Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seebs · 10-24-2005, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

I care about it because I'm a caring sort of guy, and the damage it does upsets me.

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/e...n/stories.html

Try reading some of these stories, and see if it upsets you

David B

I have two questions to ask about this:
1. Do people who have supernaturalist beliefs always cause problems like this?
2. Do people who never had supernaturalist beliefs never cause problems like this?

It seems to me that, unless the answer to both questions is "yes", it might be more useful to see whether there are other factors that are better correlated to the problems you describe.

danrael · 10-24-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

I finally decided, many years ago, that there was not much point in endless debate about whether or not my senses depicted real things external to me. I have decided to stick with attempts to make sense of my experiences. Of the explanations I've seen offered thus far, Christianity seems to be the best fit.

Maybe your "senses" are faulty, and you need to employ a higher faculty with which to access the true nature of things.

Do some experiences not "make sense" in terms of logic and reason?

Christianity would seem to make the least sense, as it claims completely out of the ordinary experiences, ie: the incarnation, virgin birth, resurrection of the body, raising of the dead, transubstantiation, etc., all of which go against the laws of nature.

Wads4 · 10-24-2005, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

I try to avoid belief and disbelief - as I see both as being irrelevent. :huh:

Irrelevent to what?

Wads4 · 10-24-2005, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational BAC

Why Christians believe? Why not?

What does it hurt? Who does it hurt?

If believing in personal immortality makes people a little happier-------why should I give a shit?

Why should you?

Because the extension of these beliefs is not benign, it leads to religious sectarianism and persecution and wars, and it distorts children's education, and attacks and distorts science, and wastes vast rersources on churches and cathedrals and evangelism.

Wads4 · 10-24-2005, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

I am finding it very hard to find any interpretation of this post compatible with the assumption that it was made in good faith.

All I have is my experiences, and the general assumption I have made that my experiences are of things external to me. I cannot show you these experiences, but I suspect you have experiences of your own; it is up to you to decide how you wish to interpret them.

Personal revelation has long been dismissed as a convincing argument for God,- obviously far too subjective, and fails the corroboation test when compared with other peoples experiences.

Wads4 · 10-24-2005, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I affirm both of those doctrines. I don't know of any laws of physics, biology, chemistry or otherwise that are broken by the incarnation. I certainly don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, that he broke scientific laws performing miracles, etc. I do think the incarnation is irrational, however, but does not break any laws or theories of science.

I suppose I am very liberal. Two days ago my mom kept asking me if I was an atheist when I was explaining my thoughts on miracles.

I agree Deism and Theism are by definition incompatible. As for scientific laws not being broken by Incarnation and miracles,-do you subscribe to an alternative set of scientific laws from the normal ones?

danrael · 10-24-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

Personal revelation has long been dismissed as a convincing argument for God,- obviously far too subjective, and fails the corroboation test when compared with other peoples experiences.

What if we remove the experiencer, the "I", from the equation, so that there is only "experiencing". I know this sounds illogical, and it is. This process is known as "Nirvana", which literally means the "extinguishing of the self".

When you spontaneously burn your finger on a hot stove, in that very moment, there is only "burning", only "ouch"; it is only after one realizes what has happened, that one reflects and thinks: "I have burned my finger".

Wads4 · 10-24-2005, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrael

Since you are a non-believer, your question can also be directed at yourself, as you stated that the post is directed to both believers/non-believers. So one can also ask how non-believers rationalize their dis-belief, even though they may agree that their scepticism is irrational? Can we all see that both belief and scepticism are two halves of the same coin, and that both are taking positions which cannot possibly be verified due to the nature of the positions being held? The real question here is, before one adopts any "position" at all, is exactly what compels one to choose one particular postition over another in the first place? Would it not be wiser to say: "I neither believe, nor not-believe? In so doing, now one can, instead of taking up some position in need of defense, simply look directly into the nature of Reality itself from where one originally sits, without belief or scepticism distorting one's view? Belief and scepticism both require the additonal element of thought; looking directly into the face of Reality is done without thought. We can liken the process to that of a perfectly polished mirror which reflects exactly and only what it sees; no more and no less, with nothing in between to distort the reflected image. There is no thought, opinion, conjecture, concept, doctrine or belief about that which is being reflected; there is only pure reflection.

How do you manage to identify the Nature of Reality without doing some objective research into it, which inevitably means forming an opinion based on justified belief? It sounds a bit like the dreaded post-modernist relativism to say you neither believe nor disbelieve, presumably because one is as good as the other. We all have to make decisions in life or we could not function.

danrael · 10-24-2005, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

How do you manage to identify the Nature of Reality without doing some objective research into it, which inevitably means forming an opinion based on justified belief? It sounds a bit like the dreaded post-modernist relativism to say you neither believe nor disbelieve, presumably because one is as good as the other. We all have to make decisions in life or we could not function.

Because the nature of Reality cannot really be objectified. You cannot remove and separate the viewer from that which is being viewed. YOU are IT. All you are suggesting is to develop an idea about the nature, the essence, of Reality, without merging with that Reality itself, which ends in one nibbling around the edges rather than going to the heart of the matter.. As regards belief/disbelief, it is not that one is as good as the other: they are both faulty. So we should abandon them completely and adopt a different view, one that is direct. Any so-called "objective research" into what Reality is will only lead you further astray, as the method of investigation is inadequate from the get-go. It would be like trying to explain quantum mechanics using Newtonian physics.

Zeichman · 10-24-2005, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

I agree Deism and Theism are by definition incompatible. As for scientific laws not being broken by Incarnation and miracles,-do you subscribe to an alternative set of scientific laws from the normal ones?

I think you misunderstand me.

I don't believe in miracles. Perhaps a better distinction would be "mysteries" versus "miracles." I DON'T believe in Miracles (multiplication of loaves, fleshly ressurection of Jesus, etc.). I do believe in mysteries, which are irrellevant to hard sciences (sacraments, incarnation, soterology, etc.).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.