madmax2976

Helen,

Actually I knew all that, but I figured even the most liberal of Christians believed God was real and that he was some kind of supernatural entity.

In other words, they would at least have the basic beliefs of a Deist. Its hard to figure out if David even has that much.

sandlewood

You�ve described this much more eloquently than I could. Yes, this is why I gave up participating in this discussion way back, although I�ve been loosely following along anyway.

If you introduce a syllogism such as:

All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore Socrates was mortal

and the person with whom you are conversing responds by claiming the premises are true but the conclusion is not, then what can you do? I really don�t know. From that point you know that reason will be useless. What�s worse is if the person responds by asking �Do you want Socrates to be mortal?� Or how about �Socrates� mortality does not depend on us understanding that he really is immortal�? I really don�t want to waste time playing word games and pointing out straw men. I think it more fruitful to converse with someone who is willing to recognize and address the actual point of a topic.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

p.s. hi IntenSity
Hi Helen, Whoo (shakes off static and sparks fly off* blows air into his cupped hands) I am getting too intense.
(Then after the fireworks have stopped..)

One question though:
As people get more liberal in their Christianity one of the first things to go is the exclusivity of 'we have the only truth'.

Why remain a christian after that?

HelenM

Yes, but these days you have Spong and others who like the 'Personal Ground of Being' way of thinking of God.

I would guess there are a lot of liberals who while not saying God doesn't exist, define God in ways in which might rather confirm the views of atheists who say God can't be defined. I mean, people like Spong definitely do NOT think of God in terms of "Person in the Sky with emotions and power to strike you dead or bless you at His whim".

I think it's valid to consider whether there is any significant difference between liberals and atheists; whether using different labels and claiming different things really has them living differently in any significant way (except that you might have someone like Spong fighting to be accepted by other Christians and not being very successful at it because they know full well how at odds his views are with theirs)

Anyway, yes, I wasn't assuming you didn't know it...just to be clear on that. But who knows...maybe someone reading here didn't...

love
Helen

HelenM

It happens

One can only speculate why people do...who even knows whether they know themselves, really, why they do.

I guess there is something about Christianity that they don't want to walk away from.

love
Helen

Pomp

OK, folks, the abuse level has gotten far too high on this thread ("mealy mouthed," "hypocrite," etc.). There is absolutely no need to engage in personal attacks. Let's try to keep it civil, shall we?

Thanks.

emphryio

Since for some reason I just spent the last two and half hours looking this thread over...

Christianity is the nice safe bet. Stay safely in the majority, don't burn in hell for eternity. No wonder it's so popular.

Unfortunately a few of us eventually realize that it's just too silly. We then usually jump to some form of atheism.

David Mathews has realized that some of it is silly. But to be an atheist would make him very unhappy. And David prefers to be happy. So why shouldn't he continue to believe what makes him happy? He may have to twist some things around a bit. But that's OK. He's not hurting anyone. Right?

No, you shouldn't believe things just because they make you happy. Because you're strong David. (Envision yourself being strong right here David and then feeling pride in yourself because your strong.) You can handle the truth. You don't need to believe made-up things in order to find a reason to live. You can boldly seek the truth wherever it leads because you strive for knowledge, because you know that increasing knowledge does seem to have this strange tendency to lead to greater happiness.

Now if after reading the above you think, "But no, I just KNOW that there is a God." Then there is no reason to be here talking.

There is no reason to be here talking because: If the belief in God comes from within, it is completely irrelevant to the rest of us. Because we don't particularly have strange voices/feelings/things? talking in our heads, that we think are someone other than ourselves.

We are interested in discussing logic and facts, not vague feelings deep inside that only you, (and maybe some few million others), have.

(But these last three paragraphs only apply if your belief comes from "inside". You've either been quite vague about where your belief comes from or I haven't read as well as I should.)

Jobar

"The tao which can be discussed is not the ultimate Tao." -Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching

I want to take up for David here, at least somewhat.

I am an atheist; I am of the firm belief and opinion that there is no personal God, separate from his Creation.

But I am also a pantheist, and think that the universe we observe around us is one of infinitely many facets of an infinite and ultimate Reality- which, as Lao-Tzu observed, cannot be put into words. So when David starts talking about a completely indescribeable and mysterious God, I find it very easy to identify his God with the Tao.

Note that I find some of his arguments illogical- I think that any attempt to assign *any* quality to God is erroneous. We cannot say that he is 'good' or 'all-powerful' or even 'conscious'- all our words are simply too small, too limiting.

So our chorus of non-pantheistic atheists instantly ask me, "So why try to talk about it at all?!" To this I have various answers- one is, I like to talk! (Facetious, but true.)

Another is, just as the notion of infinity has proved highly useful in mathematics, I think that the notion of God or Tao is useful in philosophy. (Perhaps 'interesting' would be a better word.) After all, this whole board is concerning this notion, not so?

Another answer- we skeptics are utterly dedicated to science, to logic, to *observation*. We believe, in short, what we perceive- but when we look more and more closely at the world about us, it becomes an extremely strange place. Matter which is also energy, time which is also space, nothingness which may at any instant give rise to 'somethingness'- reality, in short, is pretty damned surreal! I have been a dilettante of physics for my entire adult life, and I make no claim to really understand it. Einstein said something to the effect of children playing with a few shells on the sand, while the whole huge ocean lay before them.

So let us not be too harsh with David. He may be a bit off target in his beliefs- but IMO he is not *too* far off.

madmax2976

<strong> David's problem is his unwillingness or inability to actually defend a single thing he says about atheists or Christianity. With such a person, its practically impossible to have meaningful communication. Instead of a discussion forum, it becomes the "assertion" forum.

HelenM

Jobar

To be a pantheist seems to mean that God has no personhood at all except we are all somehow God (but so are the worms and trees)

If David believes in a personal transcendant God then I'd say he's a theist, definitely.

If he is not convinced that God is transcendently above His creation, and yet he believes God is more than the sum of the universe, I think that makes him a Panentheist.

OTOH maybe I don't have a clue what I'm talking about

Anyone feel free to set me straight!

love
Helen

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>