Beliefs [Archive] - JREF Forum

sparklecat

22nd January 2004, 04:12 AM

Heh. Before I forget, I have some credit to give as to my being able to do this.

First and most importantly, to a poster many here will know, Martin. Debating with him over the past... almost a year now lead to the realization that God is not logically necessary, through his debunking of pretty much all of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, including spending an entire day trying to teach me quantum mechanics in relation to the first cause argument. Also for causing me to rethink my notions about God and justice in relation to Hell, realizing that I had a very large problem with the idea of Martin in Hell and didn't think much of his needing to be tortured for all eternity, and for just plain being my friend in all matters. :) There's so much more I could say, but I wouldn't be here now if it wasn't for you- you reminded me of my earlier skepticism and the need to be honest in examining my beliefs, while yourself wanting nothing more than for the truth to win out. Thank you.

To another poster you'll know of, Winace- for one of the most thought-provoking things I've ever read regarding free will and how technically we can't have it in the sense that Christianity requires. He didn't know then how much of an impact his words would have on me, but I can honestly say it was this argument that eventually ruined Christianity for me.

To my college advisor and History of Israel teacher, for causing me to realize that the Bible is not inerrant, therefore clearing the way for all of this, as well as a belief in evolution.

Richard Carrier, who wrote on why he didn't buy the Resurrection story, including the fact that there actually aren't any relevant martyrs of Christ's time, which is all my belief has been resting on for awhile now. That truly was the nail in the coffin, and really quite a relief, as Christianity hadn't been making sense.

And finally, to my Christian friends who assured me they would be my friends regardless of what I believed :) If they hadn't done so, I doubt I would have had the courage to do this.

Naturally, so many others deserve my thanks, not the least for sticking by me and helping me realize the need to be true to myself and honest... but I wanted to thank specifically those who had the greatest impact upon me in this instance. I honestly love you for it.

Justine

LuxFerum

22nd January 2004, 04:25 AM

Congratulations Splarklecat!!!

:)

ceptimus

22nd January 2004, 05:09 AM

I never realized you were a Christian, sparklecat. I was indoctrinated myself as a child, but with me, it never really 'took' so I don't remember experiencing the enlightenment that the whole Christian system might all be wrong. Hope you work things out to your own satisfaction - that's what's most important, I think.

Marc

22nd January 2004, 05:15 AM

Welcome to the club Sparklecat! :)

Any questions you have feel free to ask. We can help with those remaining bits of 'evidence'.

Funny thing, I was raised catholic, but was never very religious. Just wasn't interested. Then I became an atheist, since then I've read the bible, the book of mormon, and plenty of stuff discussing religion.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
Last night I realized that I don't actually believe Christianity is true anymore. I think its internally inconsistent, and while I do still have some evidence to deal with, I don't think its going to turn out in favor of Christianity, because the system isn't capable of accurately defining our world.

I feel like I'm a bit at loose ends now as to what I am, what I believe :) How I define myself, see the world... how it all fits together. I've been a Christian for over two years... a defender of the faith, active in apologetics, etc. Now... I don't know really, I have a lot to shift about mentally.There you go. I knew you weren't cut out to be a christian. A deist maybe, although you'll probably end up believing what I do: "If there really is a god, he IS off somewhere playing dice with the universe, not jumping to our every whim" :D

What does this change mean to your thoughts about homosexuality? Abortion? And that other matter :p

sparklecat

22nd January 2004, 05:24 AM

Hey now, don't rush me, I'm still adjusting to the whole there is no God thing :p Including issues of capitalization and such too...

Well gee, looks like I have to build a system of morality for myself now rather than believing what others tell me to. There's much to do.

Nah, I did kinda suck as a Christian. Never could do the emotional appeals stuff and actually told others not to believe if the evidence seemed against it to them.

sparklecat

22nd January 2004, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
... I don't remember experiencing the enlightenment that the whole Christian system might all be wrong...

It really is enlightenment. I actually remember when I first became a Christian, wanting to share my newfound knowledge/way of seeing things with others... I feel the same now and its exhilirating really.

No fear. I'm not scared that if I'm wrong I'll go to Hell- because its just not true :)

It feels great.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
No fear. I'm not scared that if I'm wrong I'll go to Hell- because its just not true :)If there really is a god who sends good people like you and me to hell, I wouldn't even want to be in heaven. All the cool people would be in hell anyway ;)

Anyway, he would appreciate the skeptics among us who use our brain the way he gave it to us much more than those who burry it in the ground and don't want to learn anything new because it might mean they have to change their mind.

Now where did I hear that parable before :D

CFLarsen

22nd January 2004, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
Well gee, looks like I have to build a system of morality for myself now rather than believing what others tell me to. There's much to do.

Unless you meant it as a joke (in which case I'm a doofus), why would you have to build a system of morality? As far as I remember, you did not wear prison clothes at TAM2, have an ABP after you (A Big Policeman), or exhibited particularly immoral behavior (but then, I wasn't there at the Pajama Party, so.... ;)). You were even eating chocolate in a reasonably civilized manner (unlike some baldy, who was positively drooling).

It seems to me you're doing fine as it is.

"Don't kill" seems like a good place to start, as well as "Do unto others, except perhaps Osama bin Laden and telemarketers". Keep out of jail, don't kick grandmothers or kids (well, perhaps kids are OK to kick), and wear a seatbelt whilst driving.

That ought to do it. ;)

Dancing David

22nd January 2004, 07:11 AM

I have always believed since my deconversion that the teachings of Jesus are not a bad thing, his suggested lifestyle is a rather interesting one.

It is why I decry peter and saul, they really messed up the church.

Upchurch

22nd January 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
I feel like I'm a bit at loose ends now as to what I am, what I believe :) How I define myself, see the world... how it all fits together. I've been a Christian for over two years... a defender of the faith, active in apologetics, etc. Now... I don't know really, I have a lot to shift about mentally. May I recommend this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20282)? As trite as it sounds, it actually helped my wife and I find a religious organization that we could both agree on.

Doubt

22nd January 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
I feel like I'm a bit at loose ends now as to what I am, what I believe :) How I define myself, see the world... how it all fits together. I've been a Christian for over two years... a defender of the faith, active in apologetics, etc. Now... I don't know really, I have a lot to shift about mentally.

Defining yourself now may be scary without the external reference provided by religion. In the end it is simple. You and your life are what you make of it.

Marquis de Carabas

22nd January 2004, 08:39 AM

I feel like I'm a bit at loose ends now as to what I am, what I believe How I define myself, see the world... how it all fits together. I've been a Christian for over two years... a defender of the faith, active in apologetics, etc. Now... I don't know really, I have a lot to shift about mentally.

I think it might be wise not to put to much emphasis on "defining" yourself. Rather, the important thing is to define how you will think about situations and problems you face. Without religion, you will probably (and you seem to) be thinking rationally about the things around you. Continue to do so, and your self-definition will evolve itself.

It is easy, coming from a religious background, to think that one's beliefs about god, spirits, and the afterlife are the defining features of life. For the religious, this is usually the case. They view everything through their beliefs. Atheists, agnostics, and the like (at least, this atheist) view everything from a critical thinking standpoint, including the atheism itself. It is not the core of my system of thought, but a consequence of it. It seems the same might be said of you (if atheist is not too strong a word to stomach yet...took me years).

All as a long-winded way of saying: define yourself as a rational, thinking being, and let everything else follow.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Doubt
Defining yourself now may be scary without the external reference provided by religion. In the end it is simple. You and your life are what you make of it.Exactly, it's all much easier now. Start off with those things that are important to you, and continue from there. No need to make it fit into the modern world while making it conform to an outdated book.

What you should avoid at all cost though is trying to convince others your newfound truth is the only right way, because it's only YOUR truth, and your view of the world. Leave the preaching to the christians :)

Ladyhawk

22nd January 2004, 08:43 AM

Sparkle;

Before seeing the light, I had been a very devout and defensive Christian. In coming to terms with the reality of things and (based on the test that Upchurch provided a link to) discovering that I was 100% Secular Humanist, I initially felt some pangs of loss. Once I realized that there wasn't a higher order or deity to blame my lot in life on, I was saturated with an overwhelming sense of responsibility. No afterlife? No heaven? No one to ask for help, guidance or intervention? It was a little frightening at first.

Then, I realized what great freedom came with being loosed from those shackles. I began to look to humankind for answers and accountability. But, it was a slow process. Don't be surprised if doubt returns from time to time.

Some may argue that atheists have no appreciation for life or humanity; that we're basically immoral because we have no belief system. I say that we appreciate life all that much more because we have a deeper understanding of how finite it is. We don't engage in compassionate acts in favor of some future reward but because we realize the reward is here and now. I actually find myself feeling sympathy for those who defend what they believe to be "God's Word" and forsaking common sense and logic, as a result. They've got one turn on this planet and they're not living their lives out to the fullest....

Whatever conclusions you draw for yourself and decide to live by, I sincerely hope they serve you well, in every aspect of your life. Best of everything to you!

exarch

22nd January 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
It is easy, coming from a religious background, to think that one's beliefs about god, spirits, and the afterlife are the defining features of life. For the religious, this is usually the case. They view everything through their beliefs. Atheists, agnostics, and the like (at least, this atheist) view everything from a critical thinking standpoint, including the atheism itself. It is not the core of my system of thought, but a consequence of it. It seems the same might be said of you (if atheist is not too strong a word to stomach yet...took me years).I may have said this to Sparklecat before, but it is true that a religious person's entire world view is based on the belief in a deity. anything they say, anything they do, is rooted in this belief, so trying to explain things to them that aren't working from that assumption are often difficult for them to comprehend. It IS a defining feature of their life.

As a result they will often not recognise their own circular reasoning, and tell doubters to pray to the god he/she is now doubting, because they can't conceive the dilemma the doubter is facing. In fact, praying to god seems to be their answer to most of life's problems and questions :rolleyes:

Maybe the first thing you need to figure out is whether you disbelieve god, or just decide to ignore the presence or non-presence of a deity for now.

(Edited for clarity)

frisian

22nd January 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by exarch
If there really is a god who sends good people like you and me to hell, I wouldn't even want to be in heaven. All the cool people would be in hell anyway ;)

Anyway, he would appreciate the skeptics among us who use our brain the way he gave it to us much more than those who burry it in the ground and don't want to learn anything new because it might mean they have to change their mind.

Now where did I hear that parable before :D

Heh.

Who suggested God sends "good" people to hell? Where did you get that understanding or interpretation?

From there you would assert "cool" people would be in hell anyway? How do you define cool people? Are they different than "rad"?

Which god are you referring to?

Which parable are you referring to, that speaks of skepticism?

Or was there a parable of the "cool" people?

:bgrin:

Mona

22nd January 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by exarch
:D

What does this change mean to your thoughts about homosexuality? Abortion? And that other matter :p

I underwent a similar "enlightenment" that Sparklecat appears to have experienced, back in the 80s, by reading skeptical literature. My relgious ex actually brought me home from work the first issue of The Zetetic that I encountered, and thereafter I devoured skeptical literature.

In my case, however, I WANTED Catholicism not to be true, and was eager to find arguments that it was not; I felt trapped in it.

That all said, it *is* possible and rational to be a non-theist who has moral reservations about abortion. I'm one of them, and there are others, e.g., Nat Hentoff or Christopher Hitchens.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by exarch
I may have said this to Sparklecat before, but it is true that a religious person's entire world view is based on the belief in a deity. anything they say, anything they do, is rooted in this belief, so trying to explain things to them that aren't working from that assumption are often difficult for them to comprehend. It IS a defining feature of their life.

As a result they will often not recognise their own circular reasoning, and tell doubters to pray to the god he/she is now doubting, because they can't conceive the dilemma the doubter is facing. In fact, praying to god seems to be their answer to most of life's problems and questions :rolleyes:

Maybe the first thing you need to figure out is whether you disbelieve god, or just decide to ignore the presence or non-presence of a deity for now.

(Edited for clarity)

That's absurd. A religious person does only which is rooted in their belief?

It is difficult to understand things without stepping outside of ones assumptions? Ah, I see you have that problem nailed down. I don't have a problem at all stepping outside of assumptions.

Perhaps you don't understand that all reasoning can be circular. One would just need to enlarge the circle. You do understand that critical thinking can be circular as well and not necessarily linear.

Who can't conceive the dilemma the doubter is facing? Where did you get this idea from? Another assumption?

frisian

22nd January 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Mona
That all said, it *is* possible and rational to be a non-theist who has moral reservations about abortion. I'm one of them, and there are others, e.g., Nat Hentoff or Christopher Hitchens.

You are kidding me, and I was going to just assume exarch's stereotypical assertions and assumptions were correct.

:p

Ruby

22nd January 2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
Last night I realized that I don't actually believe Christianity is true anymore. I think its internally inconsistent, and while I do still have some evidence to deal with, I don't think its going to turn out in favor of Christianity, because the system isn't capable of accurately defining our world.

I feel like I'm a bit at loose ends now as to what I am, what I believe :) How I define myself, see the world... how it all fits together. I've been a Christian for over two years... a defender of the faith, active in apologetics, etc. Now... I don't know really, I have a lot to shift about mentally.

Take your time.......enjoy the new journey. I was a Christian for over ten years. I was still a Christian when I came on here. This forum helped changed my life. It's been a wonderful eye opening journey so far. I am a secular Humanist now. I am happier and more free. I was so trapped and chained as a Christian.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by frisian
That's absurd. A religious person does only which is rooted in their belief?

It is difficult to understand things without stepping outside of ones assumptions? Ah, I see you have that problem nailed down. I don't have a problem at all stepping outside of assumptions.

Perhaps you don't understand that all reasoning can be circular. One would just need to enlarge the circle. You do understand that critical thinking can be circular as well and not necessarily linear.

Who can't conceive the dilemma the doubter is facing? Where did you get this idea from? Another assumption?And here I thought you were one of the more enlightened christians who don't see the need to preach to everyone. I make one comment about most of the folks on RR, and you start bashing me. :rolleyes:

I make these observations from what little I can, at the moment, read of the RR board.
Like I already said, it appears most of the people there are unable to make some of the logical conclusions most people here make. They are stuck with the "above all, believe in god" rule. They have invested too much of their lives into this belief to be able to ignore it.

The fact they can't conceive the dilemma of the doubter is not an assumption, it is something which I have seen and read. With the exception of a few people, nobody is offering answers to their questions, instead, they just suggest lots of prayer and warn about denouncing god and eternal damnation. People like Sparklecat are just showered with the same old BS until they just say "thank you very much" and decide to look for answers elsewhere.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by frisian
Heh.

Who suggested God sends "good" people to hell? Where did you get that understanding or interpretation?

From there you would assert "cool" people would be in hell anyway? How do you define cool people? Are they different than "rad"?Well, Ghandi is in hell, he wasn't a christian, he didn't believe in the right god. There are plenty of people, including myself, who I consider "good people" and who won't go to heaven according to christian belief because they either adhere to the wrong religion or don't believe at all or simply have done something iredeemably evil according to one hypocritical closet-homosexual apostle.

Which god are you referring to?

Which parable are you referring to, that speaks of skepticism?

Or was there a parable of the "cool" people?I guess my joke was too vague even for a believer. I will explain myself further:
I am talking about the parable of the three sons who each get coins from their father.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by frisian
You are kidding me, and I was going to just assume exarch's stereotypical assertions and assumptions were correct.so are you now assuming that because I ask a question about her stance on those things, I think she is now pro abortion?

I ask because I would genuinly like to know her stance on those issues now the punishment of eternal damnation is no longer part of the decisionmaking process :rolleyes:

frisian

22nd January 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by exarch
And here I thought you were one of the more enlightened christians who don't see the need to preach to everyone. I make one comment about most of the folks on RR, and you start bashing me. :rolleyes:

I I make these observations from what little I can, at the moment, read of the RR board.
Like I already said, it appears most of the people there are unable to make some of the logical conclusions most people here make. They are stuck with the "above all, believe in god" rule. They have invested too much of their lives into this belief to be able to consider anything else.

The fact they can't conceive the dilemma of the doubter is not an assumption, it is something which I have seen and read. With the exception of a few people, nobody is offering answers to their questions, instead, they just suggest lots of prayer and warn about denouncing god and eternal damnation. People like Sparklecat are just showered with the same old BS until they just say "thank you very much" and decide to look for answers elsewhere.

I don't feel the need to preach to anyone. I don't save souls, or propose wagers from Pascal.

Bashing your broad based assertions, damn right. You personally, no.

Indeed I agree that SOME cannot understand one doubting, nor can SOME stomach as much. If you had access to Apologetics you would see my assertions that relate to such as well as my challenges to this concept of "no doubt allowed".

Once again you are incorrect and you did not see the threads that Sparklecat proposed her doubt and looked for answers unless she copied and pasted them for you. The suggestion that nobody proposed answers is not correct. People did not solely suggest prayer, suggestions of damnation were not the only assertions directed at her. Did some of that as described go on? Yes. What is merely in my opinion bad answers were given, simplistic ones. By all, nope. Your assertions are broad based and not accurate.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Well, Ghandi is in hell, he wasn't a christian, he didn't believe in the right god. There are plenty of people, including myself, who I consider "good people" and who won't go to heaven according to christian belief because they either adhere to the wrong religion or don't believe at all or simply have done something iredeemably evil according to one hypocritical closet-homosexual apostle.

I guess my joke was too vague even for a believer. I will explain myself further:
I am talking about the parable of the three sons who each get coins from their father.

Ghandi is in hell? I wouldn't pretend to have such knowledge. Any evidence for such?

Ah, the ole' closet homosexual argument. I like that one. What if Paul was a homosexual? What would that determine?

So what does this parable mean?

frisian

22nd January 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by exarch
so are you now assuming that because I ask a question about her stance on those things, I think she is now pro abortion?

I ask because I would genuinly like to know her stance on those issues now the punishment of eternal damnation is no longer part of the decisionmaking process :rolleyes:

No sir, I was just making a broad based assumption without absolute knowledge, perhaps I was too vague for even an unbeliever? ;)

Abortion is related to eternal damnation?

I admit that I freely associate concepts, but you lost me on that one.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Mona
That all said, it *is* possible and rational to be a non-theist who has moral reservations about abortion. I'm one of them, and there are others, e.g., Nat Hentoff or Christopher Hitchens.To clarify myself, as this is obviously needed to make Frisian take the finger of the trigger.

I too am personally opposed to abortion, however, I feel it is every woman's (in fact, every person's) right to do with her own body as she wants. I would however not like the idea of my girlfriend/wife having an abortion unless it was necessary to save her life. It is her decision though.
I also think there is only a certain time during early pregnancy where it is acceptable, whereas partial birth abortion is just not right in any but the most extreme circumstances.

Now lets drop the whole abortion discussion because it's just a time bomb waiting to go off

Bearguin

22nd January 2004, 11:05 AM

exarch

22nd January 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by frisian
Bashing your broad based assertions, damn right. You personally, no.I didn't make any assumptions about "all" christians whatsoever, no matter how much you would like to read that in my response :rolleyes:

Indeed I agree that SOME cannot understand one doubting, nor can SOME stomach as much. If you had access to Apologetics you would see my assertions that relate to such as well as my challenges to this concept of "no doubt allowed".

Once again you are incorrect and you did not see the threads that Sparklecat proposed her doubt and looked for answers unless she copied and pasted them for you. The suggestion that nobody proposed answers is not correct. People did not solely suggest prayer, suggestions of damnation were not the only assertions directed at her. Did some of that as described go on? Yes. What is merely in my opinion bad answers were given, simplistic ones. By all, nope. Your assertions are broad based and not accurate.She copy and paste some to me. All I saw was a few (one?) voices of reason, and a whole lot of "we love you Sparkle" and "pray to the lord and you will see the truth" and even some holier than thou cr*p, not a lot of actual help finding her answers.

I think it's interesting it happens to be called apologetics, since often it seems to be about making up excuses for how or why biblical passages contradict each other and/or reality.

I also don't recall saying "nobody proposed answers", but rather "With the exception of a few people, nobody is offering answers to their questions".

My observations might seem broad based, but I have been carefull to make sure they aren't, because I know one size doesn't fit all. Maybe you were a bit quick to accuse me.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 11:18 AM

Suezoled

22nd January 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
(snipped)

I feel like I'm a bit at loose ends now as to what I am, what I believe :) How I define myself, see the world... how it all fits together. I've been a Christian for over two years... a defender of the faith, active in apologetics, etc. Now... I don't know really, I have a lot to shift about mentally.

No one is allowed to date my daughter while she is confused. :D

exarch

22nd January 2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by frisian
Ghandi is in hell? I wouldn't pretend to have such knowledge. Any evidence for such?Funny you should say that. I of course, don't believe in hell, so no, ghandi is most definitely NOT in hell. I'm just saying that according to biblical litteralism, he is.

Ah, the ole' closet homosexual argument. I like that one. What if Paul was a homosexual? What would that determine?Again, for me, nothing, except to clarify his motives to write what he did. For people who believe everything he wrote literally and use it to condemn an entire group of people for the way they were born, well, I don't know how their brain works, but I would assume it would create quite a stir among them. Like I said, I consider myself tolerable, and after reading Sparkle's views on homosexuality, I'm now interested in hearing what she has to say about those she formerly thought of as hellbent sinners.

So what does this parable mean?You know what this parable means. I'll explain it for those who might not know: it's about not wasting your potential. About taking your talents and make them go as far as you can.

In the joke I made, I meant it to mean that those who ask questions learn new things, and will often also strengthen their religious faith because of it, those who don't just wallow in their cozy self deception without risking to shatter the delusion to find out if it really is the truth they want it so very much to be. They are, in a way, wasting their potential.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by exarch
I didn't make any assumptions about "all" christians whatsoever, no matter how much you would like to read that in my response :rolleyes:

She copy and paste some to me. All I saw was a few (one?) voices of reason, and a whole lot of "we love you Sparkle" and "pray to the lord and you will see the truth" and even some holier than thou cr*p, not a lot of actual help finding her answers.

I think it's interesting it happens to be called apologetics, since often it seems to be about making up excuses for how or why biblical passages contradict each other and/or reality.

I also don't recall saying "nobody proposed answers", but rather "With the exception of a few people, nobody is offering answers to their questions".

My observations might seem broad based, but I have been carefull to make sure they aren't, because I know one size doesn't fit all. Maybe you were a bit quick to accuse me.

That is how I read it via the symbols you used to communicate. I stand corrected then.

Those that gave simplistic answers to difficult and sincere theological questions, and make accusations to her motives I addressed there. I don't care to, nor would I defend them as they aren't my statements. When your comments were seen as broad based, they then included my comments and others in relation to her. That is to what I am responding, because those comments do not fit me or all.

I don't make excuses nor does everyone for what appears as biblical contradictions, some indeed do. A sincere attempt at reconciling seeming contradictions can often appear as excuse making I would think. Unlike some, I don't pretend to have all the answers, nor look to make up something in order to find a quick fix.

Perhaps I was too quick to add perceived meaning to what you posted. Thanks for clarifying.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by frisian
No sir, I was just making a broad based assumption without absolute knowledge, perhaps I was too vague for even an unbeliever? ;)Oh, I got your comment alright. I was just wondering, since you also seemed to interpret my earlier comments as stereotypical assertions and assumptions :p

Abortion is related to eternal damnation?

I admit that I freely associate concepts, but you lost me on that one.Sinning in general, which those actions are often said to be, is bad, if I remember correctly. Maybe you are a member of some form of christianity I'm not familiar with, but I could've sworn that sinning was considered to be bad by most, if not all of them, and going to hell is the punishment you receive for indulging in them.

I would still like to know what Sparkle's point of view is regarding these activities now that she no longer considers them sins, and doesn't think she needs to save people from going to hell if they partake in those actions.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Funny you should say that. I of course, don't believe in hell, so no, ghandi is most definitely NOT in hell. I'm just saying that according to biblical litteralism, he is.

Again, for me, nothing, except to clarify his motives to write what he did. For people who believe everything he wrote literally and use it to condemn an entire group of people for the way they were born, well, I don't know how their brain works, but I would assume it would create quite a stir among them. Like I said, I consider myself tolerable, and after reading Sparkle's views on homosexuality, I'm now interested in hearing what she has to say about those she formerly thought of as hellbent sinners.

You know what this parable means. I'll explain it for those who might not know: it's about not wasting your potential. About taking your talents and make them go as far as you can.

In the joke I made, I meant it to mean that those who ask questions learn new things, and will often also strengthen their religious faith because of it, those who don't just wallow in their cozy self deception without risking to shatter the delusion to find out if it really is the truth they want it so very much to be. They are, in a way, wasting their potential.

Biblical literalism? Which Bible? Which language or translation? Which doctrine? Which subjective interpretation?

I see so not knowing you very well, I would need to know you better to know your motivation and not just accept what you say at face value.

Paul condemned homosexuals? Could be, I don't have the bible memorized and I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda. Do you have a verse in mind?

Hmmm, well I will let her answer that as I was not aware that she thought homosexuals were hell bent.

Now understanding the "joke", I mostly agree. But I wouldn't care to instruct someone that they need to evaluate their beliefs or that their potential is only comprised of intellect. The talents given vary.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Oh, I got your comment alright. I was just wondering, since you also seemed to interpret my earlier comments as stereotypical assertions and assumptions :p

Sinning in general, which those actions are often said to be, is bad, if I remember correctly. Maybe you are a member of some form of christianity I'm not familiar with, but I could've sworn that sinning was considered to be bad by most, if not all of them, and going to hell is the punishment you receive for indulging in them.

I would still like to know what Sparkle's point of view is regarding these activities now that she no longer considers them sins, and doesn't think she needs to save people from going to hell if they partake in those actions.

Certainly it is asserted than sinning is bad, yet all sin. Within my flawed Christian paradigm, I don't see how abortion is any more or less a sin than hatred.

I would say naturalistic effects could be said to be punishments for sin, what is referred to as eternal punishment for sin is "applied" to those that don't accept Christ as the sacrifice for their sin. They don't cease to sin.

Aye, I would like to know her point of view as well. I imagine she is still formulating such, does a skeptic ever "sit still" or reach any permanent conclusion?

exarch

22nd January 2004, 11:59 AM

exarch

22nd January 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by frisian
Biblical literalism? Which Bible? Which language or translation? Which doctrine? Which subjective interpretation?Good question, since there's probably no idea so far out you won't find a biblical passage somewhere that might appear to support it.

I see so not knowing you very well, I would need to know you better to know your motivation and not just accept what you say at face value.When there is an argument about whether what any of them said was really the word of god, or just their own interpretation of things, than yes, it's important to know what coloured his view of the world.

Paul condemned homosexuals? Could be, I don't have the bible memorized and I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda. Do you have a verse in mind?None in particular no, but he is most often quoted by fanatic anti-gay proponents, along with the verse about "not lying with a man as one would with a woman", which I believe was a condemnation of temple prostitution.

Hmmm, well I will let her answer that as I was not aware that she thought homosexuals were hell bent.Only if they didn't repress their feelings but acted on them. Something like that anyway. Which I thought was rather intollerant, although not as bad as thinking *all* homosexuals are sinners.

Now understanding the "joke", I mostly agree. But I wouldn't care to instruct someone that they need to evaluate their beliefs or that their potential is only comprised of intellect. The talents given vary.Sure, but as most skeptics, and a fair amount of the more open minded christians will agree with, asking yourself the difficult questions will only lead you closer to the answers you're searching for and clear up the confusion. I have respect for people who have asked themselves the difficult questions and still believe in God, usually even firmer than before, usually also more tolerant. I don't think people who make up excuses and lies to keep their self deception alive deserve my admiration. Usually they get more defensive and more hateful. That's just my experience.
:con2:

frisian

22nd January 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by exarch
Good question, since there's probably no idea so far out you won't find a biblical passage somewhere that might appear to support it.

When there is an argument about whether what any of them said was really the word of god, or just their own interpretation of things, than yes, it's important to know what coloured his view of the world.

None in particular no, but he is most often quoted by fanatic anti-gay proponents, along with the verse about "not lying with a man as one would with a woman", which I believe was a condemnation of temple prostitution.

Only if they didn't repress their feelings but acted on them. Something like that anyway. Which I thought was rather intollerant, although not as bad as thinking *all* homosexuals are sinners.

Sure, but as most skeptics, and a fair amount of the more open minded christians will agree with, asking yourself the difficult questions will only lead you closer to the answers you're searching for and clear up the confusion. I have respect for people who have asked themselves the difficult questions and still believe in God, usually even firmer than before, usually also more tolerant. I don't think people who make up excuses and lies to keep their self deception alive deserve my admiration. Usually they get more defensive and more hateful. That's just my experience.
:con2:

I am not certain that using one Bible verse by itself can defend ones argument. I don't find that I need to use the Bible to address every question.

Since there are no qualifications needed to be an "apologetic", you will get all sorts of answers which can make things quite confusing.

By looking at his mere words how would you know this coloring?

Oh in general I am certain the Bible declares homosexuality as sin.

Side note - you view intolerance as bad? Are you tolerant (per se) of illogical viewpoints?

I am not of the belief that the path of knowledge taken is necessarily identical. Nor are the benefits always the same. Some people would best not think. :D

What are some of these lies and excuses from your view?

exarch

22nd January 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by frisian
Aye, I would like to know her point of view as well. I imagine she is still formulating such, does a skeptic ever "sit still" or reach any permanent conclusion?Only one, which is that we'll never know anything for sure, which, if I may make a broad statement, seems to be one of the other big differences with religion. Skepticism, and indeed science, means constantly changing your opinion to comply with the evidence available. Unfortunately, many christians (I use the word "many" again, not "all") seem to be doing the exact opposite, and try to cling to the view of the world and society as people thought it to be 2000 years ago. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but they aren't giving other ideas a fair chance, and even, on occasion, ignoring generally accepted facts.

Also, believeing in the existence of god is the one irrefutable fact you have to believe in (believe it is an irrefutable fact that is). Until you come to the permanent conclusion (?) that there is indeed a god, your belief will remain susceptible to doubts at best.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by exarch
Only one, which is that we'll never know anything for sure,

And even that "we" are uncertain of?

:p

exarch

22nd January 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by frisian
I am not certain that using one Bible verse by itself can defend ones argument. I don't find that I need to use the Bible to address every question.

Since there are no qualifications needed to be an "apologetic", you will get all sorts of answers which can make things quite confusing.I like christians who don't quote biblical verses, because they show that they are defending their beliefs with their own words and their own thoughts, not someone else's. It shows their ability to think for themselves and still come out believeing, not just going with what they've always been told and passing out the already pre-chewed rhetoric.

On top of that, I also don't like having to look up what exactly it is they're saying to me, instead of just quoting relevant passages directly and not simply their location in the big book.

By looking at his mere words how would you know this coloring?I'm sure you can find out a lot about a person from the way he writes. The more he has written, the more accurately you can determine his point of view.

Side note - you view intolerance as bad? Are you tolerant (per se) of illogical viewpoints?

I am not intollerant of illogical viewpoints. I may not particularly adhere to them, but I am not intolerant of someones right to have them. I will try to find ways of making them see how their point of view is illogical, try to educate them, but I won't hate them for it even if they don't get it in the end.

What are some of these lies and excuses from your view?How about simply walking away? It's not exactly a lie, but it is an excuse to stop listening. How about not allowing people who might question you and make you think about your convictions (and maybe even doubt or change your mind) to even speak with you, to protect your view of the world from their observations and criticism.
:con2:

exarch

22nd January 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by frisian
And even that "we" are uncertain of?

:pExactly!! :D

That is indeed the one conclusion we can come to for sure. I swear it was an unintended quote :o

Phil

22nd January 2004, 01:39 PM

sparklecat Unchained

Mark well strange protectors
And ghosts of halcyon dreams
Stand down holy whisperers
Oh keepers of heart’s grave labyrinth
Gaze out beyond the blackness, the window
Unlock the fiery screams

See how honesty cuts the night
How sure the thoughts that bring the light
Stirring a spirit that ‘til now sleeps
Awakening passion that caution keeps
So like a babe crying in the sun
To crawl, to walk lest the day be done
To stand and run and join the race
Longing for even a slight embrace

Yes, mark well strange protectors
Newly relinquished of your captor
Regret thou might forlorn jailors
Oh fighters of a fruitless fight
Rid me now of your selfish grip
To quiet smiles of truth’s rapture

You've taken what must be a difficult step, and hopefully you now feel a profound sense of freedom. Enjoy it to the utmost. It's worth it.

Marquis de Carabas

22nd January 2004, 02:04 PM

A simple question for those who were/are Christians.

A big part of my experience was the emotional response in Church to whatever was happening (you know, that feeling) and I am honestly having a difficult time ignoring that I felt something.

1. Do you know what I am talking about?
2. Did you experience the same feelings?
3. How do you reconcile it with your skepticism?

This is an easy one...

1. Yes.
2. If it's the feeling I think you're talking about, yes.
3. Simple. It feels good to be in a large gathering of people for a common purpose, especially when there are emotionally uplifting songs involved. I had the exact same feelings at a Roger Waters concert a few years back during "Wish You Were Here." Not all that impressed by feelings.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I had the exact same feelings at a Roger Waters concert a few years back during "Wish You Were Here." Not all that impressed by feelings.

Perhaps you could take some pills to quell those feelings next time? That way the experience could be more logical?

Bearguin

22nd January 2004, 02:41 PM

How many here were baptized, as adults by thier own choice? And what feelings did you have at that time? Then relate that to my other questions.

P.S. I know I'm being vague but it seems to have backfired on me.

frisian

22nd January 2004, 03:15 PM

sparklecat

22nd January 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Unless you meant it as a joke (in which case I'm a doofus), why would you have to build a system of morality?

Actually, I did mean it as a bit of a joke. I was thinking about exarch's questions IIRC, and just exaggerated that :)

sparklecat

22nd January 2004, 03:29 PM

Mona

22nd January 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by exarch
To clarify myself, as this is obviously needed to make Frisian take the finger of the trigger.

I too am personally opposed to abortion, however, I feel it is every woman's (in fact, every person's) right to do with her own body as she wants. I would however not like the idea of my girlfriend/wife having an abortion unless it was necessary to save her life. It is her decision though.
I also think there is only a certain time during early pregnancy where it is acceptable, whereas partial birth abortion is just not right in any but the most extreme circumstances.

Now lets drop the whole abortion discussion because it's just a time bomb waiting to go off

Oh yeah, that issue is a black hole from which few emerge sane. :p

Let me just clarify that the concept of self-ownership is one I adhere to with an almost religious fervor; for that reason I am appalled that in the U.S. we put citizens in cages with violent predators for acting is if adults should be able to decide what will go into their own bodies, to modify their own mood. Obviously, there is something about the abortion issue that differs from the matter of drug-taking, and it is that something that causes me to believe that standing on the right to control one's body is an insufficient argument in the former context, but is dispositive in the latter.

But, I shan't explore the something. I shan't, I shan't, I shan't. :D

Mona

22nd January 2004, 03:36 PM

sparklecat

22nd January 2004, 03:40 PM

*grins at Sue*

Phil- thank you :) I'll be keeping that around.

God's Advocate- no, I was never baptized. I sort of regret that actually, not sure why. But either way, feelings are not the evidence of something supernatural. Not only would they have been things you'd felt before and heard others talk about, but by then you'd have an almost 100% certainty that your baptism would be a time to commune with God, feel the Spirit filling you, whatever. As I said, I don't know how much the brain is capable of, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Mona
Obviously, there is something about the abortion issue that differs from the matter of drug-taking, and it is that something that causes me to believe that standing on the right to control one's body is an insufficient argument in the former context, but is dispositive in the latter.Probably in the same way that abortion is murder but executing a guy on death row isn't I supose :nope:

frisian

22nd January 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
But either way, feelings are not the evidence of something supernatural.

ello Missy.

What precedent determines how to examine evidence of the supernatural?

:D

frisian

22nd January 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by exarch
Probably in the same way that abortion is murder but executing a guy on death row isn't I supose :nope:

To start I would say that ceasing life to exist in relation to a murderer or someone deemed guilty is far different than aborting a fetus. No?

Bearguin

22nd January 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
[BGod's Advocate- no, I was never baptized. I sort of regret that actually, not sure why. But either way, feelings are not the evidence of something supernatural. Not only would they have been things you'd felt before and heard others talk about, but by then you'd have an almost 100% certainty that your baptism would be a time to commune with God, feel the Spirit filling you, whatever. As I said, I don't know how much the brain is capable of, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. [/B]

Still having trouble with this. My first "experience" was not expected or anticipated (by me at least) and other times when I felt something, I'm not sure it fit your description. I was never baptized (except as an infant) but I see your point about that. I guess I have trouble writing it off as my brain doing wierd things.

Mona

22nd January 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by exarch
Probably in the same way that abortion is murder but executing a guy on death row isn't I supose :nope:

Not sure I get your point. As it happens, I oppose the death penalty. But, the reasons are not identical to my reservations about abortion.

You realize, I assume, that we are dangerously poised on doing what we both said we eschewed? :hit:

Mona

22nd January 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
[B But either way, feelings are not the evidence of something supernatural. Not only would they have been things you'd felt before and heard others talk about, but by then you'd have an almost 100% certainty that your baptism would be a time to commune with God, feel the Spirit filling you, whatever. As I said, I don't know how much the brain is capable of, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. [/B]

I was raised and indoctrinated as a Roman Catholic, but -- to my parents' sheer horror -- during my sophmore yr of high school I did a 10-month stint as a Pentacostalist. I will never forget the night I was in bed and "asked God for the baptism in the Holy Spirit." An odd feeling came over me and my throat, and I just knew that if I permitted myself to make utterances it would be glossolalia.

That event, and the speaking in tongues itself (which I still am able to do), was a profoundly emotional one in which I sincerely felt myself to be in union with a deity. I do miss the comfort and intensity of the experience.

Ralph

22nd January 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat

It really is enlightenment. I actually remember when I first became a Christian, wanting to share my newfound knowledge/way of seeing things with others... I feel the same now and its exhilirating really.

No fear. I'm not scared that if I'm wrong I'll go to Hell- because its just not true :)

It feels great.

Hi Sparklecat.......I was reading your thread at RR last night...............quite a bombshell you dropped on them.

While I'm not a big fan of "qoutes"---(esp. bible ones).....I do think the one of "Above all else---to thine own self be true", really applies to you here.

You're doing the right thing.....................Ralph

Yahweh

22nd January 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by frisian
To start I would say that ceasing life to exist in relation to a murderer or someone deemed guilty is far different than aborting a fetus. No?
There are 2 classifications of abortion: Legal Abortion and Illegal Abortion. Legal Abortion is not murder, all that needs to be done is simply to consult the dictionary on the definition of the word "murder". No, not Dictionary.com, I suggest an actual dictionary which lawyers use to argue in the court of law. From Law.com's "The Real Life Dictionary of the Law" (http://dictionary.law.com):
murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

[/derail]

Yahweh

22nd January 2004, 04:37 PM

*Re-reads sparklecat's opening post, smiles*

:)

exarch

22nd January 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by frisian
To start I would say that ceasing life to exist in relation to a murderer or someone deemed guilty is far different than aborting a fetus. No?Exactly, you would start of by pointing out the situations are completely different, just like I think prematurely interrupting pregnancy is in no way related to injecting your body with mind altering, addictive substances. You might be against both, or condone one and not the other, or both, but they are still fundamentally different.

Case settled :D

Mona

22nd January 2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

There are 2 classifications of abortion: Legal Abortion and Illegal Abortion. Legal Abortion is not murder, all that needs to be done is simply to consult the dictionary on the definition of the word "murder". No, not Dictionary.com, I suggest an actual dictionary which lawyers use to argue in the court of law. From Law.com's "The Real Life Dictionary of the Law" (http://dictionary.law.com):

[/derail]

You are quite correct, and I nearly made that point myself to exarch when he, somewhat confusingly, suggested that *I* believe abortion is murder vis-a-vis the death penalty. That said, it is possible to use the word "murder" for moral emphasis, as for example by speaking of slave-owners murdering their "property" or Hitler murdering Jews, Gypsies, gays etc. In that context, it does not matter whether the killings were legal.

Mona

22nd January 2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by exarch
Exactly, you would start of by pointing out the situations are completely different, just like I think prematurely interrupting pregnancy is in no way related to injecting your body with mind altering, addictive substances. You might be against both, or condone one and not the other, or both, but they are still fundamentally different.

Case settled :D

:confused:

But that was my very point. People make arguments about self-ownership re: both issues, but because they are **different in important particulars, the self-ownership principle does not necessarily settle the matter as easily with regard to one as opposed to the other.

exarch

22nd January 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Mona
You are quite correct, and I nearly made that point myself to exarch when he, somewhat confusingly, suggested that *I* believe abortion is murder vis-a-vis the death penalty.On the contrary Mona, I think it is you who is confused as to who that comment was about, and it matched so nicely with your own comment :D (Besides, I always bring it up when the whole pro-choice vs. pro-death argument starts or is about to rear it's ugly head once more)

exarch

22nd January 2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Mona
:confused:See, the problem is some people on this thread are assuming too much and jumping to conclusions, and then you get people fighting a point that I wasn't even making, and it all becomes very confusing. I find it terribly amusing though :D

Although I'm still not quite sure why you thought I was refuting your point (which I obviously wasn't).

sparklecat

23rd January 2004, 04:16 PM

I have a question for those who have deconverted- did you get times afterwards where, strictly for emotional reasons, you started thinking that maybe it was true after all and there was a God? No rational reason behind it. If so, how did you handle those?

El Greco

23rd January 2004, 04:26 PM

Nyarlathotep

23rd January 2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
I have a question for those who have deconverted- did you get times afterwards where, strictly for emotional reasons, you started thinking that maybe it was true after all and there was a God? No rational reason behind it. If so, how did you handle those?

I was never a strong believer to begin with but when I became an atheist the closest I ever came to thinking "What if it was all true after all" was thinking "what If I am wrong and now God is angry at the choice I have made". I handled it by coming to the realization that since I couldn't know with 100% certainty either way that I was gambling no matter whether I chose to believe in God or not. Therefore, since atheism seemed to me to be the more likely scenario, it made more sense to me to take that route. I have since stopped worrying about it

exarch

23rd January 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by El Greco
No need to handle them, you know the bitter truth already. I wish myself that afterlife was for real, hey, I'd love to be forever. This doesn't stop me from seeing the truth though.Yeah, that's about it. I've also wondered about how nice it must be to still believe you live in a world where you are guaranteed a place in paradise, and there's a big daddy in the sky who loves you and looks out for you, and comes to your aid when you need it most.

I think the feeling is best described with the quote "Why, oh why, didn't I take the green pill" :D

(Or was it the red pill?)

sparklecat

23rd January 2004, 04:48 PM

Blue :p He did take the red pill, and there was no green.

Aye, I just don't want to give in in a moment of weakness, say I'll try believing again, thereby making an idiot of myself and having to recant again later. Plus the fears aren't really that fun. I figure they'll pass in time though, I had the same fears of being wrong when I was a Christian. Difference is, I didn't roast in Hell for all eternity if I was wrong before.

Lord Emsworth

23rd January 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
I figure they'll pass in time though, I had the same fears of being wrong when I was a Christian. Difference is, I didn't roast in Hell for all eternity if I was wrong before.

:hit:

There should be a law against wagering.

exarch

23rd January 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
Blue :p He did take the red pill, and there was no green.Yes, I just realised as I came back to this thread :o

Aye, I just don't want to give in in a moment of weakness, say I'll try believing again, thereby making an idiot of myself and having to recant again later.I think Julia Sweeney's lecture must have been really interesting for you then ... ;)

sparklecat

23rd January 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

:hit:

There should be a law against wagering.

*grins* I'm not coward enough to believe out of fear I might be wrong.

Exarch- in some ways. In others, her experience and mine really are pretty different.

sparklecat

24th January 2004, 03:15 AM

Oh yes, and hi to all those RR members reading this because my ex linked to the thread :) Should you wish to join up and discuss things with me here instead, I'm sure we could have some interesting conversations.

EternalUniverse

24th January 2004, 04:07 AM

Hi Sparklecat. Wow, I've never "witnessed" a conversion like this before. You mentioned what it would be like to have feelings of wanting to reconvert. Well, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, or if you are aware of the argument. God is irrelevant to morality. If something is right, then it is right unto itself, not because someone or something says it is. Otherwise, it would be blind obedience to authority. Even if there was a God, assuming his (her?) omnibenevolence, then the rules that he (she?) makes are rules that are right to begin with, and not because they are conjured up by someone, and hence, God would be irrelevant to morality anyway.

What I am saying, and I'm sure you already know, is that no one can say that you aren't or can't be a good person because you don't believe in (the Christian conception) of God. You can still be moral, because the rules are inherently right, and that is why you follow them.

Also (forgive me for bringing this up), but the current debate over the existence of God (as far as I know) seems to be in favor of the atheists. However, this only applies to "debunking" the existence of the traditional conception of God (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent). However, the idea that it is possible that some being created the universe is still up to debate.

sparklecat

24th January 2004, 05:21 AM

Yes, I've actually been in some interesting debates on whether something is moral because God says so or moral outside of his choice- arbitrarily set and able to be changed or somehow "above" God. As an apologist, I always opted for the first, since it really was better for making God out to be the highest power with all the omni-qualities.

But no, there's certainly no need for me to run off and become completely amoral :D While there are certain things I'll have to now make my own decisions on, overall the Christian concept of morality really will serve quite nicely. And if I need a bit more help, I can always go read Kant or some such. :)

The arguments for the Christian God- yes, I'd have to say that the nonchristians have the better ones. That would be why I'm not a Christian now! But the existence of some sort of creator beyond that... well, I neither can nor need to know, as far as I can tell. Either way, I'm not overly worried.

Justine

frisian

24th January 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Hi Sparklecat. Wow, I've never "witnessed" a conversion like this before. You mentioned what it would be like to have feelings of wanting to reconvert. Well, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, or if you are aware of the argument. God is irrelevant to morality. If something is right, then it is right unto itself, not because someone or something says it is. Otherwise, it would be blind obedience to authority. Even if there was a God, assuming his (her?) omnibenevolence, then the rules that he (she?) makes are rules that are right to begin with, and not because they are conjured up by someone, and hence, God would be irrelevant to morality anyway.

What I am saying, and I'm sure you already know, is that no one can say that you aren't or can't be a good person because you don't believe in (the Christian conception) of God. You can still be moral, because the rules are inherently right, and that is why you follow them.

Also (forgive me for bringing this up), but the current debate over the existence of God (as far as I know) seems to be in favor of the atheists. However, this only applies to "debunking" the existence of the traditional conception of God (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent). However, the idea that it is possible that some being created the universe is still up to debate.

Do you believe you will understand a supernatural being via natural means? How does that work exactly?

espritch

24th January 2004, 11:58 AM

Do you believe you will understand a supernatural being via natural means? How does that work exactly?

Do you believe you will understand a supernatural being via supernatural means? How does that work exactly? Do you recieve a vision? Do a host of angles appear singing "Glory to God on highest"? How exactly do you defferentiate this supernatural event from pending insanity or delusion?

EternalUniverse

24th January 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by frisian

Do you believe you will understand a supernatural being via natural means? How does that work exactly?

I hope you realize that you are begging the question in what you are asking me.

The issue is, based on our current knowledge, we can not rule out the idea of some being having created the universe. If the big bang idea is true, it is possible that some being initiated the big bang. But a mere probability does not always warrant serious consideration. For example, it is also possible that gravity will suddenly cease to behave as before and turn the world topsy turvy (one "problem" of reasoning through induction - see the concept of "grue").

If you are trying to ask me if scientific methods are able to detect the unobservable and/or the unfalsifiable, then I think you know the answer to that already.

As the people of this board understand, it is up to the person making the claim to come up with the evidence to support the claim. If you think that there exists some supernatural phenomenon responsible for the creation of the universe, then provide the evidence.

But why the focus on supernatural explanations?

EternalUniverse

24th January 2004, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
But no, there's certainly no need for me to run off and become completely amoral :D While there are certain things I'll have to now make my own decisions on, overall the Christian concept of morality really will serve quite nicely. And if I need a bit more help, I can always go read Kant or some such. :)

Justine [/B]

Please enlighten me. What is "the Christian concept of morality"? Are you talking about the ten commandments? As you know there are many contradictions in the Bible, and many things are left up to interpretation.

As far as your new direction, I'm sure you won't undergo a "wholesale change". You'll probably not act very differently. Many moral decisions are based on common sense.

frisian

24th January 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by espritch

Do you believe you will understand a supernatural being via supernatural means? How does that work exactly? Do you recieve a vision? Do a host of angles appear singing "Glory to God on highest"? How exactly do you defferentiate this supernatural event from pending insanity or delusion?

I see you didn't attempt to answer my question.

I would think if in order to explain the supernatural, you would need supernatural evidence. Since science doesn't pretend to have such a method, that is obviously not the manner in which to observe such.

Heh. Define insanity and/or delusion. Could it be said that it is relative? Why not?

frisian

24th January 2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
As the people of this board understand, it is up to the person making the claim to come up with the evidence to support the claim. If you think that there exists some supernatural phenomenon responsible for the creation of the universe, then provide the evidence.

But why the focus on supernatural explanations?

I made no claim did I.

The claim I responded to was that evidence is in support of there not being a God/god. Therefore, I wondered how one would go about finding such evidence. Assuming a god is a supernatural being, who decided you'd find this god via natural means. Of course understanding the definition of the word supernatural asserts that science cannot find god or gods, eh.

sparklecat

24th January 2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse

Please enlighten me. What is "the Christian concept of morality"? Are you talking about the ten commandments? As you know there are many contradictions in the Bible, and many things are left up to interpretation.

As far as your new direction, I'm sure you won't undergo a "wholesale change". You'll probably not act very differently. Many moral decisions are based on common sense.

Not necessarily the ten commandments, no, since many of them are superfluous now. But "love your neighbor" really does cover all possible sins, and the Golden Rule is found pretty much everywhere. All those commandments that would be listed under "love God" aren't the ones I'll be sticking with then.

Many of the others that do require a personal choice are the ones that exarch mentioned two pages back, or political opinions.

espritch

24th January 2004, 06:33 PM

I see you didn't attempt to answer my question.

No I didn't. I attempted to clarify your question. To actually answer your question we would first have to determine a working deffinition of supernatural and how you would recognize something as supernatural. Unless we can answer that question, your original question isn't really meaningful.

I would think if in order to explain the supernatural, you would need supernatural evidence. Since science doesn't pretend to have such a method, that is obviously not the manner in which to observe such.

So do you have any supernatural evidence? Science is founded on observation of evidence. If you have evidence then science should be able to examine it. If you have no evidence, then why believe in "the supernatural" at all?

Heh. Define insanity and/or delusion. Could it be said that it is relative? Why not?

Relative to what? I tend to define insanity/delusion as holding a view of the universe directly contrary to objective evidence (i.e. evidence that can be observed and confirmed by others).

EternalUniverse

25th January 2004, 02:23 AM

frisian wrote:
I made no claim did I.

When I said "If you think that there exists some supernatural phenomenon responsible for the creation of the universe, then provide the evidence. ", I wasn't referring to you personally, but people in general.

frisian wrote:
The claim I responded to was that evidence is in support of there not being a God/god. Therefore, I wondered how one would go about finding such evidence. Assuming a god is a supernatural being, who decided you'd find this god via natural means. Of course understanding the definition of the word supernatural asserts that science cannot find god or gods, eh.

Whose claims are you referring to? I didn't write that the evidence supports the claim that there isn't a (i.e. any) God.

Again, the burden of proof lies in the claimant (i.e. the person that believes in the supernatural cause of the universe). Do you know what "you can't prove a negative" means?

EternalUniverse

25th January 2004, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat

Not necessarily the ten commandments, no, since many of them are superfluous now. But "love your neighbor" really does cover all possible sins, and the Golden Rule is found pretty much everywhere. All those commandments that would be listed under "love God" aren't the ones I'll be sticking with then.

Many of the others that do require a personal choice are the ones that exarch mentioned two pages back, or political opinions.

What do you think of the following? The Golden Rule states (roughly) "do unto others are you would have done unto you". Perhaps this rule has a twinge of selfishness, because it starts and ends with what you want to happen. Well, at least compared to a piece I read by Kurt Baier, which came up with what I call "Baier's rule": do unto others, what if they followed reason, would want to have done unto them. And, do not do unto others what, if they followed reason, would not want to have done to them. The difference is that you are focusing on the needs of the other in Baier's sense. Perhaps if the goal is to become a "good" or "moral" person, whatever that means, the more altruistic version (Baier's) should be followed.

sparklecat

25th January 2004, 03:03 AM

Aye, in some ways that works better, as often what you'd want done isn't what the other person would. Overall, I don't see that the application of the rules would be that different, though there might be a few cases.

exarch

25th January 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
What do you think of the following? The Golden Rule states (roughly) "do unto others are you would have done unto you". Perhaps this rule has a twinge of selfishness, because it starts and ends with what you want to happen. Well, at least compared to a piece I read by Kurt Baier, which came up with what I call "Baier's rule": do unto others, what if they followed reason, would want to have done unto them. And, do not do unto others what, if they followed reason, would not want to have done to them. The difference is that you are focusing on the needs of the other in Baier's sense. Perhaps if the goal is to become a "good" or "moral" person, whatever that means, the more altruistic version (Baier's) should be followed.It sounds better, more altruistic, but I think altruism itself is a reaction that sprang from self preservation/selfishness. In other words, if you're nice to people, they'll be nice to you, or, if people are nice to you, you are nice to them. You may prefer how it sounds the other way around, but it's still the same thing.

Despite wanting to think that people are altruistic by nature, I think it's more likely another, more elaborate way of self preservation.

All that aside, I still think people don't need big skydaddy to make them do nice things for each other. I'll be helpful to people as long as they don't act as jerks, and if they do, I'll still be friendly until they push it too far. We don't specifically need it in writing to know how it works.

frisian

25th January 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
frisian wrote:

When I said "If you think that there exists some supernatural phenomenon responsible for the creation of the universe, then provide the evidence. ", I wasn't referring to you personally, but people in general.

frisian wrote:

Whose claims are you referring to? I didn't write that the evidence supports the claim that there isn't a (i.e. any) God.

Again, the burden of proof lies in the claimant (i.e. the person that believes in the supernatural cause of the universe). Do you know what "you can't prove a negative" means?

"Also (forgive me for bringing this up), but the current debate over the existence of God (as far as I know) seems to be in favor of the atheists."

I was responding to this.

Finella

25th January 2004, 02:27 PM

espritch

25th January 2004, 08:30 PM

I would agree with Sparklecat that often we think we are experiencing God in church with many others who are in a heightened sensory state and are filled with love and acceptance for one another. Again such states occur when hearing an emotionally moving testimony about his/her beliefs and the lifechanging effects on him/her. I observed that both of these things happened at TAMII, between the crowd being wound up by speakers who were very enthusiastic about their atheism and were putting down those who had belief in god, and again with Julia Sweeney's deconversion talk. Interesting, eh?

Actually, that doesn't really surprise me much. I remember watching a program about Amway. It showed an Amway convention where people were giving testimonials on how Amway changed their lives and "sermons" about how you deserved to be a success and with Amway, by gum, you can do it! They also showed emotion responses of the audience. I was immediately struck by how the dynamics of the event so closely mirrored the dynamics of a revival meeting. If the same dynamics at work in a revival meeting is at work in an Amway convention, it should really not be surprising to find similar dynamics at work at a skeptic convention.

This is one of the reasons I don’t have a problem reconciling the emotional response to religion with skepticism. I consider such emotional responses to be a result of a certain kind of group dynamic rather than evidence of a Devine presence. An even more extreme version of this phenomenon can be seen in fainting and speaking in tongues at a Primitive Baptist Church service or the fainting and loa possession of a Haitian Voodoo service.

EternalUniverse

25th January 2004, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by frisian

"Also (forgive me for bringing this up), but the current debate over the existence of God (as far as I know) seems to be in favor of the atheists."

I was responding to this.

It seems like you didn't read what I wrote in context. The next two sentences after the quotation were: "However, this only applies to "debunking" the existence of the traditional conception of God (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent). However, the idea that it is possible that some being created the universe is still up to debate."

The claim is not that there isn't a God but that the traditional theistic definition of God (onimpotent, ominiscient, omnibenevolent) is seen to contain many problems, mainly how a God defined in this way can allow moral and natural evil. It is up to the theists to come up with proper solutions to these problems (i.e. because of the burden of proof, since they made the claim). So far, the main response by Leibniz that our world is the "best of all possible worlds", God is infinite and we can't conceive of the bigger picture so just have faith that all is going to come out good is not sufficient.

sparklecat

26th January 2004, 03:43 AM

This is the best of all possible worlds? Doesn't say much for God's supposed power, does it?

LuxFerum

26th January 2004, 03:46 AM

What about the heaven? Is heaven worst than this?

frisian

26th January 2004, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
God is infinite and we can't conceive of the bigger picture so just have faith that all is going to come out good is not sufficient.

Why not?

frisian

26th January 2004, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum
What about the heaven? Is heaven worst than this?

I think the traditional thought is that hell is worster.

:D

frisian

26th January 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
This is the best of all possible worlds? Doesn't say much for God's supposed power, does it?

In relation to what?

Is that the purpose for this world, currently?

frisian

26th January 2004, 07:42 AM

espritch

26th January 2004, 12:04 PM

Who is Leibniz? Is he/she/it the authority in these matters?

Ah. That gets right down to the central point. Who is Leibniz? Why should I consider his view as any more valid than anyone else’s? Can he prove his assertion? I don’t think we can really say this is the best of all possible worlds. Since this is the only world we know we really have nothing to compare it against. Can we prove that God caused the big bang – or that he didn’t? You can argue about these kinds of things until you are blue in the face, and at the end of the day, you are no closer to knowing the correct answer because there is no way to test the validity of your conclusion. People tend to adopt the philosophical view that most closely matches their preferences and then convince themselves that they actually know something that they have no way of knowing. That’s why I prefer the agnostic approach: simply admit that I don’t know and get on with the business of living. Either I’ll find out the truth of these matters one day or I won’t. In any event, there is little to be gained by arguing in endless circles.

frisian

26th January 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by espritch

Ah. That gets right down to the central point. Who is Leibniz? Why should I consider his view as any more valid than anyone else’s? Can he prove his assertion? I don’t think we can really say this is the best of all possible worlds. Since this is the only world we know we really have nothing to compare it against. Can we prove that God caused the big bang – or that he didn’t? You can argue about these kinds of things until you are blue in the face, and at the end of the day, you are no closer to knowing the correct answer because there is no way to test the validity of your conclusion. People tend to adopt the philosophical view that most closely matches their preferences and then convince themselves that they actually know something that they have no way of knowing. That’s why I prefer the agnostic approach: simply admit that I don’t know and get on with the business of living. Either I’ll find out the truth of these matters one day or I won’t. In any event, there is little to be gained by arguing in endless circles.

I like this post.

gentlehorse

26th January 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by frisian

Who is Leibniz?

The cofounder, as it were, of the calculus-- He waxed philosophical at some length. Pretty good reading if you're into monads and such--

Is he/she/it the authority in these matters?

No more so than anyone else, though it's entirely possible that he was a bit more intelligent than most--

Zero

26th January 2004, 09:34 PM

EternalUniverse

27th January 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat
This is the best of all possible worlds? Doesn't say much for God's supposed power, does it?

Well, Liebniz's point is that we can't really know the bigger picture, so faith is in order that "this is the best possible circumstance".

EternalUniverse

27th January 2004, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum
What about the heaven? Is heaven worst than this?

I think he means that our world is the best possible, in relation to the master plan (which includes Heaven, the reward for things we do on Earth).

EternalUniverse

27th January 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by frisian

Why not?

Supposedly because we don't possess the cognitive capacity, or some other structure to understand the infinity of God's power. He is supposed to be all powerful, after all.

EternalUniverse

27th January 2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by frisian

I like this post.

This is supposedly the "accepted" position which I tried to outline. There are things we can't know right now (like the existence of some supreme being). People arguing for either side (aethism/theism) are just making themselves blue in the face.

frisian

29th January 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
The claim is not that there isn't a God but that the traditional theistic definition of God (onimpotent, ominiscient, omnibenevolent) is seen to contain many problems, mainly how a God defined in this way can allow moral and natural evil. It is up to the theists to come up with proper solutions to these problems (i.e. because of the burden of proof, since they made the claim). So far, the main response by Leibniz that our world is the "best of all possible worlds", God is infinite and we can't conceive of the bigger picture so just have faith that all is going to come out good is not sufficient.

The way I understand it is, that God allows moral and natural evil to permit free will. Free will allows for choice, either to be for or against God. One is either reconciled in relation to God, or in rebellion.

I am not aware of Leibniz's complete argument, but as you presented doesn't fit into my current Christian paradigm. The world is according to a divine will and for God's purpose, whether that qualifies as best or if there are or were alternatives I am not certain.

Within in solely Christian thought, or amongst Christians debating each other, it has indeed been suggested one cannot know everything about God or understand all in relation to God. I counter then, where is the line drawn? Should one then assume we know absolutely nothing? My current belief is that it is possible to know some of God. Presuming that God knows all though and I could not know all, who knows percentage wise what one could approach in terms of absolute awareness. This is where faith to me comes into it. It isn't blind faith, as in nothing is seen, rather not all is seen.

frisian

29th January 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse

This is supposedly the "accepted" position which I tried to outline. There are things we can't know right now (like the existence of some supreme being). People arguing for either side (aethism/theism) are just making themselves blue in the face.

If you mean know in that we cannot prove via naturalistic means, I am in agreement. Supernatural defines itself in such a way that it couldn't be seen as the cause. Seeing a naturalistic effect causes one to pursue a naturalistic explanation. Doing so however doesn't obtain certainty though. I contend that truth is ascertained via revelation and not via inquiry. For this I have objective infallible proof? Nope. What I do have is belief, faith, some reasoning, and subjective experience.

Yahweh

29th January 2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by frisian
The way I understand it is, that God allows moral and natural evil to permit free will. Free will allows for choice, either to be for or against God. One is either reconciled in relation to God, or in rebellion.
That depends...

If you believe God is omniscient, and our creator, it would be quite difficult to believe a just god would punish humans for rejecting belief in him.

There are quite a number of paradoxes involved when defining god with "omni-" or "infinite" properties.

frisian

29th January 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

That depends...

If you believe God is omniscient, and our creator, it would be quite difficult to believe a just god would punish humans for rejecting belief in him.

There are quite a number of paradoxes involved when defining god with "omni-" or "infinite" properties.

What would you suggest he punish humans for?

Name a few of these paradoxes.

espritch

29th January 2004, 09:45 PM

The way I understand it is, that God allows moral and natural evil to permit free will. Free will allows for choice, either to be for or against God. One is either reconciled in relation to God, or in rebellion.

So God gives us the free will to either do what he tells us or burn in hell for eternity? Isn't that kind of like pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "Do what I tell you or I'll blow your head off." Does the choice of the man with the gun to his head qualify as free?

I contend that truth is ascertained via revelation and not via inquiry.

So how to recognize a revelation as the real thing, as opposed to insanity, a dream, a delusion, or perhaps a false revelation from the Devil? This seems a rather iffy way to ascertain truth. Even more so if you are depending on a revelation given to someone else who died several thousand years before you were born.

frisian

29th January 2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by espritch

So God gives us the free will to either do what he tells us or burn in hell for eternity? Isn't that kind of like pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "Do what I tell you or I'll blow your head off." Does the choice of the man with the gun to his head qualify as free?

So how to recognize a revelation as the real thing, as opposed to insanity, a dream, a delusion, or perhaps a false revelation from the Devil? This seems a rather iffy way to ascertain truth. Even more so if you are depending on a revelation given to someone else who died several thousand years before you were born.

Not sure about the eternity bit in hell. Well that is a simple analogy I believe. Isn't merely do as I tell you.

How to recognize a revelation? Via the Holy Spirit, still the human fallible self can get in the way.

Iffy way to ascertain truth? So how do you reach truth?
Nah, revelation didn't stop several thousand years ago.

EternalUniverse

30th January 2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by frisian

The way I understand it is, that God allows moral and natural evil to permit free will. Free will allows for choice, either to be for or against God. One is either reconciled in relation to God, or in rebellion. [quote]

If I'm correct, Leibniz's writings are in response to the inadequacy of the free-will defense. Judge for yourself some of the arguments against the free-will defense:
a) assumes a world with free will and the possibility of evil is preferable to a world of robot-like people with no possibillity to do evil. (weak?)
b) we don't really have free will (unlimited freedom). I think psychologists refer to our living in "situated freedoms" - we are born with certain advantages and drawbacks which circumscribe our ability to choose certain options over others (so at least we don't have unlimited free will). our backgrounds, etc. also push us towards certain things over others - think of people living in poor backgrounds and /or those who grow up surrounded by violence. The point is that we are not necessarily totally responsible for our actions.
c) why couldn't God create a world that gives us free will but no evil?
d) if God does intervene to stop evil in some cases (via miracles), why doesn't He intervene in things like the Holocaust?
e) (strongest) still doesn't explain away natural evil, (which are accidents, something we don't intend to have happen to us).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by frisian

I am not aware of Leibniz's complete argument, but as you presented doesn't fit into my current Christian paradigm. The world is according to a divine will and for God's purpose, whether that qualifies as best or if there are or were alternatives I am not certain.

Within in solely Christian thought, or amongst Christians debating each other, it has indeed been suggested one cannot know everything about God or understand all in relation to God. I counter then, where is the line drawn? Should one then assume we know absolutely nothing? My current belief is that it is possible to know some of God. Presuming that God knows all though and I could not know all, who knows percentage wise what one could approach in terms of absolute awareness. This is where faith to me comes into it. It isn't blind faith, as in nothing is seen, rather not all is seen.

Well, if the question is whether or not God exists, be careful about assuming He does before wondering how we will know Him. Trying to know something entails knowing some if its characteristics. Maybe the question is, if there is a God, what would He be like? If we know this, then we can come up with ways to figure out if these characteristics can be shown to exist in some fashion.

As mentioned in a previous post, whatl we have now is the idea that there could be a supreme being. That is where faith comes in. There is this possibility, but we can't make it a probability yet, so the choice (for you) is faith in the belief.

EternalUniverse

30th January 2004, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by frisian

If you mean know in that we cannot prove via naturalistic means, I am in agreement. Supernatural defines itself in such a way that it couldn't be seen as the cause. Seeing a naturalistic effect causes one to pursue a naturalistic explanation. Doing so however doesn't obtain certainty though. I contend that truth is ascertained via revelation and not via inquiry. For this I have objective infallible proof? Nope. What I do have is belief, faith, some reasoning, and subjective experience.

Can there be a "naturalistic" (as in through observation) situation which can prove the existence of God? If a very powerful being revealed its presence to us, one that can part the water of our oceans, etc., do we accept this being as, at the least, some kind of "God"?

What do you mean by "via revelation"? Are you talking about through miracles (including things like having certain significant statues weep). If this is so, isn't this type of evidence observational and hence naturalistic in nature and can be tested?

frisian

30th January 2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse

Well, if the question is whether or not God exists, be careful about assuming He does before wondering how we will know Him. Trying to know something entails knowing some if its characteristics. Maybe the question is, if there is a God, what would He be like? If we know this, then we can come up with ways to figure out if these characteristics can be shown to exist in some fashion.

As mentioned in a previous post, whatl we have now is the idea that there could be a supreme being. That is where faith comes in. There is this possibility, but we can't make it a probability yet, so the choice (for you) is faith in the belief.

Oh certainly I wasn't born a theist. Thus not born with assumptions that I am aware. Indeed I am not declaring anything with absolute certainty.

Indeed I think I understand the faith angle. Cannot make it a probability because how would one ascertain all the variables or even enough to ensure objective probability?

frisian

30th January 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse

Can there be a "naturalistic" (as in through observation) situation which can prove the existence of God? If a very powerful being revealed its presence to us, one that can part the water of our oceans, etc., do we accept this being as, at the least, some kind of "God"?

What do you mean by "via revelation"? Are you talking about through miracles (including things like having certain significant statues weep). If this is so, isn't this type of evidence observational and hence naturalistic in nature and can be tested?

I don't believe there can be an observation method that has yet been proposed that could PROVE the existence of God or a god. What's to say that God has not revealed himself to us already and we merely don't understand or acknowledge such? Or we don't care for the method to ascertain such knowledge?

Via revelation, what I mean is that if there is a God as a creator of all (which is vague I know) what we "see" is the revelation of such entity or evidence of such. To find the cause of this revelation, why would one assume that naturalistic measures would directly point to or posit a naturalistic origin or cause?

So no, I am not just speaking of miracles. If my desire is to first take out a supernatural cause, of course I will determine a naturalistic origin. I also understand if you first determined EVERYTHING must be supernatural in origin one could chase after unseen answers continually (lol).

Checkmite

30th January 2004, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by sparklecat

Aye, I just don't want to give in in a moment of weakness, say I'll try believing again, thereby making an idiot of myself and having to recant again later. Plus the fears aren't really that fun. I figure they'll pass in time though, I had the same fears of being wrong when I was a Christian. Difference is, I didn't roast in Hell for all eternity if I was wrong before.

Wow, sparklecat, I don't know why I hadn't noticed this thread before. Cool points for having the resolve to both change and admit it in such a way!

About your moments of weakness...don't worry about it. Making such a change is a very serious and even stressful event, and nobody can fairly expect you to simply snap into a perfectly comfortable non-theist mode. You had to overcome a lot of things to "deconvert"; I know that internally for Christians, changing your beliefs is not simply a matter of ontology or logic, the way it is for the atheist. A lot of people don't appreciate that.

But in any case, don't be surprised or ashamed of having second thoughts, or even relapsing for a time. As you learn different things you'll make different choices, and all this means is that you're giving the subject a lot of thought. People here will continue to respect you for just that reason, no matter what happens.

Meantime, enjoy your freedom! Do you have any anecdotes to tell us...things you've been able to do or consider that you couldn't before out of guilt or some other reason?

sparklecat

30th January 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Wow, sparklecat, I don't know why I hadn't noticed this thread before. Cool points for having the resolve to both change and admit it in such a way!

About your moments of weakness...don't worry about it. Making such a change is a very serious and even stressful event, and nobody can fairly expect you to simply snap into a perfectly comfortable non-theist mode. You had to overcome a lot of things to "deconvert"; I know that internally for Christians, changing your beliefs is not simply a matter of ontology or logic, the way it is for the atheist. A lot of people don't appreciate that.

But in any case, don't be surprised or ashamed of having second thoughts, or even relapsing for a time. As you learn different things you'll make different choices, and all this means is that you're giving the subject a lot of thought. People here will continue to respect you for just that reason, no matter what happens.

Meantime, enjoy your freedom! Do you have any anecdotes to tell us...things you've been able to do or consider that you couldn't before out of guilt or some other reason?

Thank you :) And you're right- I'm adjusting pretty quickly, but the first few days were tough... still many details of my thinking to iron out. Not to mention all the little mindsets I've absorbed that I haven't even recognized yet! But the main difference is... learning more about having my own opinions and defending them, rather than towing the party line on certain issues and having the last 2000 years of Christian thought to defend my beliefs for me. It's a change, something I have to adjust to.

*grins* No real anecdotes yet... just little things like watching the Life of Brian or talking to Yahweh without vaguely feeling like a blasphemer :D

exarch

31st January 2004, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Can there be a "naturalistic" (as in through observation) situation which can prove the existence of God? If a very powerful being revealed its presence to us, one that can part the water of our oceans, etc., do we accept this being as, at the least, some kind of "God"?

What do you mean by "via revelation"? Are you talking about through miracles (including things like having certain significant statues weep). If this is so, isn't this type of evidence observational and hence naturalistic in nature and can be tested?I would say that anything happening that seems to ignore the accepted laws of physics and has in no possible way been created through trickery is a good candidate for being a miracle (or a new law of physics).
Unfortunately, all the big obvious miracles are events written about (most likely exagerrated through oral retelling) in a 2000 year old book, so we don't have reliable witnesses of those events, only biassed ones.
And weeping statues simply aren't obvious enough, and too likely to be tampered with in some way.

Your point is correct, except there is, as of yet, no phenomenon that has been observed under controlled conditions that was in any way indicative of the existence of a supreme being.
And water or blood droplets rolling down the cheeks of a statue - in front of thousands of christians wanting to believe there is proof of god - is not really a controlled situation. They would be so busy staring at the statue and rejoicing in the fact they think they saw the hand of god they will not even notice the, often very obvious, cause of what they are observe.

EternalUniverse

31st January 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by frisian

Oh certainly I wasn't born a theist. Thus not born with assumptions that I am aware. Indeed I am not declaring anything with absolute certainty.

Indeed I think I understand the faith angle. Cannot make it a probability because how would one ascertain all the variables or even enough to ensure objective probability?

This is why the skeptic uses the "burden of proof" idea. Because we can't prove the negative (i.e. ascertain all the variables, so to speak), it's up to the claimant to support their claim.

In the case of arguing for ideas of the nonempirical sort, perhaps we are relegated to talking about evidence in the relative term (i.e. stronger, weaker, strongest, etc.). I don't think we can say that, right now, the argument is 51% in favor of one side or the other heh

EternalUniverse

31st January 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by frisian

I don't believe there can be an observation method that has yet been proposed that could PROVE the existence of God or a god. What's to say that God has not revealed himself to us already and we merely don't understand or acknowledge such? Or we don't care for the method to ascertain such knowledge?

Via revelation, what I mean is that if there is a God as a creator of all (which is vague I know) what we "see" is the revelation of such entity or evidence of such. To find the cause of this revelation, why would one assume that naturalistic measures would directly point to or posit a naturalistic origin or cause?

So no, I am not just speaking of miracles. If my desire is to first take out a supernatural cause, of course I will determine a naturalistic origin. I also understand if you first determined EVERYTHING must be supernatural in origin one could chase after unseen answers continually (lol).

If there is an objective God, then is it the case that knowing Him involves knowing the consequences of his influence and that this influence can be observed? This is why it is important to discern if any miracles have occurred (and I guess you can classify these as paranormal events!). Even if we genuinely observe the unexplained (via miracles), that still doesn't mean that a "God" was the cause of it.

EternalUniverse

31st January 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by exarch
I would say that anything happening that seems to ignore the accepted laws of physics and has in no possible way been created through trickery is a good candidate for being a miracle (or a new law of physics).
Unfortunately, all the big obvious miracles are events written about (most likely exagerrated through oral retelling) in a 2000 year old book, so we don't have reliable witnesses of those events, only biassed ones.
And weeping statues simply aren't obvious enough, and too likely to be tampered with in some way.

Your point is correct, except there is, as of yet, no phenomenon that has been observed under controlled conditions that was in any way indicative of the existence of a supreme being.
And water or blood droplets rolling down the cheeks of a statue - in front of thousands of christians wanting to believe there is proof of god - is not really a controlled situation. They would be so busy staring at the statue and rejoicing in the fact they think they saw the hand of god they will not even notice the, often very obvious, cause of what they are observe.

Indeed. In fact, are there really any circumstances/situations humans have encountered that are genuinely unexplainable (based on our current state of knowledge)? Well, it seems that there is - our existence. Religion comes out of this unexplained situation, but I'm talking about miracles, Elvis...that sort of thing.

Even so, as I stated in a post to Frisian, unexplained events do not necessarily provide evidence for a supreme being.

exarch

31st January 2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Indeed. In fact, are there really any circumstances/situations humans have encountered that are genuinely unexplainable (based on our current state of knowledge)? Well, it seems that there is - our existence. Religion comes out of this unexplained situation, but I'm talking about miracles, Elvis...that sort of thing.Our existence is anything but unexplainable. If you're talking about life on this planet anyway.
And if your argument is the existence of the universe, well, there's a few factors there that simply go beyond (the average human's) comprehension. And let's not forget, where did god come from if he existed prior to the universe's creation?

As for Elvis, well, I ran into an impersonator in Vegas, all decked out in his costume. Would you really consider a sighting of Elvis, or a spud looking like the virgin Mary a miracle?

Even so, as I stated in a post to Frisian, unexplained events do not necessarily provide evidence for a supreme being.No, they don't, but they would be a good start.

(Edited to capitalize Elvis)

EternalUniverse

31st January 2004, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Our existence is anything but unexplainable. If you're talking about life on this planet anyway.
And if your argument is the existence of the universe, well, there's a few factors there that simply go beyond (the average human's) comprehension.

Yeah, sorry, I meant the existence of everything/the universe. Maybe the real question is if there are things that are necessarily incomprehensible for humans.

Originally posted by exarch

Yes, that's the flaw in the first cause argument for the existence of God.

Originally posted by exarch
[B
As for Elvis, well, I ran into an impersonator in Vegas, all decked out in his costume. Would you really consider a sighting of Elvis, or a spud looking like the virgin Mary a miracle?

No, they don't, but they would be a good start.

(Edited to capitalize Elvis)

The issue here is methodology. Some would argue that pure science involves making observations, and then coming up with theories based on those observations. What it seems like people are doing here, is coming up with the theory (God), then trying to look up evidence to support it (ex: like miracles).

exarch

31st January 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
The issue here is methodology. Some would argue that pure science involves making observations, and then coming up with theories based on those observations. What it seems like people are doing here, is coming up with the theory (God), then trying to look up evidence to support it (ex: like miracles).And thus man created "creation science" ...

frisian

31st January 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse

This is why the skeptic uses the "burden of proof" idea. Because we can't prove the negative (i.e. ascertain all the variables, so to speak), it's up to the claimant to support their claim.

In the case of arguing for ideas of the nonempirical sort, perhaps we are relegated to talking about evidence in the relative term (i.e. stronger, weaker, strongest, etc.). I don't think we can say that, right now, the argument is 51% in favor of one side or the other heh

Nor would I care if the 'evidence' was in favor of one or the other and deemed 99%, having unknown variables would preclude defining a percentage anyway. Of course for all practical matters accepting less than 100% certainity is quite sufficient for most. I am not very practical. :p

frisian

31st January 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse

If there is an objective God, then is it the case that knowing Him involves knowing the consequences of his influence and that this influence can be observed? This is why it is important to discern if any miracles have occurred (and I guess you can classify these as paranormal events!). Even if we genuinely observe the unexplained (via miracles), that still doesn't mean that a "God" was the cause of it.

Hmm, observed in terms of the effect? I don't think so as it appears if would have to be subjective and not consistent, I don't see how one could predict.

Certainly we could propose the cause as Allah or Zeus or any other thought up Supernatural being.

frisian

31st January 2004, 03:16 PM

exarch

31st January 2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by frisian
Why would God need a cause?I don't know? Why would he?

frisian

1st February 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by exarch
I don't know? Why would he?

I don't believe he would need a cause. That's the theory anyway.
:p

exarch

1st February 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by frisian
I don't believe he would need a cause. That's the theory anyway.Well, then we're in agreement about something at least :D

frisian

1st February 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Well, then we're in agreement about something at least :D

:) Perhaps, I tend to believe you are being more clever with the words than you are revealing.

exarch

1st February 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by frisian
:) Perhaps, I tend to believe you are being more clever with the words than you are revealing.You're on to me :D

I believe that something that doesn't exist wouldn't need a cause, so it's unlikely we'll ever find one. The difference is merely the reason why we believe that we won't ever find it ;)

But I get the feeling you already knew what I was hinting at ...

frisian

1st February 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by exarch
You're on to me :D

I believe that something that doesn't exist wouldn't need a cause, so it's unlikely we'll ever find one. The difference is merely the reason why we believe that we won't ever find it ;)

But I get the feeling you already knew what I was hinting at ...

Indeed. :D

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by frisian
What would you suggest he punish humans for?
Assuming God is not evil, he should not punish humans at all.

Name a few of these paradoxes.
I keep a rather large .txt file on my computer just for such an occation.

Freewill-Omniscience Paradox:

I'm sure the question has come up many times, the question of whether humans have Free-Will.

If you believe God is omniscient, then you come across a wide spectrum of Paradoxes.

Many Philosophers would disagree with statement regarding "Total Free Will". The reasoning is simple:
Pick one -- Green Hat or Brown Hat?
If it were possible to rewind time, then the inner and outer circumstances of your situation would be identical. Because of that, you will pick the same hat every single time. Hence, you do not have free-will (Determinism).

You can rationalize this by saying you picked whichever hat at your own Free-Will, but given the same inner and outer circumstances you will choose the same hate everytime, this belief was Championed by Hume. Its called Compatibilism (or Soft Determinism). The notion of identical inner and outer conditions or circumstances yielding identical ends is demonstratably true in Chaotic Systems because they are fully Deterministic.

For Clarification, Determinism means "the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs". In simpler words, it means "everything which you do right now, has been influenced by events which occur in the past" (Even more clarification: a line of dominos fall because the domino which came before it fell, the thing which initially caused the dominos to fall was your pushing over the first domino, etc. etc. etc. etc. until you trace all actions all the way back to the whatever you believe is the origin of the universe).

Another helpful word to know is the word Causality. The word "Causality" refers to the principle of or relationship between cause and effect. Note: There are some events (such as radioactive decay) which appear to occur without having anything cause it to occur.

Now onto aspect of an Omniscient God...

In the case of Omniscience, you can easily argue against Open Theism in that knowledge of the future does not necessarily mean that the future is influenced in any way.

Except that, if God knows the future, the future is determined going forward and has been determined from the very start.

Thus, by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

So a few possibilities:
1. The future is pretermined by God (due to his omniscience). If this is the case, then assuming God is omnibenevolent, there should be no Hell.
2. God does not know the future, therefore he is not omniscient. This means humans do have some amount of Free Will. Something more to add: If God is not omniscient, then he is not omnipotent. The reason why is that Omniscience and Omnipotence is redundant (if you know everything there is to know, then you know how to do everything). And seriously, who cares if God is not omniscient, it wouldnt make him any less God.
3. The future is pretermined, Hell exists, nonbelievers do go to Hell, therefore you can only assume God is Evil.
4. God does not exist.
5. Others possibilities I have not listed

If you believe in an Omniscient God, then you cannot argue that humans are the ability to willfully reject or accept God. The reason being is that God knows whether a person will become an Atheist or Christian in his life, and he deliberately creates the person so that they are unable to do anything about whether they Accept or Deny His existence.

Another thing to note is that if God knows the Future, then God knows his Future. If God knows his future, then that knowledge of the future effects the "past" (which is a form of backwards casuality). Because the future is based on current inner and outer circumstances of the present, that new knowledge effects the future, that means the future God knew does not occur. Therefore, there are 2 options:
1. God has no Free Will (i.e. what God knows as the future unfolds exactly as he knew it)
2. God is not omniscient
3. God does not exist
3. A fourth one, but I dont know of one immediately

Something about Omniscience, it is an internally contradictory characteristic. To know everything, you must know about that which you do not know -- which is a logical contradiction.

To illustrate the point, consider: God1 creates God2 in such a way that God2 believes he has all of the powers, capabilities, and possibilities as God1 -- such as always having existed, controlling the rules and specifics of his own universe, etc. Additionally, God1 creates God2's reality in such a way that God2 does not know that God1 and God1's reality exist -- and cannot know, unless God1 deems to reveal this to God2.

Now, consider: Can God1 know that he is not also in the same position as God2. Could a God0 exist that God1 does not know about? If he cannot answer this question, he cannot claim to know everything. He has an unresolvable blind-spot in his knowledge and is therefore not omniscient.

You can easily counter this saying "God knows all there is to know, therefore this is nothing God does not know". However, that suggest there is only a finite amount of knowledge in the universe. You have two more possibilities:
1. That means characteristics about God are finite. If you define Omniscience as "infinite knowledge", then God's Omniscience is denied by definition, there is an unavoidable blind spot
2. God is not infinite
3. God does not exist
4. A fourth option if available

Moreso, what if God just chooses not to know the future? Then he would cease to be omniscient, which still gives him an inevitable blindspot.

In terms of Creation, if God knows the future, then the nature of omnibenevolence is put to question. Why would he create herbivores which he knew would be food for carnivores? Why would war and disease be predestined to occur?

If God is Omniscient while wanting as little suffering in the world as possible, then there are two options:
1. People do not suffer for a higher purpose. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering. This would be a contradiction in logic.
2. Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose. There is no logical contradiction in the position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?

Its very easy to ask "If God is omniscient, can he pose a question that even he does not know the answer to?". There is 3 scenarios:
1. There is a question God does not know the answer to
2. God does not know of any questions which he does not know the answer to
3. God does not exist

In either case, Omniscience is denied.
Of course, there is a hidden option #4: Can knows how to relinquish some of his omniscience, then he can ask himself the question. Therefore no such contradiction in logic occurs.

But in hidden option #4, there is yet one more hidden option #4a: If God relinquishes some of his omniscience, then logically there is no way for him to become omniscient again. Omniscience is therefore denied if God chooses options #4.

However, there is still one more option 4b: God does not have to obey the laws of logic. In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), that is saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. Therefore, the only defendable position to adopt is that of Agnosticism, all other presumptions about God would inherently lead to this inconsistency. There are then 3 options:
1. God obeys the Laws of Logic
2. God does not obey the Laws of Logic. This suggests God cannot be known or defined, therefore Agnosticism is the defendable position.
3. God does not exist.

(Note: I formatted the above text in a way where it is designed to be completely absent of gender-identity, personal-bias, and overall "voice". It isnt immediately identifyable as one of my posts, and that was the intended purpose of the specific formatting. The post was compiled of a few sources, including a line or two by JREF member Graham, a reference to Wikipedia, and the rest from my own cold black mind.)

geni

1st February 2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
*grins* No real anecdotes yet... just little things like watching the Life of Brian or talking to Yahweh without vaguely feeling like a blasphemer :D

You're version of cristianity objected to thoes two things? No wounder you don't belive in it any more.

frisian

1st February 2004, 07:45 PM

yahweh, I see your post. I will come back to it in the next few days.

:D

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by frisian
Why would God need a cause?
Some Creationists how the position of a godless universe to unusual standards, stating that the universe needs a cause (usually they assume a supernatural cause of sorts), but this same standard is suspended when it comes to their own god.

Whereas the causes of a universe can be expressed in terms of Quantum Mechanics (or to an extent, General Relativity), there is nothing which can be said about the existence of God. This isnt exactly "playing fair".

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by frisian
yahweh, I see your post. I will come back to it in the next few days.

:D
Cool :)

frisian

1st February 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Assuming God is not evil, he should not punish humans at all.

So the justice system is evil because it punishes people?

Many Philosophers would disagree with statement regarding "Total Free Will". The reasoning is simple:
Pick one -- Green Hat or Brown Hat?
If it were possible to rewind time, then the inner and outer circumstances of your situation would be identical. Because of that, you will pick the same hat every single time. Hence, you do not have free-will (Determinism).

Nice theory, still unproven.

Now onto aspect of an Omniscient God...

In the case of Omniscience, you can easily argue against Open Theism in that knowledge of the future does not necessarily mean that the future is influenced in any way.

Predictive is different than fore-seeing, as all powerful could resolve that.

Except that, if God knows the future, the future is determined going forward and has been determined from the very start.

Thus, by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

Determined in a weak sense certainly, I wouldn't argue that.

So a few possibilities:
1. The future is pretermined by God (due to his omniscience). If this is the case, then assuming God is omnibenevolent, there should be no Hell.

Humans given a choice, although a small one enables them to avoid hell.

2. God does not know the future, therefore he is not omniscient. This means humans do have some amount of Free Will. Something more to add: If God is not omniscient, then he is not omnipotent. The reason why is that Omniscience and Omnipotence is redundant (if you know everything there is to know, then you know how to do everything). And seriously, who cares if God is not omniscient, it wouldnt make him any less God.

Why must all knowing include the future? Why couldn't knowing all that occurs in real time indicate all knowing?

If you believe in an Omniscient God, then you cannot argue that humans are the ability to willfully reject or accept God. The reason being is that God knows whether a person will become an Atheist or Christian in his life, and he deliberately creates the person so that they are unable to do anything about whether they Accept or Deny His existence.

God knowing, once again in real time, could resolve that as well.

1. God has no Free Will (i.e. what God knows as the future unfolds exactly as he knew it)

Certainly I am of the belief currently that God indeed doesn't have free will, he cannot choose to do other than what he is.

Something about Omniscience, it is an internally contradictory characteristic. To know everything, you must know about that which you do not know -- which is a logical contradiction.

I am open to all knowing being debunked, perhaps it is "merely"
that God has Uber-knowledge.

:D

frisian

1st February 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Some Creationists how the position of a godless universe to unusual standards, stating that the universe needs a cause (usually they assume a supernatural cause of sorts), but this same standard is suspended when it comes to their own god.

Whereas the causes of a universe can be expressed in terms of Quantum Mechanics (or to an extent, General Relativity), there is nothing which can be said about the existence of God. This isnt exactly "playing fair".

Indeed it is not playing fair.

EternalUniverse

2nd February 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by frisian

Hmm, observed in terms of the effect? I don't think so as it appears if would have to be subjective and not consistent, I don't see how one could predict.

Certainly we could propose the cause as Allah or Zeus or any other thought up Supernatural being.

Just on another note, what do you think of this idea? It may be the case that a super powerful being created the universe. However, what do you say about the idea that there exists other universes, which are not created by the above mentioned super powerful being? If this being created this universe, but not others (if there is such a thing), would this being be worthy of worship?

EternalUniverse

2nd February 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by exarch
And thus man created "creation science" ...

I read a transcipt of a debate between a creation "scientist" and a representative of the scientific community. The arguments made by the creation scientist were "convincing" since I do not possess the knowledge to critique the geological/chemical data that he used. I can see how many people can be swayed without any rebuttal/response from someone from the scientific community.

exarch

2nd February 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Just on another note, what do you think of this idea? It may be the case that a super powerful being created the universe. However, what do you say about the idea that there exists other universes, which are not created by the above mentioned super powerful being? If this being created this universe, but not others (if there is such a thing), would this being be worthy of worship?Reverse that and I agree completely :D

This universe was not created by any super powerful being, but other universes are created all the time, like the "Lord of the Rings" universe was created by J.R.R. Tolkien, and the "Star Wars" universe was created by George Lucas.

People in those universes are unaware of Tolkien's or Lucas' existence, but both those universes follow the rules and physical laws of their creators perfectly. Making things fly with your mind is nothing supernatural in those universes, since the laws of those universes have made allowances for things like that to be possible :D:D

frisian

2nd February 2004, 07:34 PM

EternalUniverse

3rd February 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by exarch
Reverse that and I agree completely :D

This universe was not created by any super powerful being, but other universes are created all the time, like the "Lord of the Rings" universe was created by J.R.R. Tolkien, and the "Star Wars" universe was created by George Lucas.

In events of Star Wars occurred in this universe. It says so at the beginning of each movie (long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, etc. etc.) ;)

EternalUniverse

3rd February 2004, 08:19 AM

Ruby

3rd February 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
A simple question for those who were/are Christians.

A big part of my experience was the emotional response in Church to whatever was happening (you know, that feeling) and I am honestly having a difficult time ignoring that I felt something.

1. Do you know what I am talking about?
2. Did you experience the same feelings?
3. How do you reconcile it with your skepticism?

I only just now saw your question. Sorry this is a late reply!!:(

My Christian experience (for over ten years) went on in Charistmatic churches, so I know exactly what you are talking about. Charistmatic churches are all about emotional response and feeling things "in the spirit" and letting the "holy spirit" move within a congregation. I witnessed things with others and experienced many things first hand.

The thing is, it's normal for a believer (or even an unbeliever) to have a pleasant emotional response in a church. It's normal for some people to be efffected by the energy and enthusiasm in a charismatic service during "praise and worship" where people are clapping and some are dancing or bopping about. You can feel great joy and want to clap yourself.....and some who are less shy feel more inclined to join with those dancing. It can be infectious.

The thing is, the same type of things go on at rock concerts or even orchestral concerts. People get worked up to states of euphoria at rock concerts. They dance, sing, cry, and sometimes get carried away.

I had a friend who went to see Itzhak Perlman the great violinist. She was so moved and effected that during one number, she had closed her eyes and sort of drifted off into a state of euphoria....although, she was still hearing the music. When the piece was finished, she opened her eyes and realized she was on her feet....the only one.....and had tears streaming down her face. She herself is a Christian but she likened it to a Christian experience....in fact, it changed her entire perception on so called "moves of god" during a church service.

That was my problem, as time went on, I got tired of preachers or Pastors calling emotional responses to the music or even the preaching "a move of god" or "the holy spirit moving" and encouraging us to allow for the "holy spirit" to move even more. I knew it had nothing to do with a god or "holy spirit" but everything to do with people's emotional responses.

So, I don't have any problem thinking back to some of the emotional responses I had to things in church. I think it's normal for people to have them. I just have a problem with Pastors or Christians calling these emotional responses or feelings "moves of god" or "the holy spirit".

Nowadays, I am moved in similar ways by listening to certain CD's that I love. I can feel all sorts of emotions and even cry.

Heck, movies can move me like crazy. Books are the same way. In fact, books can be quite life changing as well as emotionally moving. I've got more out of books than church ever gave me. But then, a lot of what I have been reading have been books by James Randi, Michael Shermer, and Carl Sagan.

There's so many things that cause you to feel "things" and bring emotions.......and church is just one on that list, IMO. ;)

Ruby

3rd February 2004, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
How many here were baptized, as adults by thier own choice? And what feelings did you have at that time? Then relate that to my other questions.

P.S. I know I'm being vague but it seems to have backfired on me.

I was baptized as an adult. My feelings when I was baptized are not the typical feelings a Christian usually feels. I was scared, nervous, uptight about everyone in the congregation watching me since I was social phobic. I was desperate. I did not fully understand what baptism meant...but thought it would help a scary situation that I was going through. The most positive feeling I felt was relief when it was over.

(Edited to add that the baptism did not help the scary situation I was going through.)

Ruby

3rd February 2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by sparklecat
To everyone who offered advice but not actual questions, I probably won't respond individually- but thank you so much for showing your support :) I'm not as bad off as if I had been raised Christian, and I used to be an atheist, so I have something more to build on. Technically, yeah, I am still dodging using that word to describe myself, but weak atheist would probably be a good way to characterize me now (in spite of my wanting to cry at doing so :p).

I can understand and relate to your hestitation on using a label or term to describe your new or rediscovered belief system. You can only do that when you are ready. I was not raised Christian either. I did not become a Christian until I was in my 20's. It does make a difference not being raised a Christian. I was agnostic before being a Christian. There is much that I can fall back on......although it has been a long time ago now.

It has been hard to call myself something that felt accurate since de-converting from Christianity............but I was anxious to give myself a label right from the beginning of my departure from Christianity. I went with agnostic at first. Over time, as I read books by Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Bertrand Russell and some others....plus, posting on here, and looking on various websites on different subjects, and then attending a Unitarian Universalist fellowship, I came to the conclusion that the things that I had believed in...deep inside...even as a Christian....and the things that had worked in my life....were all a a part of Secular Humanism. So, just recently, I have become a secular humanist...but I am still exploring the whole belief system.

My husband was born and raised a strict Christian living in an isolated religious community that became a cult. He got out of the cult as a teen............but remained a legalistic Christian messed up by this cult for many many years after. Now, like me, he has stopped being a Christian. It has been much harder on him................he struggles over so much. In fact, he does not like me to even say to others...especially his family...that he has de-converted or is not a Christian anymore. He prefers that I say he has lost his faith.

Naturally, he won't accept any sort of label like "agnostic" or "weak atheist". He can't until he reaches some conclusions and reaches a place of acceptance within himself. He is reading Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World right now...since I finished it lately.....and it is truly opening his eyes up to a lot.

I know I can do this. Yes, I was starting to feel trapped by Christianity- in a system I didn't believe, could no longer defend, and didn't make sense to me. It really was a relief to find out that my hypothesis of the evidence coming out to be not so good (given the internal problems) turned out to be true.

Yes, that was the same for me. I was feeling very trapped by Christianity. There were so many things in Christianty that did not add up and make sense to me, and so many things that just did not work like the Christian church said they would. It was an awesome discovery to come on here and discover that many of my doubts as a Christian, and many of the things that just did not add up had some legitimate evidence or good sound logic that not only gave credence to my doubts, but caused me to rethink Christianity.

And to think, I did not come on here to get my doubts addressed. I came on here as a Christian..who was also a skeptic....and it was the skeptic aspect that was a draw for me. I wanted to avoid any Christian debates. That's hard to avoid. People know you are a Christian.....and it's not something you can always hide. I am grateful for those who were gentle with me and helped me to understand all these new and freer ways of looking at things.

Yep, you can do this!! You will do great!! It's going to be an awesome journey...as I said before!!:D

Ruby

3rd February 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Mona

I was raised and indoctrinated as a Roman Catholic, but -- to my parents' sheer horror -- during my sophmore yr of high school I did a 10-month stint as a Pentacostalist. I will never forget the night I was in bed and "asked God for the baptism in the Holy Spirit." An odd feeling came over me and my throat, and I just knew that if I permitted myself to make utterances it would be glossolalia.

That event, and the speaking in tongues itself (which I still am able to do), was a profoundly emotional one in which I sincerely felt myself to be in union with a deity. I do miss the comfort and intensity of the experience.

I was a Charismatic for years. I spoke in "tongues" all the time, and still can...but I avoid it since I don't understand it. I did try to get some posters on here to decipher some of it....but that was hard to do since I was just dictating what the words sounded like...and had no clue what the real spelling was. Anyhow, we have many language experts on JREF who had a go at translating the words, although some words seemed real and they could give a translation for a few.....the grammar was messed up to be able to make sentences, and there were words that were not possible to decipher.

I never felt ecstacy or even real comfort from speaking in tongues unless I allowed myself to feel it. It just seemed another thing that was an emotional response. If I allowed myself, I could pray and speak in tongues and become very emotonal and think I felt and heard all sort of things. Pardon me, but I also felt very sexually turned on during my most intense times of praying. It really bothered me...I did not understand it at all. I thought I was being tormented by a demon or something! lol!!

I think the problem was that I was Christian single who had committed to being celibate (and had been celibate about ten years or so) until marriage and I was starved for sex...so when I prayed....essentially letting loose with all my emotions and relaxing my body...my sex drive popped up being freed from the prison I had it in....and it was calling to me to fulfull it's need!!lol :p

Lord Emsworth

3rd February 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by frisian
Why must all knowing include the future? Why couldn't knowing all that occurs in real time indicate all knowing?

I heard arguments that place God outside of time. And do so quite correctly I think, because as the creator of the universe he'd be the creator of time as well?

On the other, hand 'knowing everything except' is hardly omniscient. :D

frisian

4th February 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Originally posted by EternalUniverse

Just on another note, what do you think of this idea? It may be the case that a super powerful being created the universe. However, what do you say about the idea that there exists other universes, which are not created by the above mentioned super powerful being? If this being created this universe, but not others (if there is such a thing), would this being be worthy of worship?

I'm saying that the existence of other universes not created by the powerful being diminishes this being in some way. Would this being still be "worthy" of worship?

Sure.

frisian

4th February 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

I heard arguments that place God outside of time. And do so quite correctly I think, because as the creator of the universe he'd be the creator of time as well?

On the other, hand 'knowing everything except' is hardly omniscient. :D

Omniscient is perhaps an improper attribute as traditionally understood.

elliotfc

4th February 2004, 05:15 PM

Ruby

6th March 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Freewill-Omniscience Paradox:

I'm sure the question has come up many times, the question of whether humans have Free-Will.

If you believe God is omniscient, then you come across a wide spectrum of Paradoxes.........................

I don't know how I missed this before.....but, wow, Yahweh, what you wrote on the freewill-omniscience paradox was fantastic!!!
:clap:

The whole concept of God giving us freewill, but knowing he was also omniscient, and, according to the bible, chooses who will be his followers, was so contradictory to me in my waning days as a Christian. It was one of the many things that did not make sense and helped to free me from Christianity altogether. It's hard to put it all into words. It's so nice to read what you have written and find that you have put into words what I am not able to do.

Well done!!!:D

Yahweh

6th March 2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Ruby
I don't know how I missed this before.....but, wow, Yahweh, what you wrote on the freewill-omniscience paradox was fantastic!!!
:clap:

The whole concept of God giving us freewill, but knowing he was also omniscient, and, according to the bible, chooses who will be his followers, was so contradictory to me in my waning days as a Christian. It was one of the many things that did not make sense and helped to free me from Christianity altogether. It's hard to put it all into words. It's so nice to read what you have written and find that you have put into words what I am not able to do.

Well done!!!:D
Always a pleasure, Ruby :)

[hugs Ruby] :)

Yahweh

6th March 2004, 07:41 PM

I havent read this thread, I seem to have missed this reply...

Originally posted by frisian
So the justice system is evil because it punishes people?
God has nothing to do with the Judicial System.

The Judicial System would only be evil if it had removed freewill, then punished those humans for their actions which they performed against their own will.

Nice theory, still unproven.
The theory is called Chaos Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) in its most scientific terms.

In terms of human cognition, there is strong evidence to suggest that many human behaviors are deterministic in nature, even to the point that www.physics.orst.edu/~stetza/COURSES/ph407h/Chaos.pdf+mind+chaotic+system&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8]they (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:eSDsnyIoosEJ:[url) may be Chaotic Systems[/url].

Essentially, humans have freewill because they possess the ability to "make choices" at their own disgression, but these choices will reflect the totality of all events which proceeded those choices. Human's do not have "absolute freewill", but a form of "soft determinism" which allows human freewill and determinism at the same time... that is if God does not exist.

Predictive is different than fore-seeing, as all powerful could resolve that.

Determined in a weak sense certainly, I wouldn't argue that.

Humans given a choice, although a small one enables them to avoid hell.
Yes, but the point is that humans were never given a choice, all of their "choices" have been predetermined by God.

Why must all knowing include the future? Why couldn't knowing all that occurs in real time indicate all knowing?

God knowing, once again in real time, could resolve that as well.
One with absence of knowledge usually negates the omniscience quality.

Some Christians hold that God can exist outside of time. In that case, God sees all past, present, and future events simulataneously. Essentially, that "knowing all that occurs in real time" includes from God's point of view all pasts, present, and future events, that would again diminish the idea that humans have freewill (you agreed that an all-knowing God would facilitate a kind of "weak determinism").

Certainly I am of the belief currently that God indeed doesn't have free will, he cannot choose to do other than what he is.
An observation: A bit like reading a book, you'll notice that there is a definite beginning and end of the book, at the same time you also notice that the characters in the book posess any amount of freewill. Now, you say that the author of this (metaphorical) book has no freewill either.

That is an unusual belief which I dont think too many Christians posess nowadays.

Wrath of the Swarm

6th March 2004, 08:04 PM

'Free will' is an illusion, but one that arises necessarily; 'determinism' is a truth, but one that can never be applied to our understanding of the universe.

So it will always appear that we have free will, but we'll never actually possess it, while it will always be true that the universe is deteministic, but it will never appear that way.

Questions? Comments? Please drop them in the box provided:

- - - - - - - - - - -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- . . B O X . . -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- - - - - - - - - - -

Yahweh

6th March 2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Questions? Comments? Please drop them in the box provided:

- - - - - - - - - - -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- . . B O X . . -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- . . . . . . . . . -
- - - - - - - - - - -
What do you define as freewill?

Why is it an illusion?

Is it incompatible with determinism? If so, why?

Wrath of the Swarm

6th March 2004, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
What do you define as freewill? The ability to make meaningful decisions without being contrained by causality.

Why is it an illusion? We can't generate a complete simulation of our minds within our minds. As a result, it seems to us that our thoughts occur without cause, yet adhere to coherent and meaningful patterns.

Is it incompatible with determinism? If so, why? Fundamentally. Because of its basic definition.

Yahweh

6th March 2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The ability to make meaningful decisions without being contrained by causality.
Ah, well then under that definition, I agree with you. (Personally, that isnt the definition of "freewill" which I choose, but its really a moot point at the moment.)

Wrath of the Swarm

6th March 2004, 09:45 PM

I'm not so sure of that. What's your definition?

Yahweh

6th March 2004, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I'm not so sure of that. What's your definition?
My definition of freewill: You have freewill if you posess the ability to make "choices" at your own accord.

That definition also allows you define the difference between a computer's Criterion-Controlled algorhythms and my own choosing of a flavor of icecream because my personal tastes have conditioned me to prefer it.

Your definition included the phrase "without being contrained by causality", its my opinion that Indeterminism has little if anything to do with resolving whether something has freewill. At the same time, I dont believe Freewill and Determinism are mutually incompatible.

A little additional information: I dont believe people have the ability to "choose" their beliefs (I have had a number of arguments with Christians involving whether someone can "choose to reject God"). At the surface of my cynicism, the best I can describe is "People believe what they are conditioned to believe", less cynically I describe that beliefs are the totality of what you've been predisposed to, they develope on their own.

MLynn

7th March 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

My definition of freewill: You have freewill if you posess the ability to make "choices" at your own accord.

That definition also allows you define the difference between a computer's Criterion-Controlled algorhythms and my own choosing of a flavor of icecream because my personal tastes have conditioned me to prefer it.

Your definition included the phrase "without being contrained by causality", its my opinion that Indeterminism has little if anything to do with resolving whether something has freewill. At the same time, I dont believe Freewill and Determinism are mutually incompatible.

A little additional information: I dont believe people have the ability to "choose" their beliefs (I have had a number of arguments with Christians involving whether someone can "choose to reject God"). At the surface of my cynicism, the best I can describe is "People believe what they are conditioned to believe", less cynically I describe that beliefs are the totality of what you've been predisposed to, they develope on their own.

This is interesting - would you say we have "influenced will" rather than "free will?"

Wrath of the Swarm

7th March 2004, 08:44 AM

Yahweh

7th March 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by MLynn
This is interesting - would you say we have "influenced will" rather than "free will?"
Yes, that is why I maintain that Determinism and Freewill are compatible.

Yahweh

7th March 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
But what do you mean, "at your own accord"?
My definition is essentially identical to your "The ability to make meaningful decisions without being contrained by causality" sans the bit regarding constraints by causality.

We have as little control over our preferences as a computer has over its programming. External factors have determined them in both cases.
Just a quick summary from Wikipedia - Compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism):
Compatibilism, also known as "soft determinism" and most famously championed by Hume, is a theory which holds that free will and determinism are compatible. According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. Alternately, Hume maintains that free acts are not uncaused (or mysteriously self-caused as Kant would have it) but caused in the right way, i.e., by our choices as determined by our beliefs and desires, by our characters. While a decision making process exists in Hume's determinism, this process is governed by the so-called causal chain of events. For example, a person may make the decision to support Wikipedia, but that decision is determined by the conditions that existed prior to the decision being made.
Compatibilism is my position.

Wrath of the Swarm

7th March 2004, 12:43 PM

Then everything always has free will, and it can never be otherwise.

And since that's the case, what's the point of creating and labeling the concept in the first place? The computer has as much free will as you do, and so does a rock or a tree or a water molecule.

Yahweh

7th March 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Then everything always has free will, and it can never be otherwise.

And since that's the case, what's the point of creating and labeling the concept in the first place? The computer has as much free will as you do, and so does a rock or a tree or a water molecule.
From my original definition: You have freewill if you posess the ability to make "choices" at your own accord.

It would seem to me that computers, trees, and water molecules do not have freewill because they lack the structures required to necessitate freewill (the first thing that comes to mind is a complex central nervous system). So freewill is therefore circumstancial, its not an absolute.

A quick note about computers (i.e. more semantics gobbily-gook): I differenciate between a computer's Criteria-Controlled "choices" and a humans choices when I use the phrase "at your own accord". That is a rather loosely defined statement, but for the most part it implies a conscious recognition of the choices being made. A computer, being rather unconscious, lacks the ability to make choices at its own accord. A human, being aware of its own choices (even if those choices are derived from Criteria-Controlled circumstances, they are still consciously recognized), do possess the ability to make choices at their own accord.

Wrath of the Swarm

7th March 2004, 02:43 PM

What? Trees don't make choices? They 'decide' how to grow, don't they? How they stay up, how they fall down, how they bud and develop leaves, how they drop their leaves (if they do), the patterns that appear in their bark...

Do neurons have free will? What about molecules?

Wrath of the Swarm

7th March 2004, 02:53 PM

While I'm on the subject:

What are you feelings about the suggestion that we become conscious of our choices after the selection of options is actually made? Would that rule out your verison of free will or not?

Yahweh

7th March 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
What? Trees don't make choices? They 'decide' how to grow, don't they? How they stay up, how they fall down, how they bud and develop leaves, how they drop their leaves (if they do), the patterns that appear in their bark...

Do neurons have free will? What about molecules?
The trees, molecules, and neurons, do not make "choices". I mentioned this earlier when I said "It would seem to me that computers, trees, and water molecules do not have freewill because they lack the structures required to necessitate freewill". They have no ability to consciously affect their surroundings, whatever way they affect their surroundings is not at their own accord.

Yahweh

7th March 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
While I'm on the subject:

What are you feelings about the suggestion that we become conscious of our choices after the selection of options is actually made? Would that rule out your verison of free will or not?
I'm afraid I dont fully understand what you are asking. Could you elaborate?

Wrath of the Swarm

7th March 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
They have no ability to consciously affect their surroundings, whatever way they affect their surroundings is not at their own accord. But the systems responsible for our 'consciousness' of some thought processes can't monitor all thought processes; more importantly, they can't monitor their own functions.

Some studies have suggested that (based on examinations of brain activity and subjective accounts of decision-making) that there's a gap between the moment where we reach a decision and when the areas of the brain involved in carrying out that decision become most active. The problem is that the awareness lags behind the activity. It seems to suggest that consciousness decision-making might be an illusion, in the same way that our visual experience is designed to obscure the functions involved with vision and create the appearance of a continuous process.

We may simply be coming up with attributions and explanations after the fact. Consciousness would be an artifact of our record of mental processes, and not actually be involved with the choices themselves, at least directly.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

frisian

8th March 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
I havent read this thread, I seem to have missed this reply...

God has nothing to do with the Judicial System.

The Judicial System would only be evil if it had removed freewill, then punished those humans for their actions which they performed against their own will.

The theory is called Chaos Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) in its most scientific terms.

In terms of human cognition, there is strong evidence to suggest that many human behaviors are deterministic in nature, even to the point that www.physics.orst.edu/~stetza/COURSES/ph407h/Chaos.pdf+mind+chaotic+system&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8]they (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:eSDsnyIoosEJ:[url) may be Chaotic Systems[/url].

Essentially, humans have freewill because they possess the ability to "make choices" at their own disgression, but these choices will reflect the totality of all events which proceeded those choices. Human's do not have "absolute freewill", but a form of "soft determinism" which allows human freewill and determinism at the same time... that is if God does not exist.

Yes, but the point is that humans were never given a choice, all of their "choices" have been predetermined by God.

One with absence of knowledge usually negates the omniscience quality.

Some Christians hold that God can exist outside of time. In that case, God sees all past, present, and future events simulataneously. Essentially, that "knowing all that occurs in real time" includes from God's point of view all pasts, present, and future events, that would again diminish the idea that humans have freewill (you agreed that an all-knowing God would facilitate a kind of "weak determinism").

An observation: A bit like reading a book, you'll notice that there is a definite beginning and end of the book, at the same time you also notice that the characters in the book posess any amount of freewill. Now, you say that the author of this (metaphorical) book has no freewill either.

That is an unusual belief which I dont think too many Christians posess nowadays.

Ah, chaos theory. Ever seen it applied to theology? Aka as open theism or chaos theology.

If interested I can find some links.

Yahweh

8th March 2004, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
But the systems responsible for our 'consciousness' of some thought processes can't monitor all thought processes; more importantly, they can't monitor their own functions.
Fortunately, the human body is a self-sustaining system. I get hurt, my body repairs itself without any of my conscious effort. Unconscious monitoring, its helpful for keeping a body alive.

Some studies have suggested that (based on examinations of brain activity and subjective accounts of decision-making) that there's a gap between the moment where we reach a decision and when the areas of the brain involved in carrying out that decision become most active. The problem is that the awareness lags behind the activity. It seems to suggest that consciousness decision-making might be an illusion, in the same way that our visual experience is designed to obscure the functions involved with vision and create the appearance of a continuous process.
I dont think this says decisions making is an illusion, it seems to be more closely related to what a guy like Freud would call the "subconscious". The lag between the decision making and the conscious awareness of that decision doesnt suggest that the two processes operate entirely independent of one another, if anything it demonstrates a stronger connection between conscious deliberation and conscious recognition of the action which follows.

There are some behaviors which occur without a conscious recognition until well-after the fact. One example involves touching a hot stove: My hand draws away from the stove before I feel the searing pain. This is a reflex reaction, its hardly representitive of the totality of physical actions and mental phenomena which occur in the brain.

We may simply be coming up with attributions and explanations after the fact. Consciousness would be an artifact of our record of mental processes, and not actually be involved with the choices themselves, at least directly.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
It would be quite absurd to suggest that your mental actions have no correllating effect on the environment around you (that is probably the simplest, yet most persuasive arguments against ephiphenomenalism I can name right off the top of my head). You desire food, you eat it, simple as that. Your pains, your feelings, you emotions do have an obvious effect on your physical behavior. (I make sure to say correlation rather than causation, the typical epiphenomenalistic response is "Falling barometers accompany thunderstorms, but do not cause them"... my traditional reply to that would revolve around "Remove that barometer - consciousness -, and try to convince me the behavior of the thunderstorm - physical actions - will be identical - neglect unnecessary Chaos Variables and other such red herring for the purposes of reasonable progress in the discourse").

Another absurdity in the epiphenomenalist position: Are the actions you are aware of your own? If you say "yes", then this concept is quite incompatible with ephiphenomenalism. If not, then I would be totally in the dark as to how such a truely alien belief (at least alien in relation to what I'm familiar with) could have manifested.

Finally, the recognition and reaction to non-physical stimuli (such as thought, emotion, abstract thinking, self-awareness - yes, people do react to their own recognized existence -, non-physical concepts, etc.) shows clearly a relationship between a person's conscious awareness and their choices.

Yahweh

8th March 2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by frisian
Ah, chaos theory. Ever seen it applied to theology? Aka as open theism or chaos theology.
Chaos affects everything. If you go back in time, alter any given initial condition in just the slightest, you could radically affect the future of all events. Rewind the writing of the books of the bible, change the slightest condition, and you find the bible of future most different than today's bible.

A quick google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=chaos+theory+theology&btnG=Google+Search), and I found a few pages. I havent taken a look at most of them, but "Chaos Theory meets Religion" documents do appear to exist.

Wrath of the Swarm

9th March 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont think this says decisions making is an illusion, it seems to be more closely related to what a guy like Freud would call the "subconscious". The lag between the decision making and the conscious awareness of that decision doesnt suggest that the two processes operate entirely independent of one another, if anything it demonstrates a stronger connection between conscious deliberation and conscious recognition of the action which follows. No, it shows a weaker link. It was possible to predict which course of action a person would take before they were consciously aware that they'd made a decision. It would seem to follow that conscious awareness has nothing to do with decision-making. Possibly the awareness could affect later decisions, but it wasn't involved with the decision at hand.

Wrath of the Swarm

9th March 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Chaos affects everything. If you go back in time, alter any given initial condition in just the slightest, you could radically affect the future of all events. Rewind the writing of the books of the bible, change the slightest condition, and you find the bible of future most different than today's bible. No, you couldn't. You can't change the nature of time, regardless of what you do. Events in the future and events in the past cannot be altered. Your actions would merely be another link in the chain of causality that resulted in the existing conditions.

Yahweh

9th March 2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, it shows a weaker link. It was possible to predict which course of action a person would take before they were consciously aware that they'd made a decision. It would seem to follow that conscious awareness has nothing to do with decision-making. Possibly the awareness could affect later decisions, but it wasn't involved with the decision at hand. [/B]
If conscious awareness can effect later decisions, (regardless of awareness of actions) how is it possible to "predict which course of action a person would take". It seems like constant internal interference would prevent such predictions.

I would argue that conscious awareness very much affects decision-making. If I think about what I am going to do in the future, then I do it, then there is definite reason to suspect conscious awareness affected my deciscion making.

In terms of decisions at hand, a few examples can be made:

At the lunch table, for instance, I recognize a situation in which I am presented with apples as a situation in which I am presented with apples and I form concepts of apples, sort apples into classes (e.g. ripe and unripe), and draw upon those classifications as the situation permits, eating a ripe apple and avoiding unripe apples. Recognizing, conceptually sorting, and drawing upon are information processing activities which take place inside my head -- in my mind. Yum, I eat the ripe apples because I chose to eat the ripe apples.

The above situation demonstrates a causal link between conscious awareness and decision making in that the behavior I exhibit cannot coherently be explained without reference to mental activity (that is at least if you have rationalized a way to believe you are not aware of your own existence, which if not for obvious reasons is rather self-defeating).

Wrath of the Swarm

9th March 2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
If conscious awareness can effect later decisions, (regardless of awareness of actions) how is it possible to "predict which course of action a person would take". It seems like constant internal interference would prevent such predictions. No, it's quite simple. EEGs (and fMRIs) conducted while the decision-making process was taking place could pick up characteristic activation patterns that would allow a computer to predict (with high accuracy) which of two options the subjects would choose, before the time the subjects reported their decisions were made at.

The awareness of their decisions might have affected decisions they made later on, but it doesn't seem that it affected the decisions being studied.

I would argue that conscious awareness very much affects decision-making. If I think about what I am going to do in the future, then I do it, then there is definite reason to suspect conscious awareness affected my deciscion making. But if your awareness of your choices comes quite some time after the choice itself is made, then your awareness wasn't involved in the decision-making process at all.

Recognizing, conceptually sorting, and drawing upon are information processing activities which take place inside my head -- in my mind. Yum, I eat the ripe apples because I chose to eat the ripe apples. But do you decide which apples are ripe and therefore desirable before you're conscious of making the choice? That's the question here.

Yahweh

10th March 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, it's quite simple. EEGs (and fMRIs) conducted while the decision-making process was taking place could pick up characteristic activation patterns that would allow a computer to predict (with high accuracy) which of two options the subjects would choose, before the time the subjects reported their decisions were made at.
I dont see what this says about Human Freewill, although I do think it says something interesting about Human Nature. Although I dont accept that your hypothesis is possible, it still doesnt seem compatible with your description "an artifact of our record of mental processes" due to the fact that some descions require a conscious examination of the inner and outer conditions before the verdict on the deciscion can be made.

(Your computer example seems strangely familiar to Newcomb's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_paradox).)

The awareness of their decisions might have affected decisions they made later on, but it doesn't seem that it affected the decisions being studied.

But if your awareness of your choices comes quite some time after the choice itself is made, then your awareness wasn't involved in the decision-making process at all.

But do you decide which apples are ripe and therefore desirable before you're conscious of making the choice? That's the question here.
My answer would be "no", the reason being is the interconnectedness of the components of the brain coordinating conscious awareness and decision making.

In simpler words, Consciousness and decision making are not processes which occur indenpendent of one another (we're certainly not zombies). Intentionally recalling a memory is an example of conscious deliberation and conscious experience melded into one syncronous instance where the event would not take place if the two processes were independent of one another.

Riddick

10th March 2004, 06:53 PM

well, i dunno, i seem pretty unconscious when i decide to brush my teeth. :D

Wrath of the Swarm

10th March 2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont see what this says about Human Freewill, although I do think it says something interesting about Human Nature. Although I dont accept that your hypothesis is possible, it still doesnt seem compatible with your description "an artifact of our record of mental processes" due to the fact that some descions require a conscious examination of the inner and outer conditions before the verdict on the deciscion can be made. But they don't - that's precisely the point. No matter how much people were certain that they hadn't chosen before a certain point, their brain activation patterns indicated that a choice had indeed been made. This strongly suggests that consciousness of a choice has nothing to do with the mechanics of the choice itself.

Humans have no awareness of the properties of sensory input. We're conscious only of the simulation our minds create from the available data - for example, when reading this text you probably experienced your shifts in visual attention as smooth and continuous, when we know that's quite far from the truth.

There is a very real possibility that what we call "consciousness" is just the attribution of behaviors to ourselves.

Yahweh

10th March 2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
But they don't - that's precisely the point. No matter how much people were certain that they hadn't chosen before a certain point, their brain activation patterns indicated that a choice had indeed been made. This strongly suggests that consciousness of a choice has nothing to do with the mechanics of the choice itself.

Humans have no awareness of the properties of sensory input. We're conscious only of the simulation our minds create from the available data - for example, when reading this text you probably experienced your shifts in visual attention as smooth and continuous, when we know that's quite far from the truth.

There is a very real possibility that what we call "consciousness" is just the attribution of behaviors to ourselves.
I've read a few of the neurology reviews indicating choices are determined before they are consciously recognized, but there is still some unresolved inconsistancy...

I've often brought up the point that the systems involved in Cognition and the systems involved in Physics are not comparable.

Decisional free will and scientific determinism co-exist because they are at different levels of discourse - in this case, neurology (metaphysics) and psychology (epistemology). Free will expresses how we operate at the personal level, and determinism explains how our brain works at the base physical level.

With the above differenciation, you can logically suggest "Voluntary Movements" are in fact "voluntary", the recongition of your own existence becomes coherent to consider, and the concept of freewill becomes logically harmonious scientific determinism.

(At the moment, I've joined a Paranormal and Psychic debate room in PalTalk, I would usually write a longwinded post, I'll get back to you tomorrow. In the mean time, your posts have been delightful :) )