brighid

Yeap Free – probably best for another thread! It took me a lot of blood, sweat and tears to finally accept that I am NOT some worthless piece of shit, here for the pleasure of men (without reciprocity) and I don’t intend on giving that KNOWLEDGE up EVER! I will have to be lobotomized before that will happen. I always felt that IF this God made ME, then He made me with this fiery “spirit” and if it damned me to Hell then so be it. I am what I am and to be anything else is a lie. If this God wants me to lie the FUCK Him – and HE won’t be getting my good stuff! That's reserved for the worthy and few men have ever proven worthy!

Brighid

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

WJ

Bri!

I really do appreciate your post. But I think your concern about my belief is circular and proves nothing(that ehich you are trying to prove). I repeat, I'm not selling anything. Do you understand the concepts of gnosticism and fideism? Does that not capture part of my belief?

Let me play devil's advocate. What kind of evidence are you expecting, so that you can examine it? Your standards are actually lower because you expect some sort of *pure* objective proof (what ever the essence of that really means). You have not recognized that without human sentience, which we are either blessed or cursed with (whichever way you chooose to think about it) people such as myself [and yourself]would not have a will to believe [or not to believe]. So, I'm denying no thing.

You're not making the connection or inference from the essences of conscious existence to a metaphysical God for the source of our existential problem. (And you are not 'required' to make 'the connection' either.) Your 'blaming' some other reason, rationale, or scapegoat as to the reason why I think the way I do. Or why I've concluded the way I have. I've just told you how.

Otherwise, thru fideism I believe Jesus existed.

Why is that so hard to understand? Don't you have faith that science will discover the origins of human consciousness? And if so, please tell me what's the difference in this standard of [logical] 'suspension'.

Does that help any? I'm trying to understand your so-called expectation levels but the only conclusion I can get to is that you are either angry about something or you expect pure physical proof to satisfy your requirement for absolute belief. If you are looking for a miracle, I cannot help you. I can only use the tools of reason to explain why I believe what I believe.

Did I answer your concern?

Now, if you want personal experience, I could try to articulate why I've made this leap, but as you said, we're not really concerned with one's personal experience here as absolute.

Walrus

WJ

Koy!

It is logical to believe both.

In otherwords, if you are forcing me to choose either/or, I can logically justify my existence as a metaphor for both.

(?)

Walrus

free12thinker

I find this single sentence the most humorous yet - "I can only use the tools of reason to explain why I believe what I believe."
You belittle logic and reason as our guide to atheism, yet it fits to explain your rationale for theism. I think I'm going to be sick. Of course, your method of reasoning would be flawed in every court or classroom in the land, but hey, god's mysterious, so reasoning is whatever you (as his believer) say it is.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

snatchbalance

WJ,

I'm still just wondering, is it possible that there is no God?

SB

WJ

Free!

To tell you how silly your concern is, you are implying you know the actual primacy of logical v. sentient existence. You can't possibly know which came first, in order to establish which tools of existence take precedence or provide for 'absolute truth'.

Example: Why do we feel the need to be concerned/unconcerned about God?

Walrus

brighid

Walrus,

My brain is the source of my consciouness and the brain is the source of all human consciousness. Nothing mysterious or metaphysical about that! Take that pretty, little brain out and voila – like magic – no consciousness for the human body!

You “believe” in order to know (which is an oxymoron). You believe in a “mysterious obscurity” and that God made himself known through his Prophets but retreated into the darkness. You believe that reason is weak and that in order to convert the “Libertines” you must convince us of the weakness reason and to distrust reason – thereby making us “sensible.” – similar to the skepticism of Phyrro maybe? At least this is my basic understanding of fideism.

So, it seems you have come here on some quest to convince of the weakness of reason – no?

Scapegoat? Scapegoat for whom or what? What is it that I am trying to escape? Persecution, irrationality, bunk theological nonsense that requires I BELIEVE in mythological virgin born saviors, but not just that but ONE SPECIFIC savior! “Heaven” forbid!!

You have not so cleverly evaded my questions! What evidence did you use to conclude that Jesus is the ONE God you should be worshipping? Remember, as has been reiterated to you ad nauseum the burden of the POSITIVE claim in on YOU! I am not looking for any “miracles”, although it would help your Christian case of this God would come out of the darkness and do SOMETHING that might demonstrate that HE and not any other God(s) should be followed. Is that really asking for so much from your all powerful, all knowing God? Your all knowing, all powerful God should easily be able to determine EXACTLY what it would take for ME (and every other non-believer on the Earth) to believe and DO IT! Koy has given a few good examples of what might help prove His case!

So prove it up! Obviously there is compelling evidence for you to believe in Christ over ALL other Gods. So again – what was the path of evidence that brought you to conclude that THIS God is THEE God? Fideism isn’t evidence, it is a Christian philosophy, thereby biased to this particular God. So, please start abiding by the rules of debate and prove your POSITIVE claim! OR stop with the bullshit.

Brighid

here's a good site for you to chew on:
<a href="http://pages.prodigy.com/michael/faith.htm" target="_blank">http://pages.prodigy.com/michael/faith.htm</a>

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

No, it is not. It is neither logical nor possible to believe that nobody exists beside you (solipsism) and that people exist beside you.

Nobody asked you to logically justify your existence as a metaphor.

Choose what it is you are going to argue; only you exist (solipsism) and this is over, or that others exist outside of your own mind and therefore the cogitive tools of logic and the scientific method apply.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

free12thinker

Nothing provides for absolute truth because it does not exist. Haven't we all made this clear to you before?

I don't absolutely know anything--but what I contend is that logical experience is the measurement of everything else we put to test. It determines innocence or guilt, it separates lies from truth (or perception), it determines reality from dreams; as we judge all of these things in themselves and make comparisons, equate action to reaction, equate seeing is believing to not-seeing = possibly but not so.

I have tried to word this in a million ways, yet you don't understand that we will not make an exception to the logical experience with religion. As I know it (and correct me if I'm wrong), sentient means awake or attentive or alert. Right?

If this is so, than I qould equate sentient experience with logical experience, because if something was to be before our eyes, while we was awake, or attentive or alert, than logically, it would contain enough (not 'absolute' mind you) credibility of evidence for us to deem it true.

Logic at it's best.

But it seems as though we are explaining your beliefs on a matter of conscious, something inside of you, something spiritual, at which point I will simply note; cute--but no cigar. That would put your notion of god on the same level of probability as the dreams I have when I'm night night.

Night night WJ. Go back to sleep and wake up with some answers for Brighid and Koy. They're anxiously awaiting your responses.



PS - We are concerned about the truth behind God because we are concerned that there are too many WJ's running around--way too much gullibility and no direction.

WJ

Snatch!

I don't know, ask a newborn baby that question. Better yet, ask God that (oops, it doesn't exist). Or, ask why we can't accurately provide an explaination to our conscious sentient existence aka mind-body problem. Is there any difference?

I've taken the risk (leap). The leap that something must exist. What the essence of that something is, I am not capable of providing an adequate answer.

Sorry I can't be more helpful and tell you what you want to hear. If you want me to say there is a possibility that God doesn't exist objectively, I have to assume I know the essences of God's existence to start (not to mention my own), in order to make this same objective judgement. In this regard, I'm a fideist; not a theist. I don't have the 'calling' to adequately explain the absolute attributes surrounding the question of God's nonexistence. Regardless, I believe God exists and you believe he doesn't exist. Yet we don't understand our own essences of existence. There nothing more or less to say in words, is there?

No?

Similarly, don't you agree your questions/wonder (from your original post regarding 'doubt') would fit-in better with a belief system say of agnosticism rather than atheism? Not that I'm trying to pursuade you or anything, but just a thought... .

Again, I'm not selling anything. I'm just explaining how I've arrived at my inference behind my own beliefs or conclusions. Maybe a new thread concerning the meaning behind a 'belief' is in order? I'm not sure. What does or should a belief comprise? A JTB? What is considered adequate justifcation for something to be true and exist?

sorry....

Walrus