LianaLi

Since we've wandered far off topic on the other thread, I'll continue the argument on this thread. See the <a href="http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000002&p=4" target="_blank">bottom of page four</a> for Albert's original assertion. Those who wish, can look for his posts and mine regarding the arguement on the following pages of the old thread.

On with the show.

Using thrilling sensations as evidence for anything seems absolutely preposterous to me. Which, if I follow you assertions, is what you’re stating.

So what if they thrill? Does this have to signify anything more than a love of learning. I’m attacking the jump you make from thrilling myths to validation. It seems to me, that there is a dangerous and false association between thrilling myths and theism

As shown by this statement, you’re making an incorrect assumption that thrill=propensity for idea of god. Why that jump? Why thrills? Why do thrills equal some sort of insight or even evidence for a god? At the very most, you said it yourself we have a propensity to be thrilled by the idea of God. To incorrectly jump from the idea to the existence of that idea makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, it’s based on circular reasoning. Man comes up with myth of gods. Man is thrilled by myths of gods. Therefore, gods exist, because the tales of gods excite man. Whoopee. If anything, it just shows that man is thrilled by his own stories.

To assert that the myths are evidence for anything whatsoever, one must have outside evidence and verification for those myths. Since this forum is dedicated to proving or disproving the existence of a god, go right ahead. I’ll be the first to admit, I’m probably under qualified to argue the existence of a god. I piped up simply to attack an incorrect assertion.


All my talk of myths, other religions, and even using evolution as a “myth” were examples, created by following the logic which was given. By the ridiculousness of the constructed arguments, I hoped you would see why it’s a false argument.

Of course, I could also be missing some crucial point in your argument.


Enjoying the beating of a dead horse,
Liana

Albert Cipriani

Ah, Liana,
A woman after my own heart: "Enjoying the beating of a dead horse." So you can't resist that pastime either. Well, if there is a God, let us hope He's not a horse lover.

This really shouldn't be so hard. The core cause of our disagreement is, I suspect, your functional mindset. Like most moderns, enamored with scientific successes, you see reality as how things function as opposed to how things are. You derive your values from the physical surface of things and the purposes to which they can be put instead of from the metaphysical essence of things and the nature of their design.

But as you say, "On with the show."

You assert:


How absurd. Everything, from neutrinos to noses, is evidence for something. Indeed, it is logically impossible for anything not to be evidence for something else. Thrills are no exception.

You say,


For the sake of argument, I will agree with you. Theist myths signify love. But you say they don't "signify anything more than love," implying that love is not significant. Why are you so jaded?

Most things that we love are highly significant to our lives and essential to our survival (e.g., fresh air, beauty, Nature, maybe even horses!). So theistic myths signify our love of what? "Learning" you say? That only begs the question: "love of learning" what?

I'll answer my own question. (Hell, if you can quote yourself, that's the least I ought to be allowed!)

We love what we are like. For example, Saudem Hussain loves Hitler. That's a fact. More normal people love more normal people (just check out their spouses). One of the many expressions of love is a willingness to learn about the object of our love. So, the syllogism looks like this:
1) We love theistic myths, not atheistic myths.
2) We can only love that which we are like.
3) Ergo, we love God because we are like God.

This corroborates with God's view, as He is on record for saying we have been created in His image, i.e., we are like Him. Ergo, we are capable of loving Him.

You ask:


Because thrills are one of the expressions of love. The immemorial popularity of theistic myths worldwide proves that man is thrilled by the idea of God. Which means we love the idea of God. Which means God is good for us, for virtually no thing that man loves is not good for man.

To illustrate. When I was a boy, I used to love to make mud pies. But I never ate one. If I did, it would not have been good for me. Conversely, my goats eat muddy leaves all the time and I can’t get them to eat an apple pie if my and their lives depended upon it.

Point being, goats love muddy leaves and lo and behold, muddy leaves are good for them while little boys love apple pies, not mud pies, and lo and behold the apple variety of pie just happens to be good for them. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

CodeMason

Albert, are you really positing this argument, in all honesty? Or are you just having a laugh behind our backs? If you are being serious, then congradulations, you have successfully boggled my mind...

Theli

Albert Cipriani

Maybe you don't love god as much as you love the idea of god. The idea of god seems to change from person to person wich I think is strange.
It looks more like the theist 'invented' a god of his own rather than discover him. If all theists spiritually discovered god, why does their definition of god differ?

Could someone enlighten me on this? It's something I've been wondering about.

Albert Cipriani

Dear CodeMason,
I enjoy a good laugh like anyone else. Sometimes my humor (as humorless SingleDad will tell you) is funny to me alone. But I assure you my post above is representative of neither.

I love philosophy and the truth the people on this board ostensibly seek too much to waste bandwidth here on indulging my sense of humor. I think it'd rate as a sin for me if I were, as you suggest, "having a laugh behind our backs." -- Sincerely (Really Truly So!), Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Theil,
You speculate,


I see no difference between the two. What we love is ultimately an idea. Indeed, to love something that isn't an idea is inconceivable and impossible to actualize.

For example, I love my wife because I know my wife. What do I know about my wife? Why, many many ideas about my wife. I love them all... Well, since she’s not reading this, almost them all.

You say:


It shouldn't since that's the way it is with the reverse of god, dog. The idea of dog changes from person to person as well. Same is true for the idea of red and any other idea you can think of. These variations in our grasp of ideas speak of our uniqueness, not of the strangeness of the ideas we speak of

You say,


This is true of all religions save for Judaism and Catholicism. The God of the Bible is revealed. Revelation, by definition, means truth that man is incapable of arriving at through reason. For example, Triune Monotheism, that seems like a flat contradiction but is actually a paradox that expresses the most sublime of all metaphysical truths. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Theli

What?!?!?
Why should the christian religion be true and all other religions that have existed throughout human history be false?
What makes IT so special?
You are saying that the god in the bible is revealed, then show him to me...

"Truths" that defies reason has more names than revelation... lies, fantasies, wishes, dreams(if you like).

I would like to know how you arrived at the conclution that the christain god is the only real god and all other gods are false. And don't just say "revelation". Remember that I'm an atheist so the word revelation doesn't have the same meaning for me as it has for you.

And BTW, I would like to have a definition on that word "god" you are using. How is your god?

David Gould

Albert,

I can agree with you that we love things that are good in some way for us.

However, the fact that the majority of humans love God does not necessarily make God real.

It may indeed be good for most people to hold a belief that God is true - it may make them less worried about death, for example.

This does not make the belief true.

I like and agree with your 'everything is evidence for something line' and I agree that everyone has at the least a slightly different understanding of every concept that exists.

If God cannot be arrived at through reason (another thing I agree with you on though from a slightly different perspective )then surely revelation must be made to each person on an individual and equal basis if God is positied as just and good? Why did Paul, for example, get more of a revelation than me? Or Moses?

My 'revelation' is a book allegedly written about events by alleged witnesses or in many cases alleged hearers of alleged witnesses to those events and interpreted differently in many allegedly correct but often different and contradictory ways. Moses heard the voice of God.

Hardly seems fair...

Demiurge

The ILIAD is much more thrilling than trigonometry.

The KALEVALA is much more thrilling and engaging than organic chemistry.

Dante's INFERNO gives much better "thrills" than, say, a treatise on wiring and electricity.

HARRY POTTER books are much more thrilling than a seventh grader's math homework.

But what, if anything, does that say about these books which are full of gods, magic, and fantastic landscapes? Nothing. Just that they're entertaining, and fun to read. It says nothing at all whether about they contain any useful, practical knowledge, or whether they contain any truth.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Demiurge ]</p>

Demiurge

But they think it is true of all religions but theirs.

Indeed. Revealed in a book... written by men. And just as with all the other religions, we only have access to the writings, not the god.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Demiurge ]</p>