The Identity of God [Archive]

Pussy Galore

04-30-17, 10:10 AM

Voltaire in ''The ignorant philosopher'' (Which I'm reading right now) defends a particular sort of deism in which he admits the existence, the intelligence, the eternity of god (also that he created us), but that even if he can prove it (I don't think he can, but I can see the arguments) he's still ignorant on his essence.

There's this line « Il est donc une puissance unique, éternelle, à qui tout est lié et de qui tout dépend, mais dont la nature m'est incompréhensible » which means that he's a unique eternal power, but that I can't understand his nature.

Further he says « Déjà convaincu que ne connaissant pas ce que je suis, je ne puis connaître ce qu'est mon auteur » which means How can I know who is my creator if I don't even know who I am?

This second argument is still true today in regard to science, we don't know what is a human being, how we think, etc. Sure it evolves, we know things, but, for instance, consciousness is still a big mystery.

So my question goes to religious people (I know there are some here) how can you, without referring to faith, know the identity of god? Because, I think and correct me if I'm wrong, living a particular religion implies having some knowledge of it's essence because each religion (at least christianity which is the one I think most people follow here) give a particular moral code, some particular things to do in accordance to god's will. And knowing god's will implies knowing god, or at least partially knowing him.

And the question is: Lets say we assume that there are good arguments for the existence of an omnipotent being (which I don't agree with, but lets assume so), what kind of proof, or reason do you have to follow a particular religion, which implies a particular identity to god?

I hope it'll bring a good discussion :)

Blix the Goblin

04-30-17, 01:28 PM

like atheists..

I'm sure we will hear from some brilliantly enlightened atheists about how there is no god because the Bible/Quran/Torah is wrong or how stupid it is to believe a man with a beard is sitting in the sky, omnipotent and all powerful.. I can feel the bitterness from here

I'm an atheist, and yes I went through that "hurr durr religious people are so dumb they're not wise like me" phase in my late teens and early twenties but I grew out of it, as I hope most atheists do. I've come to appreciate the benefits of religious belief, as well as their rich cultural history and art/beauty they have produced. I would even go as far as to say I envy people who can believe in a higher power, but it simply isn't in my nature.

I would implore you not to assume that every atheist is some smug anti-theist who thinks he or she is better than everyone else. Atheism is not a dogma, we come in all shapes and sizes. There is a very loud and obnoxious minority that won't shut up about how stupid religion is, but that's all they are.

FromBeyond

04-30-17, 01:32 PM

Wasn't it Nietzsche who said I do not esteem the bowels of the inscrutable

Pussy Galore

04-30-17, 02:20 PM

Blix the Goblin

04-30-17, 02:34 PM

Wasn't it Nietzsche who said I do not esteem the bowels of the inscrutableAnd wasn't it Schopenhauer who said mankind absolutely needs an interpretation of life; and this, again, must be suited to popular comprehensionHowever, the question is not if it's in your nature or not to be a theist or not, but if it's true that god exists. And if so, then what is his identity. I assume that all religious people have answer to this second question, that was the point of the message I posted :DI plead ignorance

seanc

04-30-17, 04:50 PM

Your question is loaded PG, as I am sure you know. so as I start to formulate in my head how I will answer I can already feel myself pulling away because of fear that I will butcher it. Ultimately I decided to butcher it because I think it is important to engage with your question. As you quote in your OP, how can we know the essence of God, when we don't even comprehend our existence. Tough stuff, especially when you start to consider how different all of our experiences are. Where and how we grew up or were raised have an undeniable influence on us. Even if we decide to run the opposite way of our upbringing, it has had an influence.

When things started to become clear for me is when I started realizing that what I had learned about the nature of God was undeniably the best way for a human to live. The nature of the God I grew up learning about was a God of unconditional love and forgiveness through all things, no strings attached. What I see in every other religion or belief system is trying to achieve better living through works. Not only is it impossible to reach any kind of happiness with this way of thinking but it completely puts the emphasis on me. Believing that we can be better through works is selfish. Believing that how we become better is by loving others unconditionally is selfless.

Now to go any deeper than that will be getting into Christainity itself. I don't think that is your intention so I won't do that unless natural discourse leads us that way. I would think that your response would be along the lines of being able to love unconditionally without a belief in a higher being. My simple response is I don't think we are here by chance, I believe in God and to know his nature I have to know what makes us our best selfs, and my answer above explains that nature I believe.

To me what the philosopher in your OP is describing is agnosticism. The fact that we can never fully understand the full nature of God or easily come to terms with our existence doesn't negate our capacity to wrestle with those things and certainly can't make exploring that nature any less valuable.

Dani8

04-30-17, 04:59 PM

To me what the philosopher in your OP is describing is agnosticism.

I agree, Sean.

Camo

04-30-17, 09:04 PM

I can feel the bitterness from here

I'm an atheist, and yes I went through that "hurr durr religious people are so dumb they're not wise like me" phase in my late teens and early twenties but I grew out of it, as I hope most atheists do. I've come to appreciate the benefits of religious belief, as well as their rich cultural history and art/beauty they have produced. I would even go as far as to say I envy people who can believe in a higher power, but it simply isn't in my nature.

I would implore you not to assume that every atheist is some smug anti-theist who thinks he or she is better than everyone else. Atheism is not a dogma, we come in all shapes and sizes. There is a very loud and obnoxious minority that won't shut up about how stupid religion is, but that's all they are.

Yup, this entirely. I went through a very brief period of feeling like i was smarter than everyone else because i had discovered that god wasn't real. This period of my life is particularly embarrassing/shameful because i was brought up Catholic and the majority of my family was/still is Catholic: i had this cringey faux-edgey attitude of you guys are all really stupid and if you listen to me you'll realize why because i'm obviously the first person to question your beliefs and i have all the answers.

Thankfully i grew out of it and realized i was a moron for it, i'm still atheist but i definitely don't think i know anything more than anyone else, i just find it difficult to believe in a god. I actually went through a depressed state after i had bypassed my douchebag 'i'm above religion' state because i really wanted an afterlife to be true but personally can't believe that because of the way i'm wired. I've now just accepted stuff and i think beliefs whether religious or not are fine as long as they don't trample upon others livelihood.

Swan

04-30-17, 09:51 PM

Thirding Blix's message. Not against religion, but it's definitely not in my nature - I like those words, Blix - to believe in a god.

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 12:14 AM

Yup, this entirely. I went through a very brief period of feeling like i was smarter than everyone else because i had discovered that god wasn't real. This period of my life is particularly embarrassing/shameful because i was brought up Catholic and the majority of my family was/still is Catholic: i had this cringey faux-edgey attitude of you guys are all really stupid and if you listen to me you'll realize why because i'm obviously the first person to question your beliefs and i have all the answers.

Thankfully i grew out of it and realized i was a moron for it, i'm still atheist but i definitely don't think i know anything more than anyone else, i just find it difficult to believe in a god. I actually went through a depressed state after i had bypassed my douchebag 'i'm above religion' state because i really wanted an afterlife to be true but personally can't believe that because of the way i'm wired. I've now just accepted stuff and i think beliefs whether religious or not are fine as long as they don't trample upon others livelihood.

I feel similar being Agnostic.

Beyond all other "faiths" I actually know that my belief (that I don't know) is 100% true. And it's not just some ethereal inner knowing (of not knowing), but it is quite objective upon examination that I'm not just claiming to not know, but that I truly do not know.

Unlike any other faith I can prove that mine is correct. Go ahead, ask away - my "I don't know" will quantify with no uncertainty that my claim to not knowing is absolutely true.

See, all religions and even atheism make a claim - therefore, having no quantifiable facts one way or the other - they must all rely on a faith or a belief in something that either has not been proved or something that absolutely cannot be disproved.

Agnosticism claims nothing - therefore we have nothing to prove or disprove. And as far as not knowing - logic and human nature dictates that if one were to know something, they wouldn't claim not to know because we desire to be knowledgeable and seen by others as informed, educated, experienced, etc. Agnosticism is the most humble of non-faiths.

Swan

05-01-17, 12:19 AM

Breaking the words down to their roots, agnosticism doesn't even concern faith. It concerns knowledge. Atheism concerns faith, however, and simply means lack of a belief in a god or gods.

That's why I consider myself an atheist. Obviously I don't know if there is a god or not - I haven't had any reason to believe in one, either, and thus I lack a belief entirely.

Camo

05-01-17, 12:22 AM

Blix the Goblin

05-01-17, 01:00 AM

Agnosticism is fine i'd just be lying if i said i was agnostic as i don't believe there is a god or anything after this life. I'm not claiming anything either, i'm stating that i don't believe in god.
I really wish I could be in the "unsure" category and just say maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. But somewhere deep inside I know there is no God. Call it common sense, call it pessimism, call it whatever you like, but I just feel it down to my bones.

Quite frankly, it sucks. But I am who I am, and I can't pretend to be something I'm not. All I can do is keep on truckin'

Camo

05-01-17, 01:06 AM

I really wish I could be in the "unsure" category and just say maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. But somewhere deep inside I know there is no God. Call it common sense, call it pessimism, call it whatever you like, but I just feel it down to my bones.

Quite frankly, it sucks. But I am who I am, and I can't pretend to be something I'm not. All I can do is keep on truckin'

Yeah. I'll just copy and paste this anytime people question my 'godless-ness'!

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 02:10 AM

Why did you quote me there and not say.. Blix who was the first one to make that comment?

Agnosticism is fine i'd just be lying if i said i was agnostic as i don't believe there is a god or anything after this life. I'm not claiming anything either, i'm stating that i don't believe in god.

You sound the least humble in this thread but i guess that was the joke. lol

I have to disagree with some of the definitions of atheism here. It's not just a lack of a belief, but it's a belief that something does not exist.

Unfortunately, there is no way Atheism could ever be proved - you cannot prove the nonexistence of something (which is why negative existential claims bear no burden of proof). But certainly Atheism could be refuted simply with proof of existence.

Simply lacking belief, or not being sure, or not knowing which story is true (but that any one of them or combination of them may be true), or that "God" may exist, but matches no man-made description, or that maybe there just is no God all fall under Agnosticism.

Atheism is usually described as a type of certainty (similar to religion) while Agnosticism is an admission to a truth I believe most people would apply to themselves if they were really being honest, but won't admit to - that they simply don't know.

P.S. I'm very proud of my humility. I am the best there is at being self-deprecating. I excel beyond all others at admitting my lack of knowledge and diffidence. Knowing that you don't know things is probably the most intelligent realization anyone can come to, so I gladly flaunt my unpretentiousness! My ability to be as humble as I am pretty much makes me superior to everyone else. ;)

Camo

05-01-17, 02:16 AM

I have to disagree with some of the definitions of atheism here. It's not just a lack of a belief, but it's a belief that something does not exist.

| literally said "I state i don't believe in god" (i mean i typed those exact words), i don't believe god exists, not sure what you want from me here but i think me, Blix and Swan have made this clear already.

Swan

05-01-17, 02:44 AM

Not sure where you're getting your definitions Captain, but they aren't quite accurate.

The definition of "gnostic" is literally "relating to knowledge". Gnosticism and agnosticism aren't about belief, but knowledge. Theism and atheism are about belief/faith. You could essentially be an agnostic atheist (no way of knowing and lack belief), an gnostic atheist (there is a way of knowing and lack belief), an agnostic theist (no way of knowing and believe), or a gnostic theist (there is a way of knowing and believe).

Atheism, when broken down, is literally a- (not) theism (belief in a deity). So by definition, it simply means not believing.

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 02:48 AM

| literally said "I state i don't believe in god" (i mean i typed those exact words), i don't believe god exists, not sure what you want from me here but i think me, Blix and Swan have made this clear already.

So is there a difference in the statements - "I believe in God" and "I know God exists"?
Or; "I don't believe in God" and "I know that no such thing as God exists"?

Swan

05-01-17, 02:49 AM

Well, yes, faith and knowledge are very different.

Camo

05-01-17, 02:50 AM

So is there a difference in the statements - "I believe in God" and "I know God exists"?
Or; "I don't believe in God" and "I know that no such thing as God exists"?

I don't believe there is a god. Dunno, i'll say that as many ways as you want but i don't think it matters.

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 02:54 AM

I don't believe there is a god. Dunno, i'll say that as many ways as you want but i don't think it matters.

Oh, there's a difference. There are those who say they believe (i.e. they have no substantial evidence, but they do have faith). Then there are those who claim to know - they are usually more dangerous.

Swan

05-01-17, 02:55 AM

Gonna stop being in this debate before I get too into it. No disrespect meant Cap, but I simply bow out.

Camo

05-01-17, 03:00 AM

Oh, there's a difference. There are those who say they believe (i.e. they have no substantial evidence, but they do have faith). Then there are those who claim to know - they are usually more dangerous.

I don't believe there's a god. That's that.

There's no debate here Swan Captain is being silly and trying to get me tripped up on semantics but it's not happening. I think him doing this shows he's not comfortable in his own beliefs: or un-beliefs, like un-birthday.

Pussy Galore

05-01-17, 05:48 AM

When things started to become clear for me is when I started realizing that what I had learned about the nature of God was undeniably the best way for a human to live. The nature of the God I grew up learning about was a God of unconditional love and forgiveness through all things, no strings attached. What I see in every other religion or belief system is trying to achieve better living through works. Not only is it impossible to reach any kind of happiness with this way of thinking but it completely puts the emphasis on me. Believing that we can be better through works is selfish. Believing that how we become better is by loving others unconditionally is selfless.

If I understand correctly what you say, is that you chose christianity because you find that it is the best way to live your life. Which would mean, if I understand you correctly, that it's not on the basis of the absolute truth of the bible or of christianity that you follow it, but because you find that the effects of living a life according to it is good to you? Which I think is absolutely fine, but doesn't it make your faith a bit weaker, like isn't there some sort of doubt behind it? (It's also possible that I understood you wrongly)

--

As for the labels agnosticism vs atheism, the way I see it is like that: Agosticism = admitting ignorance toward the question of the existence of god Atheisism = saying you don't believe in god. Swan already said it quite well, one is a sort of epistemological position which can be true or false (agnosticism) the other involves faith.

However, I think that if you have no faith and that you think that the epistemological position that is right is agnosticism, it follows that you are an atheist. What I mean is that since I don't know that there is a god and I don't have faith, I don't have any reason to follow a particular faith more than any other (existing or non existing). In other words, to me christianity, islam, judaism or the cult of the flying banana have the same amount of truth. I can't absolutely prove they're false, but I don't have reason to believe in them. It follows from my agnosticism that I am an atheist.

FromBeyond

05-01-17, 07:40 AM

i'm still atheist but i definitely don't think i know anything more than anyone else.

well you know more than me mate.

FromBeyond

05-01-17, 07:46 AM

To me what the philosopher in your OP is describing is agnosticism. .

No he isn't, he is saying he believes in the existence of god but that he does not know the exact nature of god.

That's not agnosticism

seanc

05-01-17, 11:11 AM

If I understand correctly what you say, is that you chose christianity because you find that it is the best way to live your life. Which would mean, if I understand you correctly, that it's not on the basis of the absolute truth of the bible or of christianity that you follow it, but because you find that the effects of living a life according to it is good to you? Which I think is absolutely fine, but doesn't it make your faith a bit weaker, like isn't there some sort of doubt behind it? (It's also possible that I understood you wrongly).

I don't think you misunderstood stood me and I also don't think you are 100% wrong, but I do think you are mischaracterizing what I mean a bit. Doubt isn't inherently bad, and I wouldn't call it a weakness. Although how we engage with our doubt can be both those things. I am going to talk about faith now because I think it applies. Christians are taught that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Now some just take that verse and use it to stand firmly in their dogma. I don't necessarily want to belittle those people but I do think that type of thing needs to be pushed back against because it makes you ineffective against disbelief. Evidence can be a tricky thing especially coming at it from a spiritual perspective. Christ told me to love unconditionally, but why? Well if I practice unconditional love and I find that it makes the people in my life love more openly and makes me a more effective person I have some evidence that that particular tenet of my faith is real and valuable.

Obviously that is a very elementary example but I think the analogy works for what I am trying to say. You often hear non-believers bemoan Christianity because they view it as a religion based on a list of arbitrary rules. I strongly believe that's our Christian cultures fault because we work backwards. We want the non-believer to follow Christ's example and then they will understand why he gave us those moral absolutes. I believe that if we live out those absolutes non-believers will see the evidence of the benefits of Christian living. Most people want to know why they are following what they are. We try to train adults like children, that mostly isn't effective.

Maybe I rambled, but I hope that explains my position a bit better and keeps the conversation going.

seanc

05-01-17, 11:12 AM

No he isn't, he is saying he believes in the existence of god but that he does not know the exact nature of god.

That's not agnosticism

Yeah, I think you're right. That thought process will definitely lead you there though.

Don Schneider

05-01-17, 12:29 PM

How does one learn to ride a bicycle? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand? No. Rather, one mounts, falls, tries again and eventually…understands. Enlightenment of the true nature of existence is not an intellectual endeavor. It is an empirical one. Mystics of all religions have stated this since time immemorial. One achieves enlightenment through meditation and contemplation. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan‘s campaign quip regarding the nature of government: “Mind can’t solve the problem because mind is the problem.” The intellect cannot fathom the concept of “no beginning,“ as alien to its inherent logic. The intellect can, however, lead one to the path.

Consider a blank, white sheet of paper. That is the fundamental state of existence, undifferentiated, solitary universal consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology.), existing timelessly and eternally. (“I am who am.”) It is nothing (“no thing”), but unlimited potential is inherent within its nature. (“Brahman” means “to grow.”). Draw a line down its center and now the concept of right and left arises. This is dualism, an illusion, “maya,” the source of all suffering. We are all manifestations of consciousness, like all ice sculptures are manifestations of water regardless of form. The illusion of material reality is so powerful that we came to believe that it is real and thus existential fear took hold and permeates all aspects of our individual, illusory consciousness. ( “Adam and Eve's eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked.”) The material illusion unfolds in accordance with a metaphorical algorithm called “karma” (work); causality. (“So as ye sow so shall ye reap.”)

When dualism is realized as the illusion it is, when one erases the illusory lines that is maya, one achieves unity with the fundamental state of being that cannot be further sublated; then bliss is obtained and the dualism of pain and pleasure is vanquished. This is not unlike being startled awake only to realize that the cause of one's anguish was just a passing bad dream.

Enlightenment is knowledge, not faith; the knowledge bred from experience, not intellectualism.

Citizen Rules

05-01-17, 01:03 PM

... Agnosticism is the most humble of non-faiths. You know Orson actually has a quote about Agnosticism.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/orson_welles.html

I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose. Orson Welles Hey he said it, not me!

Don Schneider

05-01-17, 01:21 PM

You know Orson actually has a quote about Agnosticism.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/o/orson_welles.html

Hey he said it, not me!
"I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose. Orson Welles.' [Citizen Rules]

Then Welles apparently did not know the meaning of the word “agnosticism,” which is not surprising as most people don’t. It was an artificially coined word by Thomas Huxley. He simply appended the negatory syllable “a” to “gnostic,” which means “knowledge,” in this sense of the esoteric variety. Huxley held that man cannot comprehend anything except through his five material senses. Therefore, if God exists, then He can only be known through the senses. It is a positive assertion. It is a rejection of mysticism, and not “I don’t know” per se. Per my last response, I am not inclined towards this view.

Dani8

05-01-17, 01:32 PM

Then Welles apparently did not know the meaning of the word “agnosticism,” which is not surprising as most people don’t. .

It's also incredibly obnoxious, much the same as James Cameron calling agnostics 'cowards' for not choosing. It's been a while but I seem to recall from my religious schooling that god, if he/she does exist, gave mankind the freedom of choice.

Citizen Rules

05-01-17, 01:35 PM

"I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose. Orson Welles.' [Citizen Rules]

Then Welles apparently did not know the meaning of the word “agnosticism,” which is not surprising as most people don’t. It was an artificially coined word by Thomas Huxley. He simply appended the negatory syllable “a” to “gnostic,” which means “knowledge,” in this sense of the esoteric variety. Huxley held that man cannot comprehend anything except through his five material senses. Therefore, if God exists, then He can only be known through the senses. It is a positive assertion. It is a rejection of mysticism, and not “I don’t know” per se. Per my last response, I am not inclined towards this view.

Ya know what, I don't care about a bunch of college-esque philosophy on religion or non-religion, coupled with name dropping of a bunch of dead philosophers. Who cares...

If people want to relate their own person beliefs and feelings, cool....but I have no patience to read a bunch of goobly goo.

cricket

05-01-17, 01:39 PM

What I believe in is the same that I can add to this thread...

Nothing!

Don Schneider

05-01-17, 01:42 PM

"Ya know what, I don't care about a bunch of college-esque philosophy on religion or non-religion, coupled with name dropping of a bunch of dead philosophers. Who cares...

"If people want to relate their own person beliefs and feelings, cool....but I have no patience to read a bunch of goobly goo." [Citizen Rules]

I would hardly characterize a lucid clarification of fact as “goobly goo.” And judging by the tenor of your comments, then you should be sympathetic to my recent post outlining the beliefs I am personally inclined towards. It amounts to a rejection of intellectualism. BTW, I’m an accountant by education.

Don Schneider

05-01-17, 01:46 PM

"What I believe in is the same that I can add to this thread... Nothing!" [cricket]

You sound like a Zen master! :)

Citizen Rules

05-01-17, 01:54 PM

... BTW, I’m an accountant by education. ha, there's another 'Orson Welles quote' about accountants, not a direct quote, but from the movie Ed Wood.

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 02:28 PM

Ya know what, I don't care about a bunch of college-esque philosophy on religion or non-religion, coupled with name dropping of a bunch of dead philosophers. Who cares...

If people want to relate their own person beliefs and feelings, cool....but I have no patience to read a bunch of goobly goo.

I have to disagree with Orson. Saying people must choose a conclusion when evidence is lacking is illogical. Imagine if police went by that in murder cases (well, there's no evidence that either people nearby killed this person, but we'll charge the one who happened to be closest because we have to choose somebody).

What rule book says you have to choose to either believe in God or not believe? And what rule book says those are the only two choices. (And if you do believe, what "rule book" do you follow to define your god? And what if you don't like the description in one book - do you then have to choose another?)

Don Schneider

05-01-17, 02:28 PM

It's also incredibly obnoxious, much the same as James Cameron calling agnostics 'cowards' for not choosing. It's been a while but I seem to recall from my religious schooling that god, if he/she does exist, gave mankind the freedom of choice.

I would tend to agree. It is hardly craven to respond “insufficient data” when asked why one has not taken a position on an issue. It seems most reasonable to me. I reject faith in favor of knowledge, even though I’m not an agnostic (or atheist). I simply do not believe that knowledge can only be obtained through the five material senses. Indeed, ultimate knowledge of existence cannot be obtained through the intellect nor the five senses.

Citizen Rules

05-01-17, 02:33 PM

I have to disagree with Orson. Saying people must choose a conclusion when evidence is lacking is illogical.... Ahh, but he didn't say people must choose. He said he hates it when they don't choose. That's a different thing.

I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose. Orson Welles

Citizen Rules

05-01-17, 02:39 PM

...ultimate knowledge of existence cannot be obtained through the intellect nor the five senses. How do you know that for sure? You can only say that statement is true for yourself. You can't apply your standards globally to everyone else.

Your statement is not my truth, I define myself by my own standards, not by other peoples.

Don Schneider

05-01-17, 02:54 PM

How do you know that for sure? You can only say that statement is true for yourself. You can't apply your standards globally to everyone else.

Your statement is not my truth, I define myself by my own standards, not by other peoples.

I said that although the intellect cannot realize the ultimate truth of existence, it can lead one to the path. As I said, I’m an accountant but I have been a voracious reader since childhood. I continue my self-studies into such matters as an avocation. The basic paradigm of Indian metaphysics as exemplified by the Upanishads seems intellectually plausible to me (indeed, compelling) and rings true to me on an intuitive basis.

Unfortunately, I am far too old to embark on such an arduous path now. All I can do is take comfort in the philosophy. If it is true, then it is truth for you and all as well as me. You just haven’t come to the realization yet, if you ever do. Can I now state categorically that it is true? No.

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 02:58 PM

Ahh, but he didn't say people must choose. He said he hates it when they don't choose. That's a different thing.

I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose. Orson Welles

The question is, did he say it before or after he started the Paul Mason commercials? ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFevH5vP32s

Citizen Rules

05-01-17, 02:59 PM

I said that although the intellect cannot realize the ultimate truth of existence, it can lead one to the path. As I said, I’m an accountant but I have been a voracious reader since childhood. I continue my self-studies into such matters as an avocation. The basic paradigm of Indian metaphysics as exemplified by the Upanishads seems intellectually plausible to me (indeed, compelling) and rings true to me on an intuitive basis.

Unfortunately, I am far too old to embark on such an arduous path now. All I can do is take comfort in the philosophy. If it is true, then it is truth for you and all as well as me. You just haven’t come to the realization yet, if you ever do. Can I now state categorically that it is true? No. Are you sure you don't want to tell us your IQ and income as well? (what I mean is: I don't care what anyone's credentials are, it's irrelevant.)

Here's what I believe

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean
Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
Religion is the smile on a dog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean, do yeah

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 03:09 PM

I yam what I yam
And that's all that I yam.

Don Schneider

05-01-17, 03:18 PM

Are you sure you don't want to tell us your IQ and income as well? (what I mean is: I don't care what anyone's credentials are, it's irrelevant.)

Here's what I believe

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean
Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
Religion is the smile on a dog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean, do yeah

Is one of the things that you do know the answer to: Why is there something instead of nothing? In other words, why is there existence itself? You might not care. But I, and I think a great many others, would like to know.

BTW, I told you I was an accountant because in a previous post you seem to deride me as an intellectual. It is difficult to envision a less philosophical occupation than accountancy. Long ago, though, when I was in college my intellect came to the conclusion that it would be far easier to actually get a job with a business degree than a degree in philosophy.

Citizen Rules

05-01-17, 03:30 PM

...BTW, I told you I was an accountant because in a previous post you seem to deride me as an intellectual. Sorry if you thought that, that was not my intention.

I'm more interested in what a person personally thinks & feels about their own beliefs, such as the post by Camo and SeanC, those were good post.

I'm not so interested in college definitions of 'isms.' Every internet discussion of religion turns into the battle of dead philosophers, which I find a bore.

FromBeyond

05-01-17, 03:57 PM

Yeah, I think you're right. That thought process will definitely lead you there though.

I don't know how you make that connection. I believe in god without religion and because I do not know god's identity doesn't mean I am going to be lead down the road of non-belief since I never had any religious influence of any kind, I never had any proof

Cobpyth

05-01-17, 04:11 PM

I think many serious religious people would answer your question with the concept of "revelation", Pussy Galore. For instance, my uncle believes that the truth about God and his essence has been revealed to him throughout religious history and through his own spiritual experiences. Most religions are founded on a particular prophet's personal revelation (for instance, Mohammed) or on someone's mere existence actually being (part of) the essence of the revelation (Jesus Christ).

I myself haven't experienced that moment of revelation myself so I can't truly speak for those who have or those who believe in (certain) revelations that are claimed to have happened by many people throughout history, but I think that's an important core for many mature people's religious identity.

As I know you like to be challenged and humbled by arguments and knowledge, I'd like you to think about this quote by C.S. Lewis (who I know Yoda is a big fan of), Pussy Galore. It takes some of the concepts of knowledge, doubt and uncertainty that you used in your first post and throws it right back at us, atheists:

‎"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

The bolded part rings especially true to me, while I believe the last part is a bit of a leap he probably consciously made to hit his argument home. I think it's a very humbling bit to deeply think about.

seanc

05-01-17, 04:19 PM

I don't know how you make that connection. I believe in god without religion and because I do not know god's identity doesn't mean I am going to be lead down the road of non-belief since I never had any religious influence of any kind, I never had any proof

What he's saying though is he doesn't think we will be able to comprehend God's existence because we can't ever even comprehend our own. The logical conclusion of all that thinking would be a big shrug.

Blix the Goblin

05-01-17, 06:07 PM

Every internet discussion of religion turns into the battle of dead philosophers, which I find a bore.Thomas Aquinas vs Friedrich Nietzsche would make for a fun Celebrity Death Match

Captain Steel

05-01-17, 10:04 PM

Thomas Aquinas vs Friedrich Nietzsche would make for a fun Celebrity Death Match

Man, this reminds me of the Philosopher's Soccer Match - one of the most brilliant skits ever.

"No lack of excitement here! As you can see, Nietzsche has just been booked for arguing with the referee. He accused Confucius of having no free will, and Confucius he say 'Name go in book.' And this is Nietzsche's third booking in four games!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8

Pussy Galore

05-02-17, 04:27 AM

I don't think you misunderstood stood me and I also don't think you are 100% wrong, but I do think you are mischaracterizing what I mean a bit. Doubt isn't inherently bad, and I wouldn't call it a weakness. Although how we engage with our doubt can be both those things. I am going to talk about faith now because I think it applies. Christians are taught that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Now some just take that verse and use it to stand firmly in their dogma. I don't necessarily want to belittle those people but I do think that type of thing needs to be pushed back against because it makes you ineffective against disbelief. Evidence can be a tricky thing especially coming at it from a spiritual perspective. Christ told me to love unconditionally, but why? Well if I practice unconditional love and I find that it makes the people in my life love more openly and makes me a more effective person I have some evidence that that particular tenet of my faith is real and valuable.

Obviously that is a very elementary example but I think the analogy works for what I am trying to say. You often hear non-believers bemoan Christianity because they view it as a religion based on a list of arbitrary rules. I strongly believe that's our Christian cultures fault because we work backwards. We want the non-believer to follow Christ's example and then they will understand why he gave us those moral absolutes. I believe that if we live out those absolutes non-believers will see the evidence of the benefits of Christian living. Most people want to know why they are following what they are. We try to train adults like children, that mostly isn't effective.

Maybe I rambled, but I hope that explains my position a bit better and keeps the conversation going.

I totally understand and respect that, but for me what you are describing is absolutely possible without faith or religion. Furthermore, why would the words of Christ (in the new testament I suppose) have any more weight than any other thinkers over the ages. Lots of philosophers elaborated a moral, personally I am inclined to be more of a consequentialist and I find that it helped my life greatly. However, I don't see how I could derive from the fact that I adopted a particular morality and that it helped my life, that this particular morality is holy, or has a particular status. I can say that the arguments it presents are, I think better for X, Y or Z reasons, but I don't see anything more.

In other words, from what I understand you seem to say that ''Christ told you to love unconditionally'' (from the new testament as I said) and that you applied that to your life and that it made it better. How is that sufficient to give you metaphysical beliefs? I mean, couldn't you just see christian moral as a great moral without believing in the rest? For me at least for believing in the rest I'd need to have some good reasons which I'm sure you have, but you didn't tell them.

I'll also answer to Cobpyth and the accountant guy who talks about mysticism later today haha.

seanc

05-02-17, 11:29 AM

I totally understand and respect that, but for me what you are describing is absolutely possible without faith or religion. Furthermore, why would the words of Christ (in the new testament I suppose) have any more weight than any other thinkers over the ages. Lots of philosophers elaborated a moral, personally I am inclined to be more of a consequentialist and I find that it helped my life greatly. However, I don't see how I could derive from the fact that I adopted a particular morality and that it helped my life, that this particular morality is holy, or has a particular status. I can say that the arguments it presents are, I think better for X, Y or Z reasons, but I don't see anything more.

In other words, from what I understand you seem to say that ''Christ told you to love unconditionally'' (from the new testament as I said) and that you applied that to your life and that it made it better. How is that sufficient to give you metaphysical beliefs? I mean, couldn't you just see christian moral as a great moral without believing in the rest? For me at least for believing in the rest I'd need to have some good reasons which I'm sure you have, but you didn't tell them.

I'll also answer to Cobpyth and the accountant guy who talks about mysticism later today haha.

I started to answer your concern a bit in my first post but I will try to elaborate. I will start off by saying if you subscribe to a nihilistic world view, doesn't seem like you do personally, then anything I'm going to say will have no bearing. However if you have a belief system that subscribed to humanity being broken and the need to overcome that brokenness on any level what I'm going to say should make some sense.

What Christianity does that no other religion or belief system does is has us work from the top down. There are absolutely no works required. Christianity says perfection is the goal but in our broken state we can never achieve it. No matter how much we give of ourselves we will remain broken. We will fall short of our expectations of ourselves, others expectations of us, and God's will. So we are offered the free gift of forgiveness with no strings attached. It allows us a freedom that no other religion or belief system does. All others require some measure of works that you will never be able to live up to. You will never be able to achieve perfection. It's our plight as broken people and there is only one answer to that problem.

The closest thing we see to it here on earth is the love parents have for their children. Even that has limits though and eventually even that love can be stretched to its limit. I fear I got way to religious with my reply but I will await your response hoping it made some sense.