Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2017, 01:49 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
Check it out, Daystar's website actually has drop-down selections for convenience:

Submit prayer requests

Salvation
Healing
Finances
Marriage
Family

etc.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 03:43 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 08:27 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  
(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".

And I'm trying to explain to you why your arbitrary division is arbitrary. We are primates. Our reasoning is primate reasoning. We're just better at it than most because our brains are bigger and so we're a lot smarter. But the process is the same.

(27-01-2017 08:27 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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?

You're just restated what I've been saying. We have superior reasoning because we are smarter/larger-brained. But it's still the same reasoning. You clearly aren't very familiar with the work of primatologists, if you're going to claim that chimpanzee societies don't "exercise discipline", "strive for justice", or wish to exist in peace. Might I recommend you read, as a starting point, Sagan's excellent layperson-level book, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, to get a better feel for this subject before you make such assertions?

(27-01-2017 08:27 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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?

And you think humans are different? You have clearly never taken a psychology or sociology course. Laugh out load


(27-01-2017 08:27 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Pardon me, but you referred to praying to God to change God. That's not how it works.

No, I didn't. Please stop lying. Stop it. I'm afraid I must insist upon this point, if we're to continue this discussion. I'm simply too exhausted with Liars For Jesus™.

(27-01-2017 08:27 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  The faithful pray to God, not to conform God th their will, but to conform themselves to God's will for them.

Yes, duh. And they also pray for stuff. It's not what I was talking about, in general, before. I was simply saying you can waste your life praying all you want, but it doesn't matter because there's no invisible space wizard in the sky to hear you. That's all.

The rest of this gibberish is you vomiting up the programmed responses with which your cult has infected your brain. (You might prefer the term "evangelizing"... tough.)

(27-01-2017 08:27 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  The "listening" component of this is not to a physical being floating mystically in the clouds somewhere.

It's an expression, dude. For fuck's sake. We understand most of you define God's characteristics to include "beyond all space and time", outside of the universe itself.

Again, the program you have swallowed keeps telling you that we simply don't grasp your God, and so you need to explain it to us better until we see as you do. So you'll keep looking for objections like explaining that (obvious, to anyone else) metaphoric speech about a "magic man in the sky" is incorrect.

(27-01-2017 08:27 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

Cool story, bro.

What you have described, above, is indistinguishable from God's non-existence.

Congratulations, you're on your way to becoming an atheist! Smile

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-01-2017, 04:08 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

Oh, you mistake me. I love discussing religion. I just don't like people who are willing to lie and misrepresent the definition of words, demonstrable facts, or my own positions. That's all. Smile

(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

And this is why I believe you are disingenuous. There is no way to correctly "characterize the faith", because there are thousands of variations. Even among a single faith, there are wildly different interpretations of almost every theological point imaginable.

But when you speak to atheists, each and every one of you comes here and tells us we have "totally misunderstood" their religion. I could exactly parrot, word for word, the definition I was given by the last "Christian intellectual" I had this discussion with, and the next one will tell me I'm just failing to understand it because I'm an atheist.

When the next one comes along, I will be able to exactly parrot the things you are now telling me are the real True Christianity™, and he will tell me that I don't understand Christianity because I'm a stubborn/ignorant atheist.

This whole process might be new to you, but we go through it over and over and over again, on forums like this one.

(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

Yes, it does. But I've only ever heard Catholics use it in that way. About half of my family (my mom's side) are Catholic, so I'm pretty familiar.

(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

Oooooooh, I can't wait for you to explain to lil' ol' ignorant me Just How It Is™. Rolleyes

(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

Okay, I apologize, but I didn't see you actually saying anything that didn't fit in the "duhh" category or that wasn't simply sermonizing over the obvious, so I deleted the "explain the Lord's Prayer to the atheists" part.

As to the part I skipped to, above, you're quite correct that those are Humanist ideals (not atheist ideals... there's no such thing as atheist ideals, and the fact that you said so implies you don't understand what atheism is), and that people figured out it's better to try to love and live in harmony, in a peaceful and just society, long before Jesus came along. Even his famous "Golden Rule" was already extant in numerous cultures.

As for your "fallen empires" bit, I'll get to that in the next paragraph.

(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to suggest that Christianity was behind the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Age? Come off it, man. Yes, it's quite true that elements within Christianity (as well as influences from other religious societies, such as the Muslim world) helped to lift Europe out of the dark ages into which it had slid under Christianity, and that some of the greatest thinkers who helped with the transformation to Enlightenment were Christians.

But from an historical point of view, your statement "paralleled the rise of Christianity" is utter bullshit.


(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

Well thank you for telling me what I think. I actually think the influence of improving literacy, in the wake of the invention of the printing press (including a desire to read the Bible for one's self, which sparked the Protestant movement), as well as the influences of the Mongol and Muslim worlds on European culture, went a long way toward setting up the modern forms of thinking-- it's no coincidence that much of it happened in Italy, which at the time formed a sort of "crossroads" for those travels.

But frankly, it would take days and dozens of pages (a book's worth) to hash out all the reasons that came together to bring us into the Renaissance and certainly from there to the Enlightenment and the rise of Capitalism from the mercantile system... but for a simpler soundbite, I'll just say that no, you don't have a fucking clue what I think so stop telling me what I think.

(27-01-2017 09:07 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  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.

Yeah I'm not really sure what you're even talking about, here, since you're being so vague. But if you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're ignoring both the fact that so many great empires rose without the help or influence of Christianity, and that they fell in a pattern that you seem to think will not apply to Christian (read: our present) culture.

With respect, I think you are terribly narrow-minded and myopic, and need to read some better historians. Might I recommend you start with Jared Diamond's excellent (Pulitzer-winning) Guns, Germs, and Steel, and follow it with his more-relevant-to-this point Collapse, in which he describes the reasons civilizations collapse, and walks us through the history of the major collapses.

Hint: It's not what you apparently think.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-01-2017, 04:10 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 09:49 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Yah. .. mother converted late in her life average early in mine.

Did the whole 'Baptize' thing when I was... 5? 8? It's been a while. Blush

'Confirmed' in high - school years.

As for my 'Faith'..... hmmmmm, where to start. Consider

Okay, about 'Belief' that's been bandied about?

To quote, "I can believe a thousand impossible things before breakfast."


Which is to say I can entertain many ideas/concepts/beliefs about the 'World' and 'Things' but said thoughts don't have to (And in a lit of cases don't. Blush ) comport to reality.

So..... where abouts in regards to reality is your deity?

Sorry for being breif/short. Time is limited.

Thumbsup
My Deity is the sheer will of existence.

I observe some atheists seem to be stuck in a physical reality, which I believe might shut off an access to "transcendent" as a reality.

It could be faulty observation on my part - I saw Penn Jillette saw Teller in half once.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 04:27 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 01:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Nowhere in anything you've said has there been anything about distinguishing a rock that "belongs" from one that doesn't. You don't seem to be able to present anything in a coherent manner or stick to a point.
So what you seem to be saying is that I cannot introduce a new idea or concept into the discussion.

Do you disagree that a piece of man-shaped obsidian laying in an archaeological dig, where the nearest source for natural obsidian is miles away, wouldn't be the basis to describe that piece of obsidian possessing "purpose" as a tool, as opposed to some random piece of obsidian laying on the ground?

(27-01-2017 01:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Good luck with that. Design only requires intelligent input if you limit the use to things that are intentionally designed.
AGreed. I just see the fingerprint of intelligence on a lot of things where you appear to recognize "design", but attribute a random occurrence as the author of that design.

(27-01-2017 01:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Intelligence is the product of a brain and we have exactly zero examples of intelligence that are not tied to a physical brain. There is simply no reason to believe that it is anything other than the product of a brain.
My hypothesis is Intelligence is a "thing", a "force", like gravity. And like gravity, intelligence is recognized by the human mind. It's studied, and it can even be predicted and harnessed. But intelligence is not a product of the human mind. It simply 'is", like gravity simply "is". Our comprehension and our ability to harness it doesn't make us its source or its author.

We could test the hypothesis, and you are free to rebut the findings.

(27-01-2017 01:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You can't define things into existence.
How do people discuss a concept if that concept has no name? That's just awkward. You place me back to "incredibly fortunate dumb and blind luck", and its jut easier to type "God".

(27-01-2017 01:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Word salad and woo. There is no "natural order of peace, justice and function".
Hypothesis - societies which have enjoyed peace, justice and order have been more productive and more successful at surviving than ones where these have not existed.

(27-01-2017 01:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I see no no need to try to gather positive things under a single umbrella. I especially see no need to label that "god" since that word has so much baggage attached to it. Your whole argument is semantics and Chopra-eqsue woo.
And yet you label as "atheist" and particpate in an atheist forum.

I'll take the Chopra reference as a back-handed compliment, I guess.

(27-01-2017 01:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You already have.
Well, technically, you have, not me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 04:40 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:27 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I just see the fingerprint of intelligence on a lot of things where you appear to recognize "design", but attribute a random occurrence as the author of that design.

Then why can't that "intelligence" cure cancer in innocent babies, and feed starving children ... or is THAT the "plan" to have innocent children suffer and die ?
Is THAT "intelligent design" ? Laugh out loadLaugh out load

We just had (IN THIS THREAD) the same bullshit from Tomato. When asked "how much is too much" *design* or what the actual cut-off or criteria for this "I see design" vs *no design* (a SUBJECTIVE judgment based on ignorance, with NO CRITERA) as we KNOW order arises spontaneously in this universe, they can never answer. This one can't either. We know the biochemical pathways much of Evolution took or could have taken, spontaneously.

So ok. WE'RE READY !
Let's have the great revelation already.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-01-2017, 04:56 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:10 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My deity is the sheer will of existence.

Facepalm
So then he's not really a Catholic. No Catholic would say that.
How not surprising.
The nut-of-the-week with his own definitions and his own little one-man cult.
Well this never happened before. Dodgy

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-01-2017, 05:12 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:10 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My Deity is the sheer will of existence.

Could you please elaborate on that?

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 05:32 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:10 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My Deity is the sheer will of existence.

Meaning what, exactly? Sounds like New Age nonsense, Chopra-speak.

Quote:I observe some atheists seem to be stuck in a physical reality, which I believe might shut off an access to "transcendent" as a reality.

When you have evidence of anything other than a physical reality, be sure to bring it.
Otherwise, you are spouting more gobbledygook.

Quote:It could be faulty observation on my part - I saw Penn Jillette saw Teller in half once.

No, you didn't. You saw the illusion of Penn Jillette sawing Teller in half.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-01-2017, 05:33 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:10 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My Deity is the sheer will of existence.
Nice deepity.

My guess is that even if you could unpack some meaning in that, it would end up associating a deity with something we already have a perfectly serviceable name for (e.g., will, consciousness, existence), therefore rendering the concept of a deity meaningless. And/or, it would be ascribing agency to something that doesn't actually have it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: