Why does God >insert your grievance here<....?

[Old Croc]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That was an interesting way of calling a poster an idiot.  In indirect fashion, which then hopefully doesn't put you afoul of the rules. 

It's been many a year since you've had a go at me, Tipp.

Good to see you are still around. 

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, leeedwards said:

Funnily enough most people gow out of their belief  in Santa, unlike their unfounded belief in a magical super being.

 

Their unfounded belief?  Their belief is unfounded to you.  Be a bit more accurate. 

[fusion58]

Teaching kids to ask magical beings to solve their problems creates irresponsible adults who fail to find solutions.

[fusion58]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

 

Their unfounded belief?  Their belief is unfounded to you.  Be a bit more accurate. 

 

Unfounded = not supported by either evidence or logic.

 

Pretty much sums up the belief in a supernatural sky wizard.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Old Croc said:

It's been many a year since you've had a go at me, Tipp.

Good to see you are still around. 

 

I still love ya dearly, Old Croc.  You know that.

 

Good to see you still around.  Hope you and the family had a wonderful Christmas and New Year holiday. 

 

Now forgive me, Old Croc, but I can't resist this one.  Whose birthday did you celebrate this past Christmas?  One of your family members? 

[fusion58]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

God is a representation of the existence of more than what we are aware of.  Which awareness for most extends to this world and the self in the mirror only.  Gods come and go, as everyone knows by just a cursory reading of human history, but what they represent is continually expressed despite the particular label applied.  Every god that's accepted today will eventually be sent to the "old god's home" and be replaced by another, new one.  Like it or not, agree with it or not, but you can't change it. 

 

“If theism were really true there’s no reason for God to be hard to find. He should be perfectly obvious whereas in naturalism you might expect people to believe in God but the evidence to be thin on the ground.

 

Under theism you’d expect that religious beliefs should be universal. There’s no reason for God to give special messages to this or that primitive tribe thousands of years ago. Why not give it to anyone? Whereas under naturalism you’d expect different religious beliefs inconsistent with each other to grow up under different local conditions.

 

Under theism you’d expect religious doctrines to last a long time in a stable way. Under naturalism you’d expect them to adapt to social conditions.

 

Under theism you’d expect the moral teachings of religion to be transcendent, progressive, sexism is wrong, slavery is wrong. Under naturalism you’d expect they reflect, once again, local mores, sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good.

 

You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner. Under naturalism you’d expect the sacred texts to be a mishmash—some really good parts, some poetic parts, and some boring parts and mythological parts.”

 

 - Sean Carroll 

[bendejo]

My god is near perfect: well behaved, doesn't crap inside the house, doesn't bark much or beg at the table when we're eating.
My dog, on the other hand, is a cruel sort, otherwise he wouldn't have let me be born dyslexic.

 

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

Unfounded = not supported by either evidence or logic.

 

Pretty much sums up the belief in a supernatural sky wizard.

 

The same response applies.  Their belief is unfounded to you.  Be a bit more accurate. 

 

Not supported by either evidence or logic that you can perceive.  Unless you want to claim to all here and now that the only thing which exists if that which you personally perceive or can make sense of.  And so anything which anyone else is able to perceive and make sense of, which you don't, is therefore not valid.  Wouldn't that make you a god of sorts when you place yourself in the position, self anointed, where you are the only one who can declare what is real and what is not based solely on your limited perception and understanding?

 

Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning becomes when you take it to it's logical conclusion? 

[Old Croc]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

 

I still love ya dearly, Old Croc.  You know that.

 

Good to see you still around.  Hope you and the family had a wonderful Christmas and New Year holiday. 

 

Now forgive me, Old Croc, but I can't resist this one.  Whose birthday did you celebrate this past Christmas?  One of your family members? 

Believe it or not, your Christmas was just another day where I now live in Issan. I'm happy to say I didn't have to endure a single silly song, decorated tree or outlandish costume. I didn't feast nor drink on the day or even think about it being something different. I always had trouble understanding how all that festivity fitted in to religion.  The same with rabbits and chocolate at Easter.

New Year was a different story!  My kidneys are still recovering.

When I was a worker, I did appreciate the gazetted religious holidays, if not the reasons for them. When I worked shift at airports, I was the guy who swapped shifts so others could do their thing for their god. I gratefully raked in the huge allowances for working on those days. 

At other times, I did eat, drink and reluctantly exchange presents without ever thinking it was someone's birthday. I appreciated the bacchanalian aspect of my secular Christmases.

Easter was always good for taking extra days off to go fishing or camping for a week.

[toofarnorth]

Just a thought , if God is a Christian god why are there lightning conductors on church steeples ?  Lightning is an act of god.

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

Believe it or not, your Christmas was just another day where I now live in Issan. I'm happy to say I didn't have to endure a single silly song, decorated tree or outlandish costume. I didn't feast nor drink on the day or even think about it being something different. I always had trouble understanding how all that festivity fitted in to religion.  The same with rabbits and chocolate at Easter.

New Year was a different story!  My kidneys are still recovering.

When I was a worker, I did appreciate the gazetted religious holidays, if not the reasons for them. When I worked shift at airports, I was the guy who swapped shifts so others could do their thing for their god. I gratefully raked in the huge allowances for working on those days. 

At other times, I did eat, drink and reluctantly exchange presents without ever thinking it was someone's birthday. I appreciated the bacchanalian aspect of my secular Christmases.

Easter was always good for taking extra days off to go fishing or camping for a week.

 

I hear ya, Old Croc.  I've always told friends back home that one of the huge benefits of being in Thailand was that I could escape Christmas.  Now I do enjoy the spirit of Christmas but that doesn't have to be a religious experience replete with all of the baggage.  Good will to all men is a noble aspiration even apart from religion.  But I'm beyond believing in the concept of saviours.  There's no one gonna save me from myself except myself. 

 

Exchanging presents was probably one of the things I hated most.  Even if you could afford to put everyone on your list the trouble was always thinking of what to buy someone that wouldn't end up in the rubbish bin the day after New Year's.    That and the embarrassment of giving someone a $5 gift and receiving a $50 gift from them.    Now I'm a generous guy but when Christmas forces you to be generous I have a problems with it.  And if that's all Christmas is about - getting presents - then the meaning is completely lost.

 

Cheers mate! 

[Tippaporn]

Long ago I came across a great analogy which fits perfectly into this thread.  It was told by someone this way:

 

The only time everyone gives two hoots about what anyone else chooses for themselves is in a restaurant.  In the hypothetical restaurant of the analogy you get a menu with every conceivable food item on it.  You peruse the menu and what you don't like you skim over and focus only on what you do like.  And order just that.  But in this amazing restaurant rather than the menu offering food it offers you ideas.  And again, every conceivable idea which exists is listed.  Again you skim over the ideas you don't like and focus only on the ideas you do like.  And you order just that.

 

Now imagine, the next time you go out to eat, walking around the restaurant going to every table to criticise, ridicule, admonish, and spew hate on all of the patrons for what they're eating.  But . . . only if they're eating what you wouldn't choose for yourself.  And patting everyone who is eating what you prefer on the back and calling them 'friend'. 

 

Isn't that what's happening here? 

[Tippaporn]

I can't help but laugh as I imagine some of the posters here sitting at their tables, unable to stop fidgeting uncomfortably, restless in their seats as they're trying to enjoy their meal, grim faced with scowls and snarling rage as they espy the patron next to them eating a holy wafer and washing it down with wine.

 

             

 

[Tippaporn]

People are funny, ain't they? 

[pomchop]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

There's a difference between 'lecture' and 'insight'. 

 

Seems there's little that's not open to personal interpretation. 

 

Was that last statement 'lecture' or 'insight'?

 

What's your interpretation? 

How about condescending?   That is how it comes across to me when u seem to be pretending to "understand" something that others can't grasp...and as for your thoughts running quite a bit deeper?  In your opinion?  that and 10 baht will get you a ride on a baht bus.

 

This subject matter is for people whose thoughts run quite a bit deeper.  If they don't then that's fine.  There's no right or wrong about it.  Just don't expect to understand something when you're not interested in understanding it.  You obviously won't. 

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, pomchop said:

How about condescending?   That is how it comes across to me when u seem to be pretending to "understand" something that others can't grasp...and as for your thoughts running quite a bit deeper?  In your opinion?  that and 10 baht will get you a ride on a baht bus.

 

This subject matter is for people whose thoughts run quite a bit deeper.  If they don't then that's fine.  There's no right or wrong about it.  Just don't expect to understand something when you're not interested in understanding it.  You obviously won't. 

 

Now don't be too harsh, pomchop.  I'm just calling it as I see it.  Same as you.  I can't control anyone's reactions to my calls.  If your interpretation of my initial post is that I'm lecturing then you're calling it as you see it.  If you interpret my last post as condescending then you're calling it as you see it.  Are your interpretations an accurate reflection of my intentions?  I would say not - and I would be the one to know - but that wouldn't necessarily cause you to change your interpretation if I told you that, would it?  Lots of people claim to know better what another is thinking than the person doing the actual thinking themselves know.  There's scant I can do about that.

 

My last post, for instance, was to make the simple point to you that anyone can interpret what another says or writes in any number of given ways.  So was I lecturing or providing my insight in my first post?  That's two ways to interpret what I wrote.  You chose lecturing.  Was I really attempting to lecture or is that only the way you perceived it?  Since I know what my intention was then I know which of the two is correct.

 

Have you ever taken an action in your life with little thought and have it go south on you?  Only afterwards did you think things through and then realised that had you thought it through before you took the action that you wouldn't have taken the action that you did?  Everyone's experienced that and I'd guarantee that you have as well.  That's an example where thinking it through equates to deeper thinking.  You become aware of more than what you were initially aware of.  And that greater awareness would have altered your course.

 

Lots of folks who express their ideas of God haven't thought it through and take action by expressing ill informed opinions.  I'm not judging that - as I said there's no right or wrong about it.  I'm just calling it like I see it.  And what I see I call my insight.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Long ago I came across a great analogy which fits perfectly into this thread.  It was told by someone this way:

 

The only time everyone gives two hoots about what anyone else chooses for themselves is in a restaurant.  In the hypothetical restaurant of the analogy you get a menu with every conceivable food item on it.  You peruse the menu and what you don't like you skim over and focus only on what you do like.  And order just that.  But in this amazing restaurant rather than the menu offering food it offers you ideas.  And again, every conceivable idea which exists is listed.  Again you skim over the ideas you don't like and focus only on the ideas you do like.  And you order just that.

 

Now imagine, the next time you go out to eat, walking around the restaurant going to every table to criticise, ridicule, admonish, and spew hate on all of the patrons for what they're eating.  But . . . only if they're eating what you wouldn't choose for yourself.  And patting everyone who is eating what you prefer on the back and calling them 'friend'. 

 

Isn't that what's happening here? 

In the restaurant there's actual food. You are talking about something in your mind that you think is a thing.  Imagine someone saying they are tasting something so yummy but there's nothing in front of them to see. You might then question, admonish, or ridicule.  So if you believe something and wish to talk about it you have to cop it as a reasonable thing to be criticised when nothing can be seen on the table. 

[Sunmaster]

43 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

In the restaurant there's actual food. You are talking about something in your mind that you think is a thing.  Imagine someone saying they are tasting something so yummy but there's nothing in front of them to see. You might then question, admonish, or ridicule.  So if you believe something and wish to talk about it you have to cop it as a reasonable thing to be criticised when nothing can be seen on the table. 

You assume that because you can't see it, it isn't there.

Yes, you may question the reason why you can't see it, but that doesn't give you the right to criticize or ridicule them. Maybe all the people sitting at that table see the same food he sees and wonder why the hell you can't see it. ;-)
 

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You are talking about something in your mind that you think is a thing.

 

An idea.  Granted, most who believe in God personify it.

 

If I told you that God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You do not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to mean that God is less than real - nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action.

 

11 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Imagine someone saying they are tasting something so yummy but there's nothing in front of them to see.

 

Hmmm . . .   I'm not so sure that my restaurant analogy can be stretched to include what you are implying to be delusional.

 

15 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You might then question, admonish, or ridicule.

 

If I experienced a situation like that I wouldn't question, admonish or ridicule.  If someone is delusional then I'd take the safe route and leave 'em alone.  I wouldn't involve myself in any way. 

 

17 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

So if you believe something and wish to talk about it you have to cop it as a reasonable thing to be criticised when nothing can be seen on the table.

 

Again, I don't think my analogy can extend to cover your scenario.  Which would be equivalent to another diner coming over to your table to tell you how delicious their meal is and cajole you into tasting it when you don't like what they're eating.

 

Sunmaster's point is that some folks come over to the God thread to complain about what's being eaten there by others.  That is the equivalent of you stepping away from your table to complain about what they're eating.

 

No one is forcing anyone to come over to the God thread to hear what anyone has to say.  It's all free choice, as it is in a restaurant.  Your tweaking of my analogy suggests what I wrote above . . . someone coming to your table to get you to eat, and enjoy, what they're eating.  In which case questioning, admonishing or ridiculing is appropriate.  But that's not the case here.

 

Ozimoron admitted on this thread that he's going over to the God thread for the sole purpose of trolling.  His words, not mine.  Sunmaster is saying, hey, if you don't like what we're talking about then why come?  No one invited you or forced you to be here.

[fusion58]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

The same response applies.  Their belief is unfounded to you.  Be a bit more accurate. 

 

Not supported by either evidence or logic that you can perceive.  Unless you want to claim to all here and now that the only thing which exists if that which you personally perceive or can make sense of.  And so anything which anyone else is able to perceive and make sense of, which you don't, is therefore not valid.  Wouldn't that make you a god of sorts when you place yourself in the position, self anointed, where you are the only one who can declare what is real and what is not based solely on your limited perception and understanding?

 

Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning becomes when you take it to it's logical conclusion? 

 

Theists are always free to present any empirical evidence and/or a priori metaphysical arguments in support of their belief in a supernatural sky monarch.

 

Arguing "evidence exists - you're simply unable to see or understand it" is just a disingenuous way of conceding that you don't really have any evidence to present.

[fusion58]

52 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You assume that because you can't see it, it isn't there.

Yes, you may question the reason why you can't see it, but that doesn't give you the right to criticize or ridicule them. Maybe all the people sitting at that table see the same food he sees and wonder why the hell you can't see it. ;-)
 

 

The burden of proof rests solely on the claimant or the believer.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, fusion58 said:

 

The burden of proof rests solely on the claimant or the believer.

Well, you claimed you can't see the food that I can see. What makes you think that your vision is more accurate than mine? How is your vision the measuring staff upon all other visions have to be compared to? 
 

[fusion58]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, you claimed you can't see the food that I can see. What makes you think that your vision is more accurate than mine? How is your vision the measuring staff upon all other visions have to be compared to? 
 

 

I need not claim my vision is more accurate than yours; I need only affirm that the burden to prove the existence of something you claim exists is yours and yours alone.

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

Theists are always free to present any empirical evidence and/or a priori metaphysical arguments in support of their belief in a supernatural sky monarch.

 

Arguing "evidence exists - you're simply unable to see or understand it" is just a disingenuous way of conceding that you don't really have any evidence to present.

I'm not a theist and am as far removed from a "sky monarch" as you are. 
The only evidence I could point to is consciousness. 

 

[fusion58]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

I'm not a theist and am as far removed from a "sky monarch" as you are. 
The only evidence I could point to is consciousness. 

 

 

 

How would consciousness constitute evidence for the existence of a supernatural being or deity?

[Sunmaster]

9 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

 

How would consciousness constitute evidence for the existence of a supernatural being or deity?

It doesn't. In fact I don't subscribe to the notion of a supernatural being or deity. 
I believe that by following consciousness to its source, you can find all the evidence you'll ever need. How can you find it? By practicing self-inquiry. That's all there is.
Nothing supernatural about it. Quite the contrary....nothing more natural than consciousness. I have it, you have it, everyone has it.
The idea of a personal God is, in my opinion, just a stepping stone to the realization that God and you (and all of us, and everything) are ultimately the same thing.

[fusion58]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It doesn't. In fact I don't subscribe to the notion of a supernatural being or deity. 
I believe that by following consciousness to its source, you can find all the evidence you'll ever need. How can you find it? By practicing self-inquiry. That's all there is.
Nothing supernatural about it. Quite the contrary....nothing more natural than consciousness. I have it, you have it, everyone has it.
The idea of a personal God is, in my opinion, just a stepping stone to the realization that God and you (and all of us, and everything) are ultimately the same thing.

 

It sounds like you subscribe to an emergent conception of God as symbolic or otherwise representative of the self, the unity of all phenomena, etc.

 

This kind of idea suffers from the same type of epistemological problem as that of the theist, viz., it assumes the existence of an atomic and/or incorporeal "self."

 

 

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, fusion58 said:

 

It sounds like you subscribe to an emergent conception of God as symbolic or otherwise representative of the self, the unity of all phenomena, etc.

 

This kind of idea suffers from the same type of epistemological problem as that of the theist, viz., it assumes the existence of an atomic and/or incorporeal "self."

 

 

Like I said, it's up to you to find the evidence, for yourself, for your own benefit. Nobody forces you to look, nobody should ask anyone else for proof. You are your own proof. 
Self-Inquiry fulfills a need. If you don't have that need, fine. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me or anyone else. 
If that makes you jump up triumphantly and say "Hurray! I knew it. He can't give me evidence! The Self doesn't exist!", then so be it. ;-) 

[fusion58]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Like I said, it's up to you to find the evidence, for yourself, for your own benefit. Nobody forces you to look, nobody should ask anyone else for proof. You are your own proof. 
Self-Inquiry fulfills a need. If you don't have that need, fine. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me or anyone else. 
If that makes you jump up triumphantly and say "Hurray! I knew it. He can't give me evidence! The Self doesn't exist!", then so be it. ;-) 

 

It's not up to me to find evidence for someone else's claims.

 

No getting around that pesky burden of proof thing.

 

[sipi]

Why does God have a beard?