Autonemesis

But then why should we care at all what happens to flesh and blood, if they are not real? I don't see how you can reconcile "not real" with Jesus' sacrifice. Either the sacrifice was of something that has no real value, or your use of the phrase "not real" doesn't mean the same thing as the ordinary definition of the words.

So either Jesus made no real sacrifice, or I cannot continue talking with you. That the atoms in my body are replaced over the course of my life, does not make my body any less real than a collection of atoms forming a bridge or diamond. When you make words mean whatever you want them to mean, rather than what people ordinarily understand them to mean, there can be little or no communication. Do you understand?

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

emphryio

David said: Occasionally I've asked Christians:
Did you choose to be a Christian because it makes you happy?
Judging from the reactions I've received, this is apparently a very hard question for a Christian. This leads me to think that Christians usually don't understand theirselves very well. (Hint: Ultimately we all want to be happy.)

Personally I think:
There are three reasons to be a theist.
1. You just know somehow, (I used the words deep inside and David said he didn't understand what I'm talking about), that God exists.

2. You simply decide to believe in God BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU HAPPY to believe in God.

3. You say that your belief in God is perfectly logical based on empirical evidence.

Would you deny that there are only these three possible reasons David? Can you think of any other reasons? (Please don't answer with a question. That's rather silly. If you do, I assume you're just some strange super troll.)

Anyway, I've explained the problem there is with the first and second possible reasons. The first makes discussion very close to meaningless. The second leads to less knowledge which leads to less happiness. And I personally consider discussing the third quite close to a complete waste of time. (The problem being that people who believe in God supposedly on empirical evidence usually aren't very smart, (Bender), and I wonder how honest their being with themselves.)

BTW, it must be extremely dfficult to field question after question from so many people. I would think this makes it impossible for you to give any question the time it deserves. It's really rather silly to have 10 atheists plus two disagreeing theists all talking to you at once.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]</p>

Jobar

David, Theli, and Helen-

First off. David is *not* a pantheist. He makes the statement that "The universe is not God." As a pantheist, I would say that the universe *is* God, if the word 'God' has any meaning at all.

So when I wear my Zen Master robes, and deign to speak to all you unenlightened ones, I say "God is everything!"

Aha, but since we Zen Masters are well known for being tricky sumbitches, what have I told you? When you think about it, 'God is everything!' contains exactly the same amount of useful information as 'God is nothing!' The two statements are semantically equal.

Deeper yet- I say "The universe (or multiverse) is God."

BUT- when we examine that statement semantically, we find it is equivalent to saying "The universe is nothing!"

So talking about EVERYTHING is as useful and meaningful as talking about NOTHING. (Is your head hurting yet? Well it should be. If not, proceed.)

What I am trying to point out here is a limitation of language- indeed, of all systems of information transmission. When we try to talk about ultimates or absolutes, our words or equations approach being meaningless! "The tao which can be discussed is not the ultimate Tao."

Look at how incredibly difficult it is to understand, say, quantum mechanics. Yet QM is the result of massive attempts to simplify and unify all our knowledge about matter and energy, and their interactions! Ditto relativity- although most people can quote E=mc^2, Not one in ten can tell you that it means "Energy is equivalent to mass times the speed of light squared, all in appropriate units." And not one in a thousand can expound on the physical consequences of this seemingly simple equation.

In just this way, as we try harder and harder to speak accurately about God, or anything ultimate, absolute, or infinite, doing it accurately becomes more and more difficult. We run into the limitations of the physical universe, ultimately- we cannot use a system of communication based on dualities, like language or mathematics, to describe a unity!

And this, I think, is why all David's statements seem so paradoxical and self-contradictory. As we Zen Masters say, he is in the position of a mosquito attempting to bite a bull made of iron! His words and ideas cannot penetrate this. (Nor, of course, can mine.)

"Black is white and up is down.
In day is night, in silence sound.
Future and past with present enmeshed.
Thanatos is Eros is God enfleshed."
-me, 1977.

sandlewood

Well, I’m not a Zen Master , but I don’t follow that reasoning at all. If you say that God is everything, then you are simply defining God as being exactly equal to the Universe. Then you can throw away the word “God” for it is redundant. From then on we can just talk about the Universe.

To deduce that “God is nothing” from “God is everything” sounds pseudo-profound, but I guess I don’t see it. Perhaps the reasoning is this: If God is everything, then everything + God is the same as just everything. So God does not add anything to the Universe already there. So therefore God is nothing. Perhaps I don’t understand Zen, but I don’t see this as anything more than playing with words.

If language is limited, it is not justification that any old claim is true. You cannot simply say “I claim that X is true but language is too limited to describe support my claim, therefore it is true.” I think if you want to claim something, you have to show that the same claim cannot be made for the IPU. If I can use your same arguments for the IPU, then your claim doesn’t hold up. You must have some distinction.

David Mathews

Hello Ryanfire,

David: The Bible, Old and New Testaments, never forbids itself from possessing contradictions. To the extent that God uses humans to convey His message to humankind, God is using imperfect fallible instruments to convey the Truth.

David: Jesus did not write the New Testament, the apostles were never given the responsibility of writing, compiling and canonizing their own writings. The New Testament remains important because it is the first expression of the values and identity of the followers of Jesus.

David: I don't base all of my beliefs on the words of an imperfect Bible, the process of comprehending and applying the Bible's message involves thought, consideration and contemplation.

[quote] posted July 02, 2002 10:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David: Words are used in the Bible because words are all that we as humans have.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God seems pretty sloppy to let humans write "god's word".

The Old Testament:
It should be perfect if god used our language to describe all that he is, yet we have managed to show again and again what the christian bible has described him as is contradictory. God describes his perfection(truth) by using imperfection(fallacy)?

Now on to the The New Testament...

Religious people have the arrogance to modify god's word, the OT. Did Jesus come down to tell us "oh shit.. you have messed up god's word, you must make it right because god is all knowing and knew humans wouldn't get it right".

Jesus left it up to a select few of humans to write all his word down(OT), knowing they would get it wrong.

Oh but wait, jesus came down and made the NT. I didn't hear this in the news. Where was I?

Which bible do you follow, the OT or NT?

I don't see how you value words at all, knowing humans are stupid, helplessly depraved, and not perfect. You would base all of your beliefs on words of an imperfect bible, made by imperfect beings?

David: When speaking about God, all words are meaningless. When speaking about humans, words are meaningful.

David: Humans [I]are{/I] insignificant in the scheme of things. There are six billion humans, each and every one of them will be forgotten within decades after their death.

David: I rely upon God as an explanation for everything, including the known and the unknown. I don't ask God to solve all my problems or answer all of my questions about truth, reality and human life.

David: Humans are imperfect sinners, there can be little or no doubt about the character of humankind.

David: I don't perceive myself using God as a scapegoat for anything.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Theli,

David: I am certain of God's existence, though not absolute certain. My certainty is derived from faith and not from objective empirical criteria.

David: We can know things within belief systems, but there are no means of validating or verifying the fundamental assumptions of the belief system. This principle applies to all belief systems, including atheistic, humanistic, monotheistic, polytheistic and pantheistic.

David: I did not say that I would not listen to the arguments or claims of Hinduism. I have read the Hindu scriptures: The Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Laws of Manu. I have a lot of respect for Hinduism.

David: It is possible that contradictory statements are both true. Lack of knowledge is a possible source of contradictions, another cause is the inability of the human intellect to handle difficult subjects.

David: To say that God is not real is not the same as saying that God is imaginary or nonexistent. To say that God transcends reality is not the same as saying that God is a byproduct of human thought.

David: Students of the Bible have known for thousands of years that Biblical words used to describe God are not meaningful. The words are not ultimately false, it is just that the literal meaning of the words cannot satisfactory describe God.

David: Especially existence. Those of us whose existence is provisional cannot possible comprehend God's unprovisional eternal existence.

David: All physical things, including the Universe, have provisional and temporary existence. God's existence outside of our reality is a paradox, but a necessary paradox.

David: You really would like for me to be a strong atheist, yet you find that I am a strong theist. Perhaps your definition of "strong atheism" is inadequate?

David: I don't know what you mean, perhaps you should elaborate.

David: To say that God is a figure of my imagination ignores the reality of billions of humans throughout history believing in the existence of God or a god. Perhaps your approach to the theism/atheism controversy does not adequately identify the real differences between the two groups.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello HRG,

Thanks for answering those questions which I had presented to MadMax. I have several comments:

David: My question was more concerned with the manner in which naturalism/materialism explained th existence of the Universe. I suppose that your pointing out the similarity between naturalism/materialism and theism is a relevant observation, though one which atheists do not fully appreciate.

David: To say that "God created the Universe" is not to explain the method in which God could create a Universe. God's act of creation ex nihilo is so far outside the realm of human experience that we could not understand it even if God described it in precise scientific prose.

David: Technically speaking, abiogenesis is not naturalism/materialism. I would like to know how naturalism/materialism explains abiogenesis. I suppose that is a question which could not have an answer.

David: Technically speaking, evolution is not naturalism/materialism. I wonder how naturalism/materialism would explain the existence of evolution. That's a question which lacks an answer, I suppose.

David: Cultural development is not naturalism/materialism. How does naturalism/materialism explain the existence of culture and its development?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Theli,

David: Temporal existence is not real because you don't exist before you are born, you don't exist after you die, and during your life your hold upon existence is tenuous at best.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Ryanfire

You just stated humans and yourself are insignificant, therefore gods creations are insignificant, your existence is insignificant. Great David.. you have quite the love / hate relationship with god and creation.

A great philosophy

Another way of looking at it:
You are insignifcant, to a god that does not exist in reality, whom you will use as an explanation for all that the universe is. Yet the universe is contained within our reality.

Another great philosophy David

"David: I rely upon God as an explanation for everything, including the known and the unknown."

Read your above quote David. You use god as your scapegoat for existence, otherwise you wouldn't rely upon god as an explanation for everything.

Contradiction:
1. An assertion of the contrary to what has been said or affirmed; denial of the truth of a statement or assertion; contrary declaration; gainsaying.

You David, are a contradiction.

I am done posting to you David, wish you all the best .

I'll leave you with one thing
"In the scheme of things, you do matter."

David Mathews

Hello Intensity,

David: I say that I am a Christian, you say that I am an "atheist by definition."

According to my own internal observations of my own self, I am not an atheist in any sense. Therefore, your identification of myself as an atheist must indicate some ambiguity in your definition of atheism.

If it is possible for a God-believing Christian to be considered an atheist by atheists, it seems quite possible for atheists to be God-believing Christians as well. The principle is:

If A = B, then B = A.

The conclusion appears to be that atheism, as you define it, does not consitute an absolute denial of God's existence nor a repudiation of faith in God.

Sincerely,

David Mathews