Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[GoAt]

to say you are EXPERIENCING god is like saying

im experiencing the flu, or happiness.

you make it seem that god is just somthing to happen to experience, not see or hear.

 

[Chrysaor]

So this is from an individual perspective limited by the sum of experiences much like faith. Say a person is experiencing GOD, how does he then not exist?

I think it differes from faith in that faith can often be unsubstantiated. If a person is experiencing god, then he exists. It's up to that person to figure out what he's experienced. Even though he now exists for that person, he does not exist for anyone else.

 

[ViSion]

to say you are EXPERIENCING god is like saying

im experiencing the flu, or happiness.

you make it seem that god is just somthing to happen to experience, not see or hear.

No, the subject matter was reality, what you are alluding to would be more aptly considered worship.

 

[Evil_Cope]

So this is from an individual perspective limited by the sum of experiences much like faith. Say a person is experiencing GOD, how does he then not exist?

Excuse the dumb question, but how does one "Experience" god, exactly? Quantify.

 

[GoAt]

No, the subject matter was reality, what you are alluding to would be more aptly considered worship.

omg... just stfu.

 

[ViSion]

I think it differes from faith in that faith can often be unsubstantiated. If a person is experiencing god, then he exists. It's up to that person to figure out what he's experienced. Even though he now exists for that person, he does not exist for anyone else.

I have to disagree an individuals reality can be just as unsubstantiated as faith. From your reasoning it can be deduced that self-actualization is the limit of ones experiences. So in essence no more than self existence can be realized. Interesting except I know there is more knowledge than I will be able to assimilate in my lifetime. So does this render all which I have no knowledge of unreal?

 

[ViSion]

Excuse the dumb question, but how does one "Experience" god, exactly? Quantify.

By the teachings of his written word.

 

[ViSion]

omg... just stfu.

Do you have personel issues you would like to discuss or is being crass just a way of life for you?

 

[QUALTHWAR]

..

I’ve repeatedly asked you to answer the question directly. Does that sound like I’m posing a rhetorical question to you?

“Indeed by your own words here your question was and still is a rhetorical question.”

What did I tell you? Huh? I said it wasn’t a rhetorical question. You had and still have an opportunity to answer the question directly, so it’s not rhetorical. It was also there for others to chime in and answer if they felt like it.

“Why does it matter that I only choose one of your answers if it was not intended to persuade or impress on a opinion.”

Think of it as a psychological test. You go in for a job interview and they give you a battery of tests. They give you a pencil and you shade in the circle that best describes your opinion. Do not shade in more than one circle. Lines drawn through the circle are incorrect. Partial shading is incorrect. An X or a checkmark in a circle is incorrect. Do not write on the test other than your name, etc., etc. You know the drill.

So here you are writing all over the test and wondering why you never got hired. It wasn’t:

A: The nerd
B: The hero
C: Other (Explain)

But to answer your question: why does it matter that you answer the question directly?

It matters to you. That’s a question that you should be asking yourself. How do you think people view you when you refuse to answer a simple question directly and honestly? How do you live with yourself?

“You just stated that you asked the question to see wether or not I would answer it. So basically you asked the question for effect making it a rhetorical question to which you have received more than one answer.”

I hoped you would answer it, but I suspected you might not because of my past experience with people in religious debates. Again, the question was there for you and for others to answer. I took out all the references to god and whatnot and made it an innocent question about children and an old man in a neighborhood; a question that any of those little kids could answer. A question that wasn’t loaded and only pertained to logic.

I’ve repeatedly asked you to answer the question directly. Honestly, does that sound like I’m asking a rhetorical question? If the question was asked rhetorically, I sure as hell wouldn’t be repeatedly asking you to answer it, now would I? Duh! I mentioned that I wondered if you’d answer it directly, but how does that imply it’s a rhetorical question, huh? Wondering if you’d answer the question directly, in fact, demonstrates that it’s not a rhetorical question. If it was a rhetorical question, I wouldn’t be expecting anything, now would I? But you know this, right? I mean, either you’re playing dumb, or you actually are dumb. Do you really want me to assume you’re dumb?

Sorry, you lose the argument on this rhetorical matter.

Look, you’re exhibiting a pattern that many religious people exhibit. You’ll get pinned down by logic and you can’t recover. You have no ammunition. Instead of thinking about the point that’s brought up, you choose to ignore it and walk around with blinders on thinking there’s some magical god looking over you and one day you’ll go to some magical place when you die. You’re like some little kid: Johnny, I’m trying to tell you if you keep drinking all that soda with sugar in it, you’re going to get a tooth ache. “No I won’t, Mom, I have strong teeth.” There’s no mulling over Mom’s comment. No “Maybe she’s right and I need to further research this.” Let me objectively start gathering data to determine if there’s some validity in what she says.

Maybe you should have been an ostrich.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

By the teachings of his written word.

Uh, do I need to state the obvious here? You have to assume it’s god’s teachings and writings and not man’s teachings and writings first. Some of us are not willing to make that assumption.

 

[Chrysaor]

I have to disagree an individuals reality can be just as unsubstantiated as faith. From your reasoning it can be deduced that self-actualization is the limit of ones experiences. So in essence no more than self existence can be realized. Interesting except I know there is more knowledge than I will be able to assimilate in my lifetime. So does this render all which I have no knowledge of unreal?

Faith seems to be a concrete belief, the word reality implies more possibility for change.

Self-actualization works through experiences and only works when we understand our life in a way that is no longer limiting.

I would say self-nonexistence can be realized, but yes, that is all we will ever truly "know".

Everything you don't know is unreal, yes.

 

[Evil_Cope]

By the teachings of his written word.

I wasn't asking for the evangelical answer, my friend.

I mean, i experience a flower, for example, by seeing, smelling, touching, etc. I experience a sense of happiness as a warm flush throughout my body, triggered i am assured by the release of chemicals and neurotoxins or whatever.

I do not mean, what is the path to god, but rather, what does this theoretical person who experiences god, (thus proving theoretically and at least to themselves) that God exists, actually experience?

God is not the bible and vica versa.

 

[ViSion]

Uh, do I need to state the obvious here? You have to assume it’s god’s teachings and writings and not man’s teachings and writings first. Some of us are not willing to make that assumption.

Well a question was asked I gave an answer and yet your still unhappy?

 

[Mister_Prophet]

catfuzz still needs to explain why jews are gods chosen but christians arent.

why does Cat Fuzz have to answer that?

 

[ViSion]

I wasn't asking for the evangelical answer, my friend.

I mean, i experience a flower, for example, by seeing, smelling, touching, etc. I experience a sense of happiness as a warm flush throughout my body, triggered i am assured by the release of chemicals and neurotoxins or whatever.

I do not mean, what is the path to god, but rather, what does this theoretical person who experiences god, (thus proving theoretically and at least to themselves) that God exists, actually experience?

God is not the bible and vica versa.

If you do not like the answer ask a different question then. Let me ask you a question. I just had a piece of fruit an orange was it sweet or was it sour?

 

[Mister_Prophet]

I just had a piece of fruit was it sweet or was it sour?

Depends on the fruit.

 

[bobtheking]

Where have I given a crooked answer?

If you are constantly veiwing things outside the realm of your understanding as a negative or an impossibility. Does this form of thinking render them unreal?

how is this an answer to the question? the question is either yes, or no. as far as i can tell your answer was essentially "i could tell you but you wouldn't understand".

 

[QUALTHWAR]

I have to disagree an individuals reality can be just as unsubstantiated as faith. From your reasoning it can be deduced that self-actualization is the limit of ones experiences. So in essence no more than self existence can be realized. Interesting except I know there is more knowledge than I will be able to assimilate in my lifetime. So does this render all which I have no knowledge of unreal?

Are you for real?

That’s some mighty fine, craptacular philosophical reasoning you have going on there.

People reason their way through life. They are confronted with situations and they try to reason their way through them with the knowledge that they have, relative to their mental capacity. It’s that freakin’ simple.

You can go on and on about stuff like: If I hold a penny in my hand, am I really holding a penny in my hand? and take a bong hit at the same time, but when the smoke clears, you better assume for the sake of argument that you’re holding a penny in your hand or make an appointment to be custom-fitted for a straightjacket.

If someone came up to you and said they could click their heals together and grow to be a million feet tall, do you hold any faith that this is true? Probably not. You’d probably think they were crazy. If the same person started pissing on your leg and told you it was raining, would you believe him? Let’s they pissed on some person who was mentally challenged and that person did believe it was raining. This demonstrates how faith is a judgment call.

The mentally challenged might remember standing out in the rain and getting wet and they don’t suspect a person pissing on them and bull****ting about it. Reasoning for this person is governed by knowledge and mental capacity. These qualities are what we use to determine what’s real and what is fictitious.

Yes, we have faith in all sorts of things: faith that when we throw a penny in the air in our bedroom that it’s going to fall and not float around. Faith that a bird flying overhead is not going to lose all of its feathers in mid-flight and plummet to earth. But there are varying degrees of faith. We have faith in these things I’ve mentioned because we know they make sense and the chances that we’ll be proven wrong are small. The chances are so small that if someone wanted to bet the bird flying over would lose all its feathers and fall out of the sky, you’d probably take that bet.

Now, you can wonder just because you can’t see a god if he’s real; and if faith is a good enough reason to believe, but you might want to remember that you base faith, pretty much like everything else in your world, on odds. The odds that your brakes will work when you push the pedal down. The odds it’s not a waste of time to do laundry today because the moon isn’t going to slam into us tomorrow and wipe us out. The odds that the scientists know what they’re doing and the vitamin C pill you’re taking isn’t going to make your arms fall off. You kind of have to use your head with some of this stuff.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Well a question was asked I gave an answer and yet your still unhappy?

I’m just pointing out the obvious. EC wanted to know how you’re supposed to experience god. You say by his writings and teachings.

If there aren’t any of “his teachings and writings,” he cannot do as you suggest. You’re telling him to do something that’s impossible, and then you’re asking me if I’m unhappy with that.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

A teacher once responded to me once when I asked the question, "If God exists how come I can't feel his presence?" And this teacher told me, "You know the wind is real and You can't see it. You know Gravity is real and you can't see it either. You have faith that these things exist despite the fact that you cannot see them."

Vision's replies remind me alot of that same scenario. I didn't simply ask "If I couldn't see God how can I know he is there?" But I actually asked "How come I can't feel his presence?" Someone like Vision will respond to such a question in such a way that seems smart and thoughtful (to him) but it really is dodging the issue.

I can't see the wind but I can feel it. I can see hurricanes tear through villages. I can see the air as it collects dust and pulverises a desert.

I can't see gravity but if I allow myself to fall backwards I will bash my ass.

The page or two before this someone asked Vision (I believe it was Cope) to explain how he feels God's presence. He sidestepped. Is it such a hard question?