I'd Like an Argument, Please

[Spockrates]

No. The premise of the Kalama Sutta is that the propagation of greed, hatred, and delusion as a religious or philosophical doctrine leads to long-term harm, no matter how much pretzel logic is used in order to try to justify it.

Yes, that sounds logical.

 

[Spockrates]

That is polytheism, not pantheism.

I'm confused. Isn't your previous post describing polytheism, rather than pantheism? For you suggested I'd be more satisfied worshiping many gods.

How can you be satisfied worshiping only one god for your entire life? Or thinking that there is only one god, when there's so much diversity in the world? Why monotheism? And is Christianity really monotheistic (of the Abrahamic religions, it strikes me as the least genuinely monotheistic given the trinity and the plethora of saints and other semi-divine beings)?

There you go. Topic.

You didn't ask if I'd be more satisfied worshiping a transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations.

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes, that sounds logical.

That made me laugh, considering your avatar.

 

[Spockrates]

That made me laugh, considering your avatar.

I'd laugh with you, but Vulcans don't laugh, they raise an eyebrow.

 

[HonestJoe]

I see, or perhaps I don't. Are you saying I have no choice of religion, for the religion I choose is predetermined?

Well there's a distinction between fundamental beliefs (such as in the existence of a god) and a religion, which encompass a collection of beliefs, principles and practices.

I don't believe (hah!) we can control our fundamental beliefs. That's a function of how our brains process the combination of relevant information and experiences, which is involuntarily. We have some control of the information and experiences but no direct control over the conclusions out brain generates from them.

Choosing religion is therefore more complicated. You can't choose whether you believe all of the concepts and principles of a particular faith (and I'm not convinced anyone can actually agree on everything their religion is based on, which is why they have so many internal disputes and schisms). If you find a religion that fits close enough to your beliefs for you to accept, you can choose to follow it's rules and practices (and also how closely you follow them). I'm just questioning the practical difference taking that step would actually make to your life.

 

[Spockrates]

Well there's a distinction between fundamental beliefs (such as in the existence of a god) and a religion, which encompass a collection of beliefs, principles and practices.

I don't believe (hah!) we can control our fundamental beliefs. That's a function of how our brains process the combination of relevant information and experiences, which is involuntarily. We have some control of the information and experiences but no direct control over the conclusions out brain generates from them.

What you say appears to be illogical. Please let me elaborate: If we define a conclusion simplistically as an inference made based on premises believed to logically support it, then the probability of a conclusion being correct is determined by the premises--whether they are based on what logicians call FE (factual errors) or as a group contain LE (logical errors).

Let's say, then that I'm careless in accepting the truth of the considered premises, which are actually untrue. Let's also say I'm ignorant of my illogical use of informal or formal fallacies by which I attempt to support the conclusion. Don't my carelessness and illogical thought processes determine the inaccurate conclusion (conclusion A) to which I come?

Now let's say I realize the error of my illogically fuzzy thinking, and I do some thorough fact checking (to eliminate FE) and rigorous thought training (to eliminate LE). I then come to a more factual and logical conclusion (conclusion B, which is ~A). Doesn't this mean I have (through careful reasoning) controlled the conclusion my brain discerns?

 

[HonestJoe]

What you say appears to be illogical. Please let me elaborate: If we define a conclusion simplistically as an inference made based on premises believed to logically support it, then the probability of a conclusion being correct is determined by the premises--whether they are based on what logicians call FE (factual errors) or as a group contain LE (logical errors).

The whole point of these beliefs and religions is that we don't know whether they're accurate or not - that's not really my point. I think you're looking at this a step further than I am. The point where you're making concious logical (or illogical) decisions comes after you've reached subconscious fundamental beliefs about how the world is. You logic is applied to those beliefs.

 

[Thief]

So time travel or existing outside of time is beyond the Almighty's capabilities?

and I am going to say....YES!

SURPRISE!

this is true...because.....
The Creator had to set rules of motion that reality take form

having form.....you have function
deny the function .....the form falls apart

consider the life of the Carpenter
first that occasion in the wilderness when tempted to alter ......form
then....function

only then did He receive the ability to do both

 

[Muffled]

I believe I have the best way and that is to allow Jesus to lead me to the church He wishes me to attend.

However if you don't have that close a relationship, i beieve a few suggestions might help.

I believe you should not go to an apostate church. That includes United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, one of the Presbyterian denominations and probably American Baptist which is quite liberal but probably varies from church to church. There are also Congregational churches the denomination has refused to dump which brings the denominational leadership into question.

I believe I found that I missed communion in the churches that didn't practice it: Quaker, and Church of Christ Scientist.

I beleive I have always enjoyed the churches that practice the presence of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues in some but not in others and the celebration of Christ can often be more modern and exhilarating. For that you have Assembly of God, Church of God, Four Square, Vineyard and a number of African American churches. Baptist, Congregational, Quaker and Church of Christ tend to be less dogmatic than other churches but the SBC has very strong opinions.

I beleive there are others I know something about if you need to ask about something specific.

 

[BSM1]

I believe I have the best way and that is to allow Jesus to lead me to the church He wishes me to attend.

However if you don't have that close a relationship, i beieve a few suggestions might help.

I believe you should not go to an apostate church. That includes United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, one of the Presbyterian denominations and probably American Baptist which is quite liberal but probably varies from church to church. There are also Congregational churches the denomination has refused to dump which brings the denominational leadership into question.

I believe I found that I missed communion in the churches that didn't practice it: Quaker, and Church of Christ Scientist.

I beleive I have always enjoyed the churches that practice the presence of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues in some but not in others and the celebration of Christ can often be more modern and exhilarating. For that you have Assembly of God, Church of God, Four Square, Vineyard and a number of African American churches. Baptist, Congregational, Quaker and Church of Christ tend to be less dogmatic than other churches but the SBC has very strong opinions.

I beleive there are others I know something about if you need to ask about something specific.

What if Yeshua wanted you to attend the same church he went to?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

IN spite of theist opinion, atheism is not a religion.

Quite right!...I must get some fresh flowers for my Saint Dawkins shrine though.

 

[Spockrates]

The whole point of these beliefs and religions is that we don't know whether they're accurate or not - that's not really my point. I think you're looking at this a step further than I am. The point where you're making concious logical (or illogical) decisions comes after you've reached subconscious fundamental beliefs about how the world is. You logic is applied to those beliefs.

Thanks for trying to explain, but I'm unfamiliar with a subconscious beliefs, as I'm of the opinion that any belief is conscious. Will you provide one example?

 

[Spockrates]

and I am going to say....YES!

SURPRISE!

this is true...because.....
The Creator had to set rules of motion that reality take form

having form.....you have function
deny the function .....the form falls apart

consider the life of the Carpenter
first that occasion in the wilderness when tempted to alter ......form
then....function

only then did He receive the ability to do both

How do you know what you say is true? Consider this: We live in the limits of four dimensions of height, depth, width and time. Yet physicists have shown that it is probable that other dimensions (dimensions beyond these four) exist. So wouldn't one who exists in, say the 5th or 7th or 12th dimension exist outside of time?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

[GALLERY=media, 7576]SpockLaughing by NewGuyOnTheBlock posted Jul 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Thief]

How do you know what you say is true? Consider this: We live in the limits of four dimensions of height, depth, width and time. Yet physicists have shown that it is probable that other dimensions (dimensions beyond these four) exist. So wouldn't one who exists in, say the 5th or 7th or 12th dimension exist outside of time?

time does not exist
problem solved

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

time does not exist
problem solved

Are you being facetious; or are you truly making the claim 'time does not exist"?

 

[HonestJoe]

Thanks for trying to explain, but I'm unfamiliar with a subconscious beliefs, as I'm of the opinion that any belief is conscious. Will you provide one example?

There are loads of things we accept as being true without ever thinking about the or considering them logically. They’ll often be things we’ve grown up experiencing or things that generally behave consistently. When I turn on my cold tap, I believe old cold, drinkable water will come out and I routinely act on that belief. I’ve never formally investigated my flats water system or sat down to logically work out what it does. I just take for granted that my cold tap will continue to work the same way.

It’s really things that could be called assumptions instead (especially in the context of formal logic) but there’s ultimately no difference between our assumptions and the hypotheses we test other than the fact we work on the basis that the former has a predefined consistent answer while the latter doesn’t (yet).

Belief in God, even the following of specific religions, often seems to fit the same pattern. People are often raised in a religion form an early age, taught to accept that God exists as an unquestionable position of belief. Some can grow up never consciously questioning or reconsidering that proposition, it just continues as one of the fundamental assumptions that form the basis of their world view, just like things fall down, it gets dark at night and the cold tap produces cold water.

 

[Thief]

Are you being facetious; or are you truly making the claim 'time does not exist"?

for real.....time is not real

not a force
not a substance

it is a quotient on a chalkboard
it is a measurement of movement.
the movement is real.....the measure is all in your head

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

for real.....time is not real

not a force
not a substance

it is a quotient on a chalkboard
it is a measurement of movement.
the movement is real.....the measure is all in your head

I used to think the same thing; however, this is simply not consistent with reality. Spacetime is a "thing". A force or a substance or a "something". Something nonexistent does not speed up or slow down based upon the velocity at which an object moves. For inanimate objects to measure time at different rates based upon the velocity upon which that object is moving strongly suggests the measure is more than "in my head'.

 

[Thief]

I used to think the same thing; however, this is simply not consistent with reality. Spacetime is a "thing". A force or a substance or a "something". Something nonexistent does not speed up or slow down based upon the velocity at which an object moves. For inanimate objects to measure time at different rates based upon the velocity upon which that object is moving strongly suggests the measure is more than "in my head'.

not an force....not a substance

the movement is real
the movement 'tweaks' everything around it

space is 'real'....it's that nothing in between point a and b

the measure is a cognitive device made by Man to serve Man