‹ First  < 11 12 13
 
   
 

Is your religion mythology?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
03 August 2019 15:35
 
EN - 03 August 2019 06:56 AM

Without faith it is impossible to please him.
Our rationality does not impress him

“Please him”??

“Impress him”??

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being need to be “pleased”? Or worshipped? Or impressed? He sounds pretty insecure if you ask me.

- he is the Logos, he created the laws of nature, he created rationality,

Did he? Would 2 + 2 not equal 4 if there were no God?

he doesn’t need us to impress him with that. But he knows that reason leads to pride,

How does reason “lead to pride”? And so what if it does?

You are dedicated to the destruction of faith.

Yes indeed! The kind of faith that motivates people to fly planes into buildings. Or withhold medical treatment form a sick child. Or to invade other countries under the banner of “righteous” wars. Or to hate people of a certain sexual persuasion because an ancient book declares it an abomination. We should rid the world of that sort of faith, don’t you agree?   

Then you argue that there is no evidence of God.

Because there isn’t. (at least not any objective and compelling evidence)

Rationality has its place and we have been given reason to apply to our daily life.  There is no prohibition against using it. But when it comes to the experience of God, faith is primary. Those are the rules.  If we do not experience God, it is because of lack of faith.  If you want to experience God, start with faith.

Why would a being want us to experience him, but play a game of hide and seek? If he wants us to experience him, why not just show himself? Would a parent who loves their child be absent from the child’s life, save for some letters left behind telling the child what the rules are? How can that possibly benefit the child? In fact, if your neighbor did that to their children you would be calling DCF in no time. So why the double standard for God?

The bottom line is that “faith” is a dead-end. Faith is just a hope for evidence to show up. Once the evidence is there, faith is tossed aside like yesterday’s newspaper.

Ron

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 August 2019 18:05
 

Again, the path to experience of God is faith.  You admit that you want to destroy faith, then complain that there is no evidence.  So, there is a house with a door.  You destroy the door and then complain that there is no evidence of entry to the house or evidence of knowledge of its contents. You don’t want to play by the rules. That’s OK, but some of us want to experience what we have found.  So there is not much hope of us reaching an understanding on this. I think I’ve invested about all I care to on this, as I see that any statement I make results in multiple questions, and my answers will not be accepted.  Thanks for the discussion.

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
05 August 2019 13:46
 
EN - 03 August 2019 06:05 PM

Again, the path to experience of God is faith.

And the path to faith for most is early childhood indoctrination. God seems to prefer undeveloped minds.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
05 August 2019 20:01
 
EN - 03 August 2019 06:05 PM

Again, the path to experience of God is faith.  You admit that you want to destroy faith, then complain that there is no evidence.  So, there is a house with a door.  You destroy the door and then complain that there is no evidence of entry to the house or evidence of knowledge of its contents. You don’t want to play by the rules. That’s OK, but some of us want to experience what we have found.  So there is not much hope of us reaching an understanding on this. I think I’ve invested about all I care to on this, as I see that any statement I make results in multiple questions, and my answers will not be accepted.  Thanks for the discussion.

To rephrase…

In order to obtain evidence to justify belief, you must first believe.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
06 August 2019 05:08
 
EN - 03 August 2019 06:05 PM

Again, the path to experience of God is faith.

Faith is also the path to experience Ganesh. Or Allah. Or Zeus. Or Xenu the galactic warrior of Scientology.Or ANYTHING else one fixates on. So obviously faith can’t be a reliable path to truth (assuming we care about what’s true).

You admit that you want to destroy faith, then complain that there is no evidence.

Don’t you also want to destroy the kind of faith that motivates people to fly planes into buildings, withhold medical treatment from a sick child, invade other countries under the banner of “righteous” wars, or hate people? That’s not a rhetorical question - I would like to hear your answer.

And faith is not “evidence” of anything. If so, then we have plenty of evidence for Ganesh, Zeus, etc. 

You don’t want to play by the rules.

But couldn’t I also say that YOU don’t want to play by the rules of Islam? Or Mormonism? Or Scientology?

That’s OK, but some of us want to experience what we have found.  So there is not much hope of us reaching an understanding on this. I think I’ve invested about all I care to on this, as I see that any statement I make results in multiple questions, and my answers will not be accepted.  Thanks for the discussion.

Just because your answers often generate further questions in my mind does not mean they were “not accepted.” If a doctor tells you that you have fibromyalgia and you press him to explain what that means, it does not mean that you don’t accept his diagnosis of fibromyalgia. But I do enjoy these discussions. And I always (truly) value your input. Thanks EN.

Ron

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
06 August 2019 09:58
 
EN - 03 August 2019 06:56 AM

Without faith it is impossible to please him.  Our rationality does not impress him - he is the Logos, he created the laws of nature, he created rationality, he doesn’t need us to impress him with that. But he knows that reason leads to pride, so he has placed faith as the threshold requirement for experiencing him. Once faith is removed, God’s presence (or the experience of it) has been removed. So whatever knowledge of God was possible has also been removed.  You are dedicated to the destruction of faith. Therefore, you participate in the removal of the path to God. Then you argue that there is no evidence of God. 

Rationality has its place and we have been given reason to apply to our daily life.  There is no prohibition against using it. But when it comes to the experience of God, faith is primary. Those are the rules.  If we do not experience God, it is because of lack of faith.  If you want to experience God, start with faith.

The gist of this seems pretty self evident to me, but for a couple of details, which may be semantic. If “faith” means accepting something as true despite the lack of evidence, and “knowledge” means accepting something as true because of evidence, then I’m not sure that “faith” makes any “knowledge” of God possible: “So whatever knowledge of God was possible has also been removed [once faith is removed].”

Also, I would argue that when it comes to God, evidence is just as irrelevant as knowledge: “Then you argue that there is no evidence of God.” Even with faith, there’s no evidence of God. That’s why “faith” is so important, isn’t it? If there were evidence of God, you wouldn’t need “faith.” You’d be like Brother Mario, who mistakes his own subjective (“concrete”) experiences for evidence, then claims to “know” God.

Here’s an analogy, probably a bad one, but nevertheless. I can’t claim to “know” that sentient life exists on other planets because there’s no evidence. But I nevertheless “believe” (or have faith) that sentient life does exist. Now that I have this faith that sentient life exists on other planets, what “knowledge” is made possible? And what evidence of sentient life is lost in the event that I lose my faith in it?

The reason it’s a bad analogy is because there are “rational” reasons for believing in sentient life, even without evidence. But suppose I believe in sentient life on other planets not because it exists here and there are lots of other planets out there and if it happened here it probably happened on other planets, too—not because of all that, but rather, because I had a vivid dream or hallucination in which I perceived the existence of sentient life on other planets. Who’s to say they didn’t beam a picture of themselves into my head? What counts as “knowledge” or “evidence” here?

As long as you leave evidence and knowledge out of it, your position seems pretty bulletproof to me.

 
 
‹ First  < 11 12 13