, even those whose needs are extraordinarily small.

Secondly, your argument assumes that god prioritizes in the same way that a human would. Again, I can't see why this is a logical necessity. More likely, I think this is fundamentally an inductive argument: people act that way, so god should act that way too. For that argument, however, I see absolutely no support whatsoever. Not only do you not know how people, in general, prioritize among the objects of their aid, but you have no information at all regarding how supernatural beings prioritize. For all we know, god chooses the recipients of his assistance at random, or alphabetically, or by height, or by who he likes best. There's no reason to think that god must be fair or impartial when he bestows his divine goodies.

c_logic wrote:

If you don't have a stronger argument, I'll consider myself the winner of this discussion.

You should seriously consider declaring yourself the winner now, before you submit any more posts.

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

I think 'God' is a concept thought up by humans to control humans.

It's a good argument. Why don't you start a new thred with this topic? I would like to piggyback on that and get into the details. Smile

joefromchicago wrote:

When someone says "God wouldn't do that," I think it is eminently sensible to ask "how do you know that?"

The concept of religion relies on certain rules and assumptions. People worship god because they think that god is of good and loving nature, and that you'll go to heaven if you do things right. This is logical reasoning, cause and effect. When you take logic away from god, wierd things start to happen... and religion as we know it falls apart.
According to your reasoning it's possible that logic doesn't apply to god and therefore he can send you to hell when you're good, and to heaven when you're pure evil. In other words he simply "plays games" that we don't understand. Honestly, it's a scary thought.

Some logic is necessary in order to keep religion rolling, even though most of religious thinking and reasoning doesn't make sense, especially since everything is based on hearsay.

Also, Christian teachings say that your life is in your own hands and that you have to show good heart in order to go to heaven. How is that possible if god interferes? True nature can only be seen if nobody is "tweaking" it. Also, why would you be "good" if god has no logic and can send you to hell for no reason?

In addition, there's always that talk about sanctity of life, but never any talk about sanctity of being a multi-millionnaire, sanctity of being arognant, etc... Clearly, life is the most important aspect in religion.

I honestly believe that if god exists he does not interfere in our daily lives. It just makes sense.

Your argument is interesting and clever, but it does not present enough. I like it though because it's much deeper than the hardcore religious man's reply: "You're going to hell, buddy."

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

The concept of religion relies on certain rules and assumptions. People worship god because they think that god is of good and loving nature, and that you'll go to heaven if you do things right. This is logical reasoning, cause and effect.

No, it isn't. Christians, for instance, believe that god will reward the virtuous and punish the wicked because god said that he would. If god had made no such promise, then it is unlikely that people would be worshipping some supernatural being because they thought it was logical that a supernatural being would reward the virtuous and punish the wicked. There is nothing logically necessary about a loving supernatural being who bestows favors on the good and condemns the evil.

c_logic wrote:

When you take logic away from god, wierd things start to happen... and religion as we know it falls apart.

You're not a member of an organized religion, are you?

c_logic wrote:

According to your reasoning it's possible that logic doesn't apply to god and therefore he can send you to hell when you're good, and to heaven when you're pure evil. In other words he simply "plays games" that we don't understand. Honestly, it's a scary thought.

No, the Christian god sends the bad to hell and the good to heaven, but that's not because it's logically necessary for a supernatural being to send only the bad to hell and the good to heaven, it's because god promised to send the bad to hell and the good to heaven. For a Christian, then, there is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question "how do you know that?" -- it's because god said so.

Similarly, god said that he would help those in need, so a Christian could answer my question by responding: "I know that because god said so" (unlike you, who still hasn't answered my question). But god never said that he would help only those in the most dire need, or that those with trivial needs would have to stand at the end of the line and hope that god's limited assistance wouldn't run out by the time he reached them. Consequently, there's nothing in god's revealed word that supports the assumption that god doesn't render assistance to those who need his assistance the least.

c_logic wrote:

Some logic is necessary in order to keep religion rolling, even though most of religious thinking and reasoning doesn't make sense, especially since everything is based on hearsay.

I never said that religion doesn't need logic. I said that god (as portrayed by most religions) is not bound by the rules of logic.

c_logic wrote:

Also, Christian teachings say that your life is in your own hands and that you have to show good heart in order to go to heaven. How is that possible if god interferes? True nature can only be seen if nobody is "tweaking" it. Also, why would you be "good" if god has no logic and can send you to hell for no reason?

In addition, there's always that talk about sanctity of life, but never any talk about sanctity of being a multi-millionnaire, sanctity of being arognant, etc... Clearly, life is the most important aspect in religion.

Those questions go beyond the limits of this thread.

c_logic wrote:

I honestly believe that if god exists he does not interfere in our daily lives. It just makes sense.

How do you know that?

0 Replies

You assume there are no other issues involved besides the 6000 or so years of recorded human misery.

I'll give you the Bible's answer which, of course, you are not obligated to believe, only (I hope) consider:

When Satan tempted Eve, he said that God was a liar and was holding back something good from mankind, namely that humans would be better off deciding for themselves what was good and what was bad. He also called into question the integrity of God's intelligent creation, averring that they would serve God only as things went well for them. (This was particularly evident in the story of Job.)

The entire Bible relates the steps God has taken to allow Satan opportunity to prove his point and give individual humans evidence needed for their choice as to whom they will serve.

You and I may think that 6000 years is excessive and that God should have intervened long ago; but you and I have not the perception of time which is the prerogative of God.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You assume there are no other issues involved besides the 6000 or so years of recorded human misery.

I'll give you the Bible's answer which, of course, you are not obligated to believe, only (I hope) consider:

When Satan tempted Eve, he said that God was a liar and was holding back something good from mankind, namely that humans would be better off deciding for themselves what was good and what was bad. He also called into question the integrity of God's intelligent creation, averring that they would serve God only as things went well for them. (This was particularly evident in the story of Job.)

The entire Bible relates the steps God has taken to allow Satan opportunity to prove his point and give individual humans evidence needed for their choice as to whom they will serve.

You and I may think that 6000 years is excessive and that God should have intervened long ago; but you and I have not the perception of time which is the prerogative of God.

Neo, this does not defeat the original point, that a sports star is being supremely foolish and self-centered by thanking god for his achievements, rather it would seem to support it.

0 Replies

Hi. Well, joefromchicago presented much better than I ever could.

Let me preface with saying I am not a Christian. However, I see you making many, many basic assumptions that would take an extremely long thread and much blithering back n' forth to unravel!

You title for this thread was "Listen folks, here's the rule of Priority". Right off the bat you claim to know what 'god' (who you seem not to ascribe to) has the same Rules of Priority as you (or should have - otherwise it makes no sense?!).

To me that is extremely arrogant. God or no: You are making a claim to understand the Rules of the Universe!! (with no room for the possibility that logic can not give all the answers and you may be incorrect). It is the basis for your arguement.

c_logic wrote:

Now we have a nice conversation going, that's what I'm talking about! :wink:

flushd wrote:
Well, if you believe in god to begin with...why not thank him/her/it for the little things?

Because (if god exists in the first place) he has nothing to do with the little things. Everything that happens is the result of random interaction of countless variables. Again, we're nobody's puppets. If we were, we couldn't be held accountable for our actions, be it good or bad.

That wasn't my point. My point was: If you believe in God, why not say thank you? It is consistent with keeping da faith. lol.

flushd wrote:
That game may mean a great deal to you. So therefore god would care.

I have no problem with this statement at all. However, god would NOT INTERFERE, even if he CARES a great deal.

If you believe God is everywhere and everything: there is 'interfering'...would rather say it is co-existence and influence.

flushd wrote:
No offence, but who are you to judge the value of one situation over another?

Well, I'm just a regular guy, so I don't have the right to judge anybody or anything without a good reason. However, universal logic applies to everyone, even god. It's common sense that somebody's life is more worth than a multi-millionaire winning a game, graduating high school, etc...
If god has no sense for logic and fairness, then we're all in trouble...

Universe logic=your logic at this point in time?!

Also, I disagree that someone's life is of more worth than winning a game. More worth to who or what....and who is to judge this? Perhaps the winning of that game will save many lives in a series of events. Perhaps the loss of that life will help millions. Who's to say? This is very small I am talking....the order of things is crazy and huge!!

flushd wrote:
Hard work and persistence will serve you well - but it sure ain't gonna guarantee justice or your fair share!

I couldn't agree more - life is tough and unfair and you always have to fight to even stand a chance. One thing is for sure though: Wasting time by thanking god and praying for success WILL guarantee failure.

That is not for sure. Perhaps thanking a 'god' or otherwise will aid success. Positive thinking and gratitude-mindset and all that.

flushd wrote:
Your priority should be to shrug off this little nitpicking .........

You actually made me stop and think whether this is nitpicking... I concluded it's not.
It's extremely common and all over the place. It's embedded deeply into the culture:
1. Athletes thanking god. Arrogant, annoying, embarassing.
2. Christmas party corporate group prayer (in many companies, including mine), thanking god for decent last quarter revenue. Weird and awkward. Wait a minute... I think the revenue was higher because I STAYED OVERTIME, INCLUDING WEEKENDS, AND WORKED MY ASS OFF FOR NO EXTRA PAY (since I'm salaried). Infuriating.
3. Family lunch/dinner prayer. Kinda cute and warm, but I would say that the dinner is on the table because the parents worked their ass off, while their boss was breathing down their necks. God didn't make it magically appear on the table.
4. President of the United States praying before going to Iraq - one of many things where he prays and thanks god. Extremely weird and embarrasing. I can't believe that this is how the president of the 21st century America acts, the most powerful man in the world... It's sad.
6. There are many more examples - too many to list...

This indicates to me that it is indeed nitpicking at a certain behavior: Thanking God, because it annoys you or impacts your life in a way you do not like.

I would like to hear your true beef or objection.....surely thanking god is but a minor symptom of something else? but a small surface behavior?

BTW: Nice to meet you. Smile

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

neologist wrote:
You assume there are no other issues involved besides the 6000 or so years of recorded human misery.

I'll give you the Bible's answer which, of course, you are not obligated to believe, only (I hope) consider:

When Satan tempted Eve, he said that God was a liar and was holding back something good from mankind, namely that humans would be better off deciding for themselves what was good and what was bad. He also called into question the integrity of God's intelligent creation, averring that they would serve God only as things went well for them. (This was particularly evident in the story of Job.)

The entire Bible relates the steps God has taken to allow Satan opportunity to prove his point and give individual humans evidence needed for their choice as to whom they will serve.

You and I may think that 6000 years is excessive and that God should have intervened long ago; but you and I have not the perception of time which is the prerogative of God.

Neo, this does not defeat the original point, that a sports star is being supremely foolish and self-centered by thanking god for his achievements, rather it would seem to support it.

Rather, it defeats the point that God should act according to our timetable. The sports star gives thanks to the wind.

0 Replies

When you say that I don't KNOW that god doesn't interfere you're completely correct. I have 0% of actual proof, just like all of you.

However, there are schools of thought, which most of the time don't have full evidence on how things work. Instead, they use whatever information they have to form some sort of a sensible conclusion from the puzzle pieces they have. (it's different from religious workings, which feed on 100% hearsay, no reasoning itself)
It's like the big bang theory of the universe. It can't be proven or recreated, but it just makes sense after putting all the puzzle pieces in place, and all educated people look at it as reasonable and possibly as fact.

I'm sorry, but I can't get over the idea that Christian/Hebrew/Muslim god is in fact "logical", at least in the way he "interacts" with people, considering the way he's portrayed. It's my "school of thought". After all, god acts/projects an image that is "sympathetic" to humans. People think killing is bad - god does as well, calling it a sin. People think stealing is bad, so does god. People think that good behavior deserves a reward, so does god. People think that bad behavior deserves punishment, so does god, saying you'll go to hell. Humans think that a life is sacred and the most important thing, so does god (it's supposed to be a gift from god). I don't think this correlation is a coincidence when it comes to the Christian/Hebrew/Muslim god. Even more so if you consider that some religious branches state that god made humans in his own image.

Joefromchicago, it makes no difference whether god simply said so, or if he actually thinks/feels so. You must be talking about the Agnostic possibility of a god, not the god I'm talking about. All that matters is that that's how he acts - he "acts" or "has made rules" in a strongly correlated way to what humans think is right or wrong, therefore he's a human in a sense, except that he has "superpowers". When you say that there is no reason to believe that he should help a dying child first, this breaks the correlation in a very abrupt way, making it completely unreasonable.
Of course, there are gray areas in "prioritizing" such as "If you had to save a life, would you save a 60 year old genius/inventor, or an infant?", but it's quite simple when it comes to saving a life vs. making an arogant multi-millionaire richer.
Again, I can't prove any of the above, but it's the best reasoning I can provide at the moment based on the evidence I presented. I don't KNOW it's true, but I'm CONFIDENT it's the case.

One thing is for certain. To the educated, it seems at least slightly foolish, if not completely ridiculous, to see an athlete thank god for his/her accomplishments. How do they KNOW god exists? How do they know he interferes? How do they know he chose to interfere in their life? How do they know he chose not to help a dying child, but instead helped THEM win the game?
(notice I'm using your argument, joefromchicago)
How do they know god favors one team/person to win the game? Maybe god was cheering for the other team? Knowing so little makes it unreasonable to act in such a confident and outspoken way in public. It's no different if I thanked "The Devine Super Mario" (and truly believed it) after winning a Nintendo game.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

When you say that I don't KNOW that god doesn't interfere you're completely correct. I have 0% of actual proof, just like all of you.

True, but since you are the one advancing the proposition, it is incumbent upon you to supply the facts that support your conclusion.

c_logic wrote:

However, there are schools of thought, which most of the time don't have full evidence on how things work. Instead, they use whatever information they have to form some sort of a sensible conclusion from the puzzle pieces they have. (it's different from religious workings, which feed on 100% hearsay, no reasoning itself)
It's like the big bang theory of the universe. It can't be proven or recreated, but it just makes sense after putting all the puzzle pieces in place, and all educated people look at it as reasonable and possibly as fact.

True again, but what I think we are all saying is that your conclusion is not sensible.

c_logic wrote:

I'm sorry, but I can't get over the idea that Christian/Hebrew/Muslim god is in fact "logical", at least in the way he "interacts" with people, considering the way he's portrayed. It's my "school of thought". After all, god acts/projects an image that is "sympathetic" to humans. People think killing is bad - god does as well, calling it a sin. People think stealing is bad, so does god. People think that good behavior deserves a reward, so does god. People think that bad behavior deserves punishment, so does god, saying you'll go to hell. Humans think that a life is sacred and the most important thing, so does god (it's supposed to be a gift from god). I don't think this correlation is a coincidence when it comes to the Christian/Hebrew/Muslim god. Even more so if you consider that some religious branches state that god made humans in his own image.

What you describe as "logical" isn't logical at all. Instead, you are describing what you consider to be the unalterable attributes of human nature. That, in itself, is open to a great deal of debate, but it is a debate that is fundamentally inductive, not deductive. In other words, we know about human nature by means of observation, not by means of logical inference. And so, given that the study of human nature is inherently inductive, it would follow that your suppositions regarding deistic nature must likewise be inductive -- yet you have no basis for observing god's nature.

When I say that god (as pictured by many religions) is not logical, it is because god defies such logical tenets as the law of contradiction or the laws of cause and effect. Christians, for instance, believe that god can be in two places at once, which defies logic. They similarly believe that god created everything, but that nothing created god, which likewise presents a logical quandary. That god may not act like a regular human being, on the other hand, is not a logical problem.

c_logic wrote:

Joefromchicago, it makes no difference whether god simply said so, or if he actually thinks/feels so. You must be talking about the Agnostic possibility of a god, not the god I'm talking about.

I'm sure I'm talking about whatever god you're talking about.

c_logic wrote:

All that matters is that that's how he acts - he "acts" or "has made rules" in a strongly correlated way to what humans think is right or wrong, therefore he's a human in a sense, except that he has "superpowers". When you say that there is no reason to believe that he should help a dying child first, this breaks the correlation in a very abrupt way, making it completely unreasonable.

Well, god said that one should not inquire into his reasons for acting or not acting, since his reasons are unknowable to man. Or, to put it in more familiar terms, "god works in mysterious ways." Given that the Christian god is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, it is usually assumed that god has infinitely more information on which to base his decisions, so that his actions would be explicable to us only if we had access to the same amount of information at his disposal.

c_logic wrote:

Of course, there are gray areas in "prioritizing" such as "If you had to save a life, would you save a 60 year old genius/inventor, or an infant?", but it's quite simple when it comes to saving a life vs. making an arogant multi-millionaire richer.
Again, I can't prove any of the above, but it's the best reasoning I can provide at the moment based on the evidence I presented. I don't KNOW it's true, but I'm CONFIDENT it's the case.

Fanatics and psychotics also put confidence in the place of knowledge.

c_logic wrote:

One thing is for certain. To the educated, it seems at least slightly foolish, if not completely ridiculous, to see an athlete thank god for his/her accomplishments. How do they KNOW god exists? How do they know he interferes? How do they know he chose to interfere in their life? How do they know he chose not to help a dying child, but instead helped THEM win the game?

That is for them to answer.

c_logic wrote:

(notice I'm using your argument, joefromchicago)

No you're not.

c_logic wrote:

How do they know god favors one team/person to win the game? Maybe god was cheering for the other team? Knowing so little makes it unreasonable to act in such a confident and outspoken way in public. It's no different if I thanked "The Devine Super Mario" (and truly believed it) after winning a Nintendo game.

I'm sure those athletes are just as confident that they received god's assistance as you are confident that they didn't. I have no idea if the athletes can prove that they are right, since they haven't made their arguments here. You, on the other hand, have made your argument here, and I am quite certain that you are wrong.

0 Replies

joefromchicago, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Smile

Spirituality is one of those subjects where nobody can actually prove they're right, therefore creating a neverending debate. After all, if there was proof, one side would have convinced the other by now when it comes to spiritual beliefs.
I'll give you one thing - you debate with "heavy" logical concepts, therefore opening all kinds of cans of worms for the conversation (which is good and creative)... while at the same time causing us to come to the conclusion that we cannot agree (because of the lack of true evidence on any side).

Below are my final thoughts, you guys can debate further if you like, but I think I'm done as I would simply keep repeating what I already said:

joefromchicago wrote:

True, but since you are the one advancing the proposition, it is incumbent upon you to supply the facts that support your conclusion

True. I did present ideas that I felt had substance. Unfortunately it's not quite enough to make everybody "jump on the bandwagon". And again, it's a topic that cannot actually be proven - it can make people question things at best, or make them think deeper about the subject.

joefromchicago wrote:

True again, but what I think we are all saying is that your conclusion is not sensible.

Maybe it's not sensible in terms of me not being able to Prove it 100%. It's certainly sensible as a statement that questions the behavior of people who thank god, or pray, because those behaviors have no substance at all... just as you claim that my own arguments have no substance.

joefromchicago wrote:

Fanatics and psychotics also put confidence in the place of knowledge.

Well, I can assure you I'm not a psychotic or a fanatic. I have based my reasoning on the things in religion that portray god in a certain way. Maybe I only have a dozen puzzle pieces that make up a one-hundred piece image, but at least my assumptions are based on something - even if you don't agree it's solid evidence.
I like your statement though, because it actually portrays people who thank god as fanatics.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
One thing is for certain. To the educated, it seems at least slightly foolish, if not completely ridiculous, to see an athlete thank god for his/her accomplishments. How do they KNOW god exists? How do they know he interferes? How do they know he chose to interfere in their life? How do they know he chose not to help a dying child, but instead helped THEM win the game?

That is for them to answer.

It's not for them to anwser, because they don't have the answer at all. It's for them to BELIEVE if they wish to. If they attempt to answer, especially in public, they make themselves look foolish because they are putting forward an arrogant and unsubstantiated statement that says: "Yes, there is god, and he helped ME accomplish this". How do they know this, and they certainly can't prove it?
Therefore, for our own world to make more sense, this type of behavior should slowly be washed away.

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm sure I'm talking about whatever god you're talking about.

Not necessarily. Religious concepts are very easy to break, because there are a lot of disconnects and contradictions - I tried to exploit those. However, you seemed to use logic that no ordinary religous person would use, therefore taking us both one level deeper into Agnostic concepts.

joefromchicago wrote:

...since his reasons are unknowable to man

I didn't use the word "reason" throughout this thread in that context - source of behavior. I don't think we're as concerned with actual source of behavior... as much as the type of behavior itself and spiritual nature.
In other words, we know that god is supposed to be good and loving, we don't necessarily need to know why.

joefromchicago wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
(notice I'm using your argument, joefromchicago)

No you're not.

Yes, I am. Smile

You questioned my reasoning with "How do you know?", trying to convey that I don't have any concrete proof.
I ask the same question of the people who pray/thank god... How do they know? Well, they don't... they simply believe without any evidence whatsoever, not even a puzzle piece. They believe because the idea of god and heaven simply feels warm - which is egocentric.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

Below are my final thoughts, you guys can debate further if you like, but I think I'm done as I would simply keep repeating what I already said

Buh-bye.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
When you take logic away from god, wierd things start to happen... and religion as we know it falls apart.

You're not a member of an organized religion, are you?

Thank you for my belly laugh of the day.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Rather, it defeats the point that God should act according to our timetable. The sports star gives thanks to the wind.

If the sports star thanked the wind, it would make sense...but he doesn't. He actually thinks a god answered his prayer to defeat the other team. It's no different to the soldiers of both sides (eg in Iraq), both equally certain that the one true god will lead them to victory....yet I doubt that whoever eventually loses will agree that the other god must be the true one !! Instead they'll decide that THEIR one true god must have a different, more long term plan for victory !!

I see similar situations where people say "God was watching over my husband and got him safely out of the WTC" apparently oblivious to the fact that she is equally claiming that god could not, or would not save all the others. It's a statement of "My husband survived because my god decided he was worth more than the others". It's an awful, cruel thing to say, but they seem oblivious to that.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Below are my final thoughts, you guys can debate further if you like, but I think I'm done as I would simply keep repeating what I already said

Buh-bye.

No, no, no, buddy... now that's not nice Laughing

I think we have a little misunderstanding here.
It doesn't mean I concede, at all, and you have not proven anything yourself either. I have already made the points that I tried to make, and have no reason to continue repeating myself. I'm sure that many folks would agree with what I said, on a level of human "reason", that doesn't necessarily have to be proven 100%, just like any scientific theory like "big bang" and "M-theory". (And no, I'm not projecting myself to be on the same thinking level as those guys. They are truly brilliant minds.)
You can say that we're in a "deadlock" when it comes to the context of our arguments, and if you want the two of us to sound like a broken record, simply copy and paste the text at the bottom of this page several times into this thread.
I tried to pay you a compliment for logical thinking, but I was obviously wrong since you don't understand the simple concept of "deadlock". In addition, your final statement (which I quoted above) came out sounding rather condescending, impatient, and ego-filled, which has ironically lowered you (not me).
In order to (at least) redeem myself somewhat, I would like to apologize to everyone who I might have offended with my opening statements. I stand 100% by my ideas, however, I might have shown some impatience and arrogance in the tone that I used.

Buh-bye pal.

Copy below this line.
---------------------------------------
God is portrayed to correlate in a sympathetic way to humans, therefore he acts in a way where his behavior of most impact would be described as 'expected' or 'predictable' by humans.

How do you know that? God is an abstract concept that cannot be explained.

God is portrayed to correlate in a sympathetic way to humans, therefore he acts in a way where his behavior of most impact would be described as 'expected' or 'predictable' by humans.

How do you know that? God is an abstract concept that cannot be explained.

God is portrayed to correlate in a sympathetic way to humans, therefore he acts in a way where his behavior of most impact would be described as 'expected' or 'predictable' by humans.

How do you know that? God is an abstract concept that cannot be explained.
----------------------------------
Copy above this line.

0 Replies

c_logic: it is not my habit to respond to posts in which the author announces that he or she will no longer participate in the thread. I see no purpose in delivering a monologue in a forum dedicated to dialogue. If you wish to continue our discussion, then I will address the points in your posts (and ignore your gratuitous insults). If, on the other hand, you intend to leave, then I will only repeat my previous fare-thee-well: buh-bye.

0 Replies

Shine bright and flicker out quick? Is this thread alive or have we been dismissed? Laughing

Weird that thread of Moan's revived recently. The adieu and reappearance. That's a random thought directed at no one in particular.

0 Replies

Joefromchicago, I did not mean to insult you or anybody else on this forum. Again, I guess you can say I speak in a very direct tone - which may sound overconfident or nasty. I respect ALL people I talk to, no matter how much I disagree with them.

However, I'm very surprised that you acted in a way as to tell me "buh-bye", which is passive-agressive for "See you later, loser!". I just didn't find that as an acceptable reply, so I had to protect myself. After all, if you didn't see any purpose to participate in this thread any further, you could simply have sad nothing at all.

What I said is that you (joefromchicago) and I (c_logic) don't agree on the context of our discussion, and are in a deadlock. We can still - if you want - continue the discussion if we try discussing it from a different context/side.
In that case I suggest that someone (such as flushd) states why it DOES makes sense to pray/thank god, and we can take it from there. We can eventually return to the original context that I started this thread under, namely "It DOESN'T make sense to thank god, because..."

No, flushd, it's not necessarily over - I think we can revive it again Smile

We'll just have to discuss it in a different context, and see if we can have a "smoother" conversation this way.

Again, please don't get offended if my tone sounds a bit impatient. I know that religion is an emotional subject as well, and that trying to disprove certain aspects of it can brew bad emotions on both sides. After all, when I was a kid and very religious, I was extremely offended by people who said there is no god - I was certain they would go to hell Smile

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

What I said is that you (joefromchicago) and I (c_logic) don't agree on the context of our discussion, and are in a deadlock. We can still - if you want - continue the discussion if we try discussing it from a different context/side.

There is no difference in the context of our discussion. You have laid out your argument, I have addressed it, point by point, and concluded that you are wrong. You, in response, have refused to address the main points that I have raised and have instead simply reiterated your previous assertions. If you feel that you are repeating yourself, then, it's probably because you are.

Of course we're in a deadlock -- your adamant refusal to do anything except repeat your argument is a blueprint for deadlock. If you want to move forward, there's no need to "discuss it from a different context" (whatever that means), it only requires you to address the other posts in this thread in an honest and forthright manner.

You can start by addressing the following points:

(1) You stated: "All that matters is that that's how he [i.e. god] acts - he "acts" or "has made rules" in a strongly correlated way to what humans think is right or wrong." How do you know that? And why isn't it equally plausible to conclude that god acts in ways that we consider to be "right" because believers have defined "right" as being compatible with god's will?

(2) You stated: "People think killing is bad - god does as well, calling it a sin. People think stealing is bad, so does god. People think that good behavior deserves a reward, so does god. People think that bad behavior deserves punishment, so does god, saying you'll go to hell. Humans think that a life is sacred and the most important thing, so does god (it's supposed to be a gift from god). I don't think this correlation is a coincidence when it comes to the Christian/Hebrew/Muslim god." Is that because god acts like humans, or because humans try to act like god?

0 Replies

I have to disagree with you that you have proved my argument wrong - it's far from the truth.
You have proved that I don't have any solid evidence to prove I'm right. After all, you have not presented any evidence yourself for either side, since I have never heard you conclude that either "thanking god is reasonable" or "thanking god is not reasonable".
If you had proved my argument wrong, you would have concluded that "thanking god is reasonable". The burden of proof lies on me in terms of "Here's the Rule of Priority", since I put that statement of mine forward, but you did not actually PROVE me wrong.
It would be beneficial if we can at least agree on this one, as it will create some sort of common ground. Please tell me we agree on something.

I will have the answers to your questions tonight - I need some time to get to those and think more about it...

0 Replies

Listen folks, here's the rule of Priority...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know