Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2017, 08:08 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(26-01-2017 12:29 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Just a point in regards to all this rock use.

The technical term is "Knapping" I believe.

T'is quite the science. Used well into the 1800's since black powder muskets needed their striking flints kept in good shape.

I also believe there's a field of study into the more distant arts and practices. Actual term escapes me atm.

Cheers! Thumbsup
Somebody must have opened a window...because there is a refreshing breeze blowing through...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 08:12 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 06:31 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I'm not up on all the religious weird stuff in the bible.
Did Jesus have some kind of cup stuck in his ass or something ? Are we talking shot glass ?
I can't imagine how you would get a full on cup up there.
He is known as the miracle man, so it's possible.
rof,l

As a nurse, who during her stint in ER had to remove many ... interesting objects from people's nether regions, my daughter would love this. I will have to mention it to her.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2017 08:32 AM by JHaysPE.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
**N/T**
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2017 08:28 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
At work.

(27-01-2017 08:08 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  
(26-01-2017 12:29 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Just a point in regards to all this rock use.

The technical term is "Knapping" I believe.

T'is quite the science. Used well into the 1800's since black powder muskets needed their striking flints kept in good shape.

I also believe there's a field of study into the more distant arts and practices. Actual term escapes me atm.

Cheers! Thumbsup
Somebody must have opened a window...because there is a refreshing breeze blowing through...

Why thank'e! Big Grin

Hey.... wait jus' a gull-durn minute thar..... Consider

By sayin' 'breezy'.... are you callin' me a air-head? Consider

Tongue


Big Grin

Again thanks for the comment. Shall try and reply/engage when I have some free time. Thumbsup

Edit: JHaysPE ? You've mussed up a [ quote ] some where in your reply. Is why it's coming up blank that way. A little edit should fix it. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 08:26 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2017 08:31 AM by JHaysPE.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
**N/T**
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 08:27 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(26-01-2017 02:05 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Humans are more intelligent. That's what I said. But saying that because they can't complete a 1040 form it means they are not exercising reason is more than a little misleading, to put it as nicely as I can.
What I am working on establishing is that there is a complexity of reason, a level of reason, that might be described as "human" reasoning, as opposed to "primate reasoning".

(26-01-2017 02:05 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As I said, it is a spectrum, with humans at the top (presumably) of that spectrum... but other than having a larger brain and higher intelligence, there's nothing particular to distinguish us from other reasoning beings. Your anthropocentrism is drawing an arbitrary line at "able to do all the things humans do", and then using that line to distinguish us from the other animals in some philosophical way.
For the purposes of discussion, is it reasonable to assume that there are reasoning capabilities of humans that are superior to the reasoning capabilities of non-humans. Would it also be fair to say that the reasoning capacity required to exercise discipline, or strive for justice, or to exist in peace, might involve reasoning capacities beyond the capabilities of non-humans?

(26-01-2017 02:05 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It is disingenuous to pretend that the dog is "discerning that he needs to be outside to pee" (why is that?) rather than reasoning that he'd better not violate the social rules he has learned. As anyone who has raised a puppy knows, the dog is quite content to pee in the house unless he is taught otherwise.
If I couple your statement here, with which I agree, with the scientific findings of Pavlov, for example, might it be said that dogs are using an evolved sense of social instinct to inform the canine decision to hold pee until outside? That this isn't a "reasoned" behavior, as much as a "socially programmed" behavior? Containing elements of both, but favoring a pack instinct where dogs tend to do what the pack favors, even if they haven't rationalized that action? Its the difference, to me, of "willed assent" (the Falcons fan electing to don his favorite Falcons jersey to watch the Superbowl), versus some other expression of a decision - obeying instincts, or social programming?

(26-01-2017 02:05 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-01-2017 02:05 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Pray to the magic man in the sky all you like, bub. Nobody's listening.

Who's making the strawman? I said nothing about praying for anything.

You made it up. You put words in my mouth.

Lying for Jesus™ is still lying.
Pardon me, but you referred to praying to God to change God. That's not how it works. The faithful pray to God, not to conform God th their will, but to conform themselves to God's will for them. The "listening" component of this is not to a physical being floating mystically in the clouds somewhere. It is an acknowledgment that the same forces which cause animals to mutate and be suitable to their environs also causes stage 4 colon cancers. The same forces that create the rains for the crops also create hurricanes. The prayer is an acknowledgement of this, and an appeal to do something ordered, peaceful and just with what has been given, as opposed to being bitter, angry and to despair.

We all die. That's a fact. So how we live and how we leave can be elective perspective, or it can be the chaos of disorder and anger.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 08:36 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(26-01-2017 02:49 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  img]https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder758/500x/67178758.jpg[/img]
Uhhh...no...I don't believe so. I was responding to a post where someone implied that praying to God is like asking Santa Claus for Hot Wheels. I corrected the poster to instruct that this is not the prayer practice of the vast majority of faithful, and identified this as a composition fallacy, which it is.

I also note that your meme is merely the equivalent of screaming your assertion in the false sense that volume provides validity. It doesn't - if your assertion is valid, the words stand by themselves, without the cute assistance of your illustrations.

Don't shoot the messenger here. Just pointing out the obvious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 08:39 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
At work.

Would like to comment. Have no real time and pecking away at a phone screen sucks.

Definately a few points I kind of disagree with above and a few points I'd like to raise add.

I should be able to handle simple, single question etc.

Oh... um.... yeah and it would be easy to reply to such on the phone as well... Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 09:07 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(26-01-2017 06:35 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm still thinking about this one. It's baffling to me that this guy presumes to lecture us on what prayer is or is not, as if we don't even know the Lord's Prayer, THE example of "what a prayer is", let alone the myriad ways that Christians see the usefulness of prayer in general.

'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'

Many people also add, "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.", but it's not found in early manuscripts and is clearly a later interpolation, even assuming Jesus actually said the words above, so I left it off.

I mention it because this example of prayer is different from what you claim, when you presumed to lecture us.

Jesus starts with what you claim, praying a praise to God and submitting to God's will with a wish that others do so. Okay.

Then, immediately following that, Jesus asks God for three things, 1) that we have food (some interpret "daily bread" as spiritual fulfillment, of course), 2) that we be forgiven as we forgive others, and 3) that God help to steer us away from temptation.

These are clearly prayers for intercession by the magic man in the sky. Yes, it is acknowledging that God's Will is immutable, but specifically does ask for intercession (help) for the individual praying, in following that will and in being provided for... even when that individual is Jesus showing others How It's Done™.

Perhaps you have been told that atheists don't know about religion, and that most of us are just "angry at God" or simply never understood faith (or else we'd be Christians, right?), but the fact is that a large percent of us come from Christian backgrounds, and made studying theology one of our priorities before making the decision to depart from the cult religion.

Oh, sure, you can find lots of ways in which we're not "properly Catechized", meaning that we don't follow your particular interpretive variety of Christianity, but that will be true if you try to argue with an evangelical or any other form of Protestant or Orthodox Christian about "What is True Christianity™?", even if that person is a theology professor at a Christian university. Applying the "properly Catechized" standard to atheists, while ignoring that little detail, is deeply dishonest, and should be beneath you.

But then, it has been our lifetime of experience to note that Lying For Jesus™ is the de facto norm among those who deign to try to come tell us How It Is™.
If you don't want to discuss religion with me, then I am sure there are other internet activities to occupy time that may be more enjoyable.

The reference to catechesis is the broader criticism of my engagement with atheists on various media - twitter, for example. The erection of strawmen against religion is pointless, as much so as the faithful erecting strawmen at atheism. So if you are unwilling to accept guidance from a Christian regarding your mischaracterizations of faith and the faithful, then you may, by your own election, continue to be free to enjoy the efforts of composing irrelevance against something you appear to not know anything about, or a comfortable to willfully misrepresent. While catechesis is a word normally applied to Catholic faith, it also has a broader sense of the study of any religious system of practices and beliefs.

As to the "Our Father" prayer, I will now use that as an example of how far you need to go to be able to comfortably criticize Christian faith.

"Our Father, who art in heaven" - Acknowledges the setting and context of a transcendent creator and provider of existence and everything in it to support that existence.

"Hallowed by thy name" - An assent to the ideal presented by this transcendent reality and acknowledgement of the expectation that we order ourselves for this transcendent reality, and not our own temporal, petty motives and baser appetites.

"Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" - An appeal to justice, peace, order and function - the perfection that is possible if all yield to the perfect operation of rationality - simply to love.

"Give us this day, our daily bread" - Note that this is a staple commodity, not gold, nor Porsche 911s or Rolexes. This is an appeal to justice and charity - as the world is chock full of resources, and scarcity only exists where charity is lacking.

"And forgive us our trespases, as we forgive those who trespass against us" - an acknowledgement that temporal existence is not perfect, and within which we experience offense as well as being the offender. An appeal to recognize this in ourselves and others, and to act accordingly by seeking forgiveness, offering reparations or recompense where possible, and reaching out to forgive others who offend us even when no recompense is possible.

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" - Aquinas beautifully said the "love" is simply the willing of the good of another. Evil then is simply the privation of this good. Rationality is freely exercised between these two realities, and this is an appeal that the order of existence is best served, in fact, by love, rather than by its privation, which results form the short-term thinking of self-interest.

So that's what's actually being implied by this one single prayer. The irony of this is that these present atheist ideals, self- evident and discerned, apart form the Holy Scripts form which this prayer is lifted. The realities of of behavior and societal values were evolved long before any of these writings were committed to parchment over 2,000 years ago - the words were shaped by the observation and experience of thriving societies, as opposed to fallen empires.

We may go observe the preserved ruins of the these ancient societies all over the planet. And yet, here we are with the most advanced cultures and societies the world has ever known. Perhaps it is merely coincidence that this time, when we have developed what would be future ruins of what any archaeologist might describe as the greatest advancement in civilization ever in the history of the planet, that this advancement took root (finally) paralleled with the rise of Christianity.

Your counter to this is that people finally "wised up" to the productivity of "free" societies, and the accomplishments of people unencumbered by despotic oligarchs, who exercised the values of society serving one man or family, to that of society serving itself.

Breeze through history and count the number of great cultures from the dawn of written history in the middle east that rose, developed technology, and then fell or were conquered by a more productive society. I'll concede that some of these cycles were the result of topography - wooden ships conquering a dessert nation where no trees grew.

But just - for a minute - consider the coincidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 09:16 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2017 09:34 AM by JHaysPE.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(26-01-2017 01:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, that I would not agree with. Preserving the one rock won't affect the likelihood that other rocks of the same size and shape will become more prevalent. That is very different than either natural or human-guided selection.
I wasn't clear here. I am suggesting, for example, that an anthropologic technique for discerning a possible "tool" from a "rock" is by identifying a "rock that doesn't belong" - a piece of obsidian, where there is no other obvious source of obsidian in the locale - which might suggest a tool that was carried by a nomadic ancient people, for example.

(26-01-2017 01:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  That depends on the situation. If the need is urgent I might make do with a sub-optimal rock (a phrase I never thought I'd say); that would be a more intelligent thing to do than lose time searching for a better one.

You'd probably do better to cut to the chase and explain where you are going with all of this. It is fast becoming boring.
I am going to philosophically tie "purpose" to "design", and "design" to "intelligent input", then I am going to divorce "intelligence" from having to come from a human brain, but rather being something more like gravity, which simply "is", with the human brain having evolved to recognize it and harness it, rather than being its source.

And then I am going to reveal that by simple definition, the source for the immutable "gravity" and the source for this immutable 'intelligence" - is in fact - "God" (Ganesh, Allah, God of Abraham and The Almighty)

And then I am going to suggest a re-reading of holy scripts, substituting this "immutable collective" anytime you read "Lord" or "God" or "Allah", and see if that changes anything for you. When "God" smited an army, we're not talking about some angry gray-haired man reaching down from heaven and squashing soldiers. What is being said by these people 4,500 years ago is that the natural order of the direction of peace, justice, and function (opposed to dysfunction), worked against the "evil' army (where these values and practices were in privation) for the "good" army (where these values and practices existed) and served to defeat that "evil" foe, so that the privation of good would not be brought against the "good" nation as an enforced standard of practice.

God is not a person - not physical. No more so than gravity is, or intelligence is. God is the collector for all those influences and forces that result in thrivement and fulfillment. The "need for a deity" then is simply to crate a term and a name for the source of these immutable influences and forces which have lead to the existence of all of us, and the existence of something like "fulfillment of purpose" within this thing we call "existence".

So - either continue or criticize. I don't want to waste your time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: