If Jesus isn't the only way to come to God...

[Whateverist]

So you believe because of a feeling? How accurate has that ever been in testing the truth of proposed claims, or understanding reality?
People have been using intuition and emotion for thousands of years. Has it ever produced consensus, or tested hypotheses?
It doesn't strike me as a reliable method.

In questions of values and taste, feeling is first.

 

[Valjean]

Spoken like a true fundamentalist. At what stage of development do you see the insufficient neuronal mass of the embryo to hold any belief whatsoever suddenly acquiring a steeled disbelief in something as complex as the idea of the divine? Please, enlighten me.

Fundamentalist? What sort of fundamentalist are you seeing here?

We aren't born with beliefs. We acquire them as we encounter evidence for them. We're born blank slates as far as belief goes. Lack of belief is our default state.

I didn't "acquire" any steeled disbelief. I was born with no belief. I have yet to see convincing evidence for God. I've read a lot of apologists' "proofs," but none has yet met his burden. The evidence proffered is always factually or logically flawed.

 

[Valjean]

In questions of values and taste, feeling is first.

That may be, and I can see its utility through most of our species' development, but as an epistemic method of ontological assessment it's rubbish, is it not?

 

[Valjean]

Sure. Logic is simply the linking up of if-then statements to arrive at a desired conclusion. Whether you actually get there or not depends on starting with accurate premises and appropriately applied implications. Not a given. But the point is that the logic is just a formal (and empty) format which adds nothing.

No. It's a algebraic method of assessing validity. What better one do we have: Feeling? Intuition? Magic 8-Ball?

 

[Valjean]

A logical conclusion should serve a purpose in the real world, and should only be considered when there can be benefit.

No. Knowledge is not necessarily utilitarian, or a tool. It need not benefit us.
Some of us value it purely for its intrinsic value.

The fact that it "adds nothing" is because there is nothing to add but in fact "takes away" from any reasonable understanding of God.

"Reasonable understanding of God" is an oxymoron, in my opinion. Has there ever been any agreed upon understanding of God?

I would call this the vacuum of logic, not emptiness, and is exactly the place where faith exists.

Faith is unfounded belief; belief with insufficient/nonexistent/untested evidence. It's led believers in a thousand different directions for thousands of years.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL! How long have you been posting here? Have you never noticed the skepticism permeating threads like this?

I thank God for atheists because they often bring reason to these discussions.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I thank God for atheists because they often bring reason to these discussions.

In my opinion, the atheists and pagans on this forum (with whom I interact or just read their posts) make my time on RF more bearable and enjoyable.

 

[Valjean]

That's interesting. And maybe that's why some ancient people worshipped the Sun.

I agree with Christians and other that say to look at creation... It had to come from somewhere. But why did it have to come from any one religion's definition of a creator God?

But all evidence points to a natural, physical origin. Why personalize it? Why invent an intentional magician when there's no need for one?

The Jews have their Scriptures. Their God is the creator. But then that God does things like ordering the killing of women and children? He floods the whole world? Yeah, maybe that God needs some redefining.

The Christian damage control... Those people were evil and needed to be destroyed. But actually, everyone is a sinner. All people deserve death and punishment. So, why were those people beyond help?

But anyway, God does send help to all that will listen and believe. He sends Jesus. All people have to do is believe in him, and they will be saved. Of course, to show that they truly believe, they should obey his commandments. But I doubt if anybody can. People, even Christians, aren't perfect. So, they are saved, even though they still commit sins, while others don't believe, or believe in the wrong religion, and maybe don't sin any more or any less than those Christians, but they get punished and sent to hell?

That can't be right. So, along comes a new message from God, the Baha'is. They say don't worry, no matter what, you're going to move on into the spiritual world. There is no place called hell. If you obey his rules and be as good as you can, and you'll be close to God. But those of you that aren't that good, you'll just be further from God. That's it. Do the best you can and all will be okay.

Every religion says something different and describes its Gods differently. What are people supposed to do? Obviously, what does happen is we argue back and forth which belief is true. And still... is there any proof for any of them and their Gods? Oh yeah, just look at creation. It couldn't have created itself.

Yes, it could. Matter and energy following the impersonal laws of physics accounts for it. An intentional, magical creator is a special pleading.

 

[Trailblazer]

In my opinion, the atheists and pagans on this forum (with whom I interact or just read their posts) make my time on RF more bearable and enjoyable.

Same here, and probably for the same reasons.

 

[Valjean]

Ape lol. Leprechauns are real.

We conform to the biological definition of "ape," so... ape!
Please show us the evidence for leprechauns.

 

[Valjean]

I was not referring to the inability of the Theist to define God .. and/or the default definition "The God of Everything" these will sometimes proffer .. but the inability of the Atheist to define God.

The atheist doesn't have to. We're not the ones claiming a God.
You made the claim. You define it. We'll assess your claim.

For example .. in conversation about evolution --- Did God have a hand in it or not -- The Atheist jumps up and says "I don't believe in Magic" / "I don't believe in Godly Powers" / "I don't believe in God"

and I say .. OK .. Define God .. what is it that you don't believe in. .. and like 7 or 8 different Atheist Posters will not to it .. saying the onus is not on them to define the term God .. upon which I give examples "Godly Power" what would it take for someone to convince you they were a God .. hurling fire from the sky ..

In a conversation about evolution we posit observed, testable, mechanisms, sufficient to the task. You come in with an unnecessary, magical, Special Pleading. You're making the claim. It's up to you to explain it.
It's not up to us to define your god.

Donut -- Zero -- they will not provide a definition. not tell me what it is they don't believe in .. one trying to give a proof ... leaving God Undefined.

I then say OK -- Your claim is then "I do not belive in Undefined" and Undefined could be said to be nothing .. no definition .. nothing you know of ... Right ! heh heh .. so the claim is now I do not belive in nothing .. which equals I believe in Something.

Now .. if we define God as Something .. or as the Joke response of the Theist "God is Everything" Everything = Something Right ! heh heh. OH now .. as we have now arrived at "I believe in God" .. nothing that the God of Everything Claim of the theist ends up as "I do not believe in God - on the other end of the circular loop. .. and crying out "God is Everything" = God is undefined.

So --- the point of this charade .. is to come up with a reasonable definition of God .. this definition can be anything .. .. just not "Everything"" or Nothing/Undefined.

God has to be defined in order for coherent non fallacious assertions can be made about such an entity. For example .. if one defines the Stars as Gods .. our Sun being the closest one to us .. our Patron God "Most High" / "On High" - Creator .. Father --- then we can say that the assertion "I do not believe in the existence of God" is surely false .. and in fact many Gods exist

OK -- so define this god you posit. Show how it's necessary. Provide evidence for its existence.

Agency== ? What .. you want a God with Agency ? Well the Sun has agency .. of a sort but we are looking for something more than the forces that Govern the universe .. and though I will not deny that these are lesser Gods .. I am looking for something more "Like US .. in OUR Image" .. if you get my drift .. so how about some Woman .. who .. through force of will .. is able to do all kinds of "supernatural" things .. make chairs move through force of will .. fire reign down from the sky .. or summon rain to put out the fire ... or the wind to make it go higher !

Is this not "Godly Power" ? The ability, through force of will . to manipulate matter and energy .. or rather to manifest a thought into physical reality .. outside one's own body.. Moving with a thought rather than moving your finger !

Is this not a God-like Power -- Notice the very last part of the definition .. notice that up until that point .. you my dear fit into the definition of a God .. having the ability to manifest a thought into physical reality .. just not outside your own Body .. just one step short of a God.

and Now .. address the question of belief in God .. and give your answer at the end.

This gobbledygook makes no sense to me. Can you explain more succinctly?
I addressed the question of god. It's an unevidenced, unnecessary, special pleading. What more do you want?

 

[Valjean]

I thank God for atheists because they often bring reason to these discussions.

We do our best -- to get people to think!

 

[Trailblazer]

We do our best -- to get people to think!

It helps some of us but not everyone.

 

[Jimmy]

We conform to the biological definition of "ape," so... ape!
Please show us the evidence for leprechauns.

Me lucky charms got stolen

 

[GoodAttention]

No. Knowledge is not necessarily utilitarian, or a tool. It need not benefit us.

I was discussing logical conclusions, which is the practical application of knowledge to derive benefit.

Some of us value it purely for its intrinsic value.

Therefore any "intrinsic value" you could give knowledge is relative to your own ego.

"Reasonable understanding of God" is an oxymoron, in my opinion. Has there ever been any agreed upon understanding of God?

I am saying applying logic to prove God takes away from any "reasonable" understanding of God. This is to highlight that there is only one understanding of God that can be agreed to, which unknowable/unreasonable.

Faith is unfounded belief; belief with insufficient/nonexistent/untested evidence. It's led believers in a thousand different directions for thousands of years.

Some of us value faith purely for its intrinsic value.

 

[Sargonski]

The atheist doesn't have to. We're not the ones claiming a God.
You made the claim. You define it. We'll assess your claim.

In a conversation about evolution we posit observed, testable, mechanisms, sufficient to the task. You come in with an unnecessary, magical, Special Pleading. You're making the claim. It's up to you to explain it.
It's not up to us to define your god.

OK -- so define this god you posit. Show how it's necessary. Provide evidence for its existence.

This gobbledygook makes no sense to me. Can you explain more succinctly?
I addressed the question of god. It's an unevidenced, unnecessary, special pleading. What more do you want?

Holy Donut Batman .. Yes .. the Atheist does have to support their claims about God.. Your belief is based on Fallacy if God is not defined .. a complete lack of substance and meaning

If a person .. atheist or otherwise .. exclaims "I do not believe in God" .. it is up to the atheist to define what it is they don't believe in .. otherwise it is a lack of belief in "undefined"

Do you understand the word "undefined" ? Good .. and that undefined also means nothing in this context .. and now for some basic logic here If A = B and B = C then A = C kind of thing

God = Undefined = Nothing .. such that your claim I do not believe in God" .. is "I do not believe in Nothing" .. and thus in a circular round about .. you believe in Something ... Right !

The bottom line here .. is that you have absolutely no idea what it is that you disbelieve in .. until someone else defines it for you.

now stand up ... and define what this God you don't believe in is. ?

 

[Whateverist]

I didn't "acquire" any steeled disbelief. I was born with no belief. I have yet to see convincing evidence for God.

Oops, thank you spell check. I have no settled disbelief in the divine either, nor any disposition in favor of a biblical God. But of course I have beliefs including that life is good, love is possible and truth is knowable. My odd ball belief by modern standards is that reflection is worthwhile and intuition is a valuable gift from the depths of our humanity. There are no laboratory evidences for those beliefs, just the testimony of a lifetime of lived experience. YMMV

 

[Whateverist]

That may be, and I can see its utility through most of our species' development, but as an epistemic method of ontological assessment it's rubbish, is it not?

That depends on what we value and cultivate in our selves. GIGO

 

[Whateverist]

No. It's an algebraic method of assessing validity. What better one do we have: Feeling? Intuition? Magic 8-Ball?

If you have so little faith in yourself you’re pretty much at the mercy of your ability to pick an expert out of a line up.

 

[Whateverist]

A logical conclusion should serve a purpose in the real world, and should only be considered when there can be benefit.

The fact that it "adds nothing" is because there is nothing to add but in fact "takes away" from any reasonable understanding of God.

I would call this the vacuum of logic, not emptiness, and is exactly the place where faith exists.

The word God is not important to me but I sense it is to you but I do think we need an unword for for whatever it is which has made our world, our being and our experience possible.