Metacrock

Argument from incredulity. I could say the same kind of thing about peple who try to teach their kids to be atheists.

Metacrock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
God cannot be the subject of empirical data becasue is not given in sense data.



directly contradicts


Quote:
Peak expereince is validated through a varitiey of data. It is proven to be a true consciousness change. Moreover, it has powerful and postive affects which last a life time... There are real affects from Mytical experince.


Those are not contradictions. You didn't read carefully. The latter is the co-deterinate, not a direct obervation of God data.




what we dont' want is "an empiricallly adqueate theory accounting for sesne data." because its impossible to verify it. Any verification could just as eaisly be part of another epistemic cunundrum.

What we want is a phenomenoloigcla response. we want to let the data show us the categories we should file it into.

Anne Fidel

A common misconception. Children are born atheists. They only become theists when indoctrinated (brainwashed). Athiesm is a lack of belief in god or gods. Kids aren't born believing in gods.

Metacrock

Nope! Children are not born "atheists!"

(1) religious instinct exists.

(2) God part of the brain means no one is born an atheist, we are all born with a sense of God consciousness because we get war fuzzies when we hear God talk.

(3) atheism is more than just "not acting religious" an no one is born with an ideology.

(4) there are no innte ideas accept God, because that's coming the God part of the brain.

(5) there is no atheist part of the brain.

(6) atheism and anti-God talk are not trigges for mystical expeince. But God is.

trendkill

I'm sorry, but this begs the question just as much as the claim that we are born atheists does. The religious sense does not necessarily have anything to do with "God", unless you presuppose a theistic world.

lpetrich

And how did you figure that out, Metacrock?

But the Biblical God is persistently portrayed as male, and never explains anywhere that It is really neuter.

So what about us being sentient and conscious?

However that's supposed to happen.

I don't notice that happening, because I'm not that much of an emotional solipsist.

Meaning that we are all gods, of course.

But our consciousnesses are all separate; we don't directly perceive other consciousnesses, and given how the Universe is, a "ground of being" would be something totally impersonal. Simply look at how the Universe is outside of our minds.

Because it seems to me that you are using pretentious jargon to try to impress us.

(how I've never experienced Total Dependence[tm])
I'm not you, Metacrock. And I've seen lots of stars at night, but I did not feel any such "dependence". Maybe very privileged to get to see them, but not dependent.

Interesting psychological quirk; it says nothing about alleged Universe-controlling superbeings or substrata of reality.


(Big words again.)
Metacrock, if you are going to use pretentious but undefined jargon, you are going to get comments like that.

Which makes hash of claims to Absolute, Final Truth.

"We all worship the same god." Curious that that important fact was not revealed in the Bible.

Whatever that might be -- people have usually believed in religions very different from most forms of Xtianity.

I don't get any warm fuzzies from that -- and the "god" part seems like a part that causes hallucinations.

Metacrock

No it doesn't. God doesn't have to exist for one to not be an atheist. If there's a part of the brain that leads us to believe in God, it doesnt' matter if God is real or not. We are not born atheists, we are born with innate belief.

But really, how could evolution give us an innate idea that's wrong?

Chili

I am not talking indoctrination but fornication.

Metacrock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
The images of God in the Bible are analogical.


by going to seminary and getting an advaced degree, which is where I leanred all my big words.


<Edited>

Quote:
All religious lanaguge is analogical. there are many images of the female and the mother used of God in the Bible, and of the father too.




Nope. God in the Bbile is also portrayed as female and as non human. He's a burning bush, a flame of fire, a whilwind, an egal, a chicken, a mother bear and many other things.


Quote:
Wrong. We are personal.



what presonal is.



Quote:
This is the problem with the atheist fascination for empiricism. It seperates us from reality and makes the mind the center around which objects perade.



I happened with Cartesian empistemology.

Quote:
In that epistemic centering of our observational power we forget that we are part of the parade of objects.




you don't have to be. You have to be an empiricist.


Quote:
So our personal natures are as indicative of the universe as is the blind molecures. So there's no need to ascribe impersonal natrue to God. God is the bassi upon which the personal is possible.Tillich calle God "The personal itself."




Did I say that? Why do you think I'm saying that?








Ground of being is not impersonal because also the ground of consciosness and the ground of perosonhood. In fact the Berekely argumen would mean it has to be personal.


Quote:
why are you sarcastic when people know big words? Are you afaid of not knkowing them? Are you embarraced? Why should you be?



pretententious jargon, you mean the using the proper terms for things, like phenomenology? Co-determionate? What would you call it? It sounds better than calling it "the thing that goes with the other thing kind of thing."






(how I've never experienced Total Dependence[tm])




or thought

Quote:
I bet you have. You just dont' know what to call it. ...




Yea that's for sure. Your lack of experince doestn' change my experince.

Weltall

Ergo Allah exists, just ask a Muslim about his or her 'religious instinct'.
Speak for yourself.
No, I believe that's called a hallucination.
It's an absence of belief, nothing more. Try and get that through your head.
Show me these innte(sic) ideas and point to the part of the brain where this 'God part' is.
The pot's calling again... Is your definition of a troll 'anyone who doesn't agree with me' or something?