Life From Dirt?

[Mock Turtle]

There is one test that is available to each of us. Search honestly within yourself; keep an open mind and and an open heart, bypass the ego, silence the chattering monkey-mind, abandon yourself to whatever conception of God makes sense to you. Seek, and ye shall find.

But above all, be sceptical as to what others say or believe - especially if they try to project their persona as to being some endorsement.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But above all, be sceptical as to what others say or believe - especially if they try to project their persona as to being some endorsement.

There are plenty of religious con-artists, certainly.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There are plenty of religious con-artists, certainly.

Like Christ?

 

[Polymath257]

There is one test that is available to each of us. Search honestly within yourself; keep an open mind and and an open heart, bypass the ego, silence the chattering monkey-mind, abandon yourself to whatever conception of God makes sense to you. Seek, and ye shall find.

And what makes you think I haven't done that test?

I did.

I got no answer. And that showed, by the standards of that test, that the text was wrong.

Yes, I know. You are now going to claim I didn't do it with an open enough mind, or an open enough heart, or with too much ego, etc. All I can say is that I know what I did and that the result isn't what you predicted. And that is enough for me to know that this belief system is wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Like Christ?

I hardly think so. Do you?

 

[PureX]

And what makes you think I haven't done that test?

I did.

I got no answer. And that showed, by the standards of that test, that the text was wrong.

Yes, I know. You are now going to claim I didn't do it with an open enough mind, or an open enough heart, or with too much ego, etc. All I can say is that I know what I did and that the result isn't what you predicted. And that is enough for me to know that this belief system is wrong.

You failed to read RestlessSoul's post thoroughly. And so failed to seek an idea of a God that YOU could accept as plausible. And then you failed to test it using your own methodology. You tanked the whole inquisition right from the start. Faith works, but it has to be plausible. And it's not perfect, as nothing ever is. Faith is not about establishing accurate predictions. It's about hope fulfilled through positive vision and action.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And what makes you think I haven't done that test?

I did.

I got no answer. And that showed, by the standards of that test, that the text was wrong.

Yes, I know. You are now going to claim I didn't do it with an open enough mind, or an open enough heart, or with too much ego, etc. All I can say is that I know what I did and that the result isn't what you predicted. And that is enough for me to know that this belief system is wrong.

It's not my place to make claims about what was in your heart or mind; only you can know that. Some ways of knowing are by definition, entirely subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not my place to make claims about what was in your heart or mind; only you can know that. Some ways of knowing are by definition, entirely subjective.

I know what I did/did not experience. That is my evidence. That evidence contradicts the model proposed.

The only 'subjective knowledge' is knowing what you experienced. The interpretation of that experience is what then needs to be determined. Such interpretations can definitely be wrong.

One aspect of the test is being able to ask a question into the void and recognize that only your own voice answers.

Ultimately, no conception of God makes sense to me. Most conceptions I have seen seem ludicrous to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it does.

It doesn't.
Claims require evidence in order to be rationally justified to accept them as accurate.
Choosing to believe claims while lacking such evidence, doesn't change anything about the fact that evidence is required for rational justification to accept it.

What you are saying is that you don't care about rational justification.
That's fine (i guess) but doesn't change anything.

Anyone can believe anything they want.

Sure. But for those beliefs to be rationally justified, evidence is required. aka, the burden of proof of the claim must be met.
Not caring about meeting that burden / not caring about rational justification, doesn't change that.

And they don't have to answer to anyone else for it. For some strange reason. though, you seem to think they have to answer to you for it.

No. Not to me. To anyone. Including themselves.
But again: only in the case that rational justification is considered important.
If it isn't, then fine. But then you can believe anything - including false things, and just not care about any evidence or justification.

I happen to consider it very important. I like believing things that are demonstrably accurate and try to not believe things that aren't, since doing so is a very good way to be wrong.

In MY beliefs, yes. But what others believe, and how they arrive at them is their own business, not mine. I can ask them, but they owe me nothing.

I disagree. I believe they become my business when they are thrown in the public sphere. Especially when they are posited as trueisms. Even more so when I'm being told that I should believe it too or that there is something "wrong" with me if I don't.

Again, you can't expect to come to a discussion and debate forum, state your beliefs and then expect nobody to challenge or discuss them.
What are you even doing here otherwise?

The problem is that you're not differentiating between what one claims to believe to be true, and what one claims is universally true.

Pot8to, potato.

"I believe the biblical flood happened".
How is that not a statement about a universal truth?
Either the flood happened or it didn't.

To insinuate that it might have happened in your version of history, but not in someone else's version of history is totally bonkers.
Either it did or it didn't.

"i believe god exists".
Same as above. Either a god exists or she doesn't.

There is not such thing as beliefs / claims about the external world that are true for some people and not true for others.
If 2 people have opposing beliefs about a claim concerning the external world, then at least one of them is incorrect

These are not the same things, but you assume they are so you can place yourself in charge of what other people believe, and condemn them for not believing as you believe.

I have never condemned anyone for "not believing as I do".
And I challenge you to quote me a single post where I supposedly have done so.

Your (and others) endless demands for "support" is just another way that you place yourself in charge of the conversation. So I just ignore it.

No. It's a simple matter of putting the burden of proof on the claim where it belongs.
The only "endless" thing here, are people like you doing their outmost best to try and exempt yourselfs from that burden.

I told you before: NOT CARING about meeting your burden of proof is NOT THE SAME as being exempt from it.
If you don't care about meeting it, fine: then just say so.

In that case, I won't demand "endlessly" to support your claims / beliefs and instead I will know that I can simply dismiss them at face value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is one test that is available to each of us. Search honestly within yourself; keep an open mind and and an open heart, bypass the ego, silence the chattering monkey-mind, abandon yourself to whatever conception of God makes sense to you. Seek, and ye shall find.

Sounds quite a lot like self-brainwashing.
So much so that I couldn't tell the difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That really is true. And it's not about being convinced. It's about being able to trust in the possibility.

You can also believe in extra-dimensional aliens with that "methodology".

This is anything but convincing.

Is there some kind of test that doesn't require me to convince myself simply because I "want to"?

 

[Polymath257]

You failed to read RestlessSoul's post thoroughly. And so failed to seek an idea of a God that YOU could accept as plausible. And then you failed to test it using your own methodology. You tanked the whole inquisition right from the start. Faith works, but it has to be plausible. And it's not perfect, as nothing ever is. Faith is not about establishing accurate predictions. It's about hope fulfilled through positive vision and action.

No, The point is that NO conception of God makes sense to me. And I don't have a 'need to believe' that requires me to search until I find a nonsense answer.

Frankly, if it isn't about truth, and thereby about making accurate predictions, it makes no sense. 'hope fulfilled through positive vision and action' isn't meaningful/plausible to me.

 

[Polymath257]

I hardly think so. Do you?

Jesus was self-deluded. I don't know whether he actually expected to die or not. I suspect he didn't. But he did, in fact, die.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You failed to read RestlessSoul's post thoroughly. And so failed to seek an idea of a God that YOU could accept as plausible.

Here's an idea of god I can accept as plausible: it comes from human imagination, much like Dart Vader, Quetzalcoatl and Thor.
And curiously, when I review all religions I am aware of with that idea of god in mind, then it all fits like a puzzle.

So this means I can confidently assume that my idea of god is accurate: a figment of human imagination.

Faith works, but it has to be plausible.

Things aren't plausible just because one claims so.
As such NO SUPERNATURAL THING is to be considered "plausible".
You would have to have at least one demonstrable example of a supernatural thing for any supernatural claim to be plausible.

The supernatural, and by extension gods, are NOT plausible at all.

And it's not perfect, as nothing ever is. Faith is not about establishing accurate predictions. It's about hope fulfilled through positive vision and action.

Faith is about being gullible.

There is NOTHING that you can't believe on faith. NOTHING.
On faith, you can believe literally ANYTHING.

Like for example that the core of the moon is really made out of cheese.

 

[Polymath257]

That really is true. And it's not about being convinced. It's about being able to trust in the possibility.

To me that sounds like 'find a hypothesis you like and don't question it'. And that makes no sense to me. It is way too easy to come up with hypotheses that are pleasant but false. Self-delusion is something to be avoided, not encouraged.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it is hard to draw the line between faith and knowledge.

That is not hard at all.
Knowledge is demonstrable. ie, it's evidence based.
Faith is not. Faith is what you need when you don't have evidence (or even evidence of the contrary).

To believe that your keys will fall to the ground when you drop them, is knowledge based. We KNOW they will fall to the ground because we understand gravity in demonstrable ways.

Now to believe your keys will simply keep floating mid-air when you drop them... now THAT takes faith.

As the infamous saying goes (forgot the source): "Faith is believing what you know ain't true"

 

[PureX]

No, The point is that NO conception of God makes sense to me.

Of course not, because you're trapped in your own bias. The mind is closed by it. So no actual. Investigation took place. Just a silly pre-ordained exercize in self-validation.

And I don't have a 'need to believe' that requires me to search until I find a nonsense answer.

Of course you do. And you fulfill it with 'scientism'. The belief that science is the only legitimate source for truth.

Frankly, if it isn't about truth, and thereby about making accurate predictions, it makes no sense. 'hope fulfilled through positive vision and action' isn't meaningful/plausible to me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Jesus was self-deluded. I don't know whether he actually expected to die or not. I suspect he didn't. But he did, in fact, die.

Everybody dies. According to The Gospels, Jesus overcame death, but I don't think the resurrection is necessarily central to the message of love and service. Obviously, that's not exactly mainstream Christian thinking. Personally, I'll worry about my own death when I get there; it's how we live now that counts.

 

[Polymath257]

Everybody dies. According to The Gospels, Jesus overcame death, but I don't think the resurrection is necessarily central to the message of love and service. Obviously, that's not exactly mainstream Christian thinking. Personally, I'll worry about my own death when I get there; it's how we live now that counts.

And I think that the resurrection myth was introduced well after Jesus died. It has no basis in fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not wanting my supernatural faith based things to be part of science. It's not a problem for me or theology, just for people who want to base their beliefs on what science tells them is true

No. First, it's not "what science says is true". It's rather "what evidence shows is true".
Subtle difference, sure.

Secondly, again: claims about things that are indistinguishable from imagination are not a problem for ME. I don't make such claims and I don't bother with such at all. I dismiss them at face value. You do the same btw. You just exempt the claims of your religion from that.
When it comes to any other subject, you treat it in the exact same way as I do.

and for those who believe the preaching of those people about the nature of reality

"preaching"?

Projecting much?

and ignore what others have seen and experienced in their lives that shows that the supernatural is real.

You ignore people's "experiences" when it comes to
- big foot
- lochness monsters
- quetzalcoatl
- odin
- voodoo
- scientology
- alien abductions
- any religion that is incompatible with yours
- .....


Don't act so surprised when I ignore your particular unverifiable experiences which you try to "explain" with extra-ordinary bare assertions ....