Where the conflict really lies (God, Christians, believe, versus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Presumably your enlightenment embraces both materialistic atheism and fundamentalist Christianity - right? It pretty much has to - right?
Wrong on both accounts. Not even close. Those are two extremes that I'm equally far away from.
See, you're just full of aimless assumptions, which trip you up. You're so sure of yourself, even when you have it completely wrong, then you launch out of the gates on the wrong trajectory without every checking your course.
You're not fit for enlightenment when you have so much baggage that needs to be tossed and burned first. And you're the biggest obstacle in the way of you understanding others. Good luck.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 10-27-2023 at 05:25 PM..
I don't want to keep tweaking you because it's too easy and makes me look more small-minded than I like to think I am, but let's examine your contributions so far:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
We're all different with different DNA and genetics, different backgrounds, maybe even different backgrounds prior to this current life. We'll see matters differently, from our unique perspectives.
There's no way for one person to force another person to see from the same set of eyes. And the same in reverse is equally true.
Accept and embrace the differences, and draw from the differences. Let go of pushing and pulling. Taoism talks about flow - often simulated in water and nature - and how much it makes sense to travel with the flow, rather than fight against it. Plus, you might discover many things on the travel that you wouldn't have seen with your feet dug in, fighting the tide.
So where does the conflict really lie? Where a person refuses to acknowledge and accept differences between us, and then tries to force his/her way onto others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
It's simply two ways of looking at life, with neither one being more important or "right" than the other. What is important and "right" exists in a person's mind (and 'heart' and soul); not as defined by someone else. This whole atheism vs. theism nonsense is a product of troublemaking churches. They don't give a damn of the division and garbage they promote.
You're trying to promte rules that come from you (and churches) instead of looking for realities among humans as a whole and the universe. You have to break free of that if you want to understand others, and the commonalities of us all. Look for similarities rather than differences, and you will go much further.
If you're a Christian, you should be seeking the unity that Jesus spent much time living and expanding upon. It's no surprise that people from all walks of life were drawn to him. The opposite of him are pushy, busy-body "Christians", who are just frauds and only interested in complicating others' lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Maybe it's a preference for religion, which favors arguing and debating. Spirituality on the other hand brings down the barriers, so enlightenment might come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Wrong on both accounts. Not even close. Those are two extremes that I'm equally far away from.
See, you're just full of aimless assumptions, which trip you up. You're so sure of yourself, even when you have it completely wrong, then you launch out of the gates on the wrong trajectory without every checking your course.
You're not fit for enlightenment when you have so much baggage that needs to be tossed and burned first. And you're the biggest obstacle in the way of you understanding others. Good luck.
You're all over the map, an absolute hodgepodge of contradictions. Can you not see this? Do you not see that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing?
We have the Taoist, enlghtened you who breaks down the barriers - at least so you say.
But wait, we also have the angry, judgmental you who rails against "troublemaking churches," busy-body fraudulent Christians, and the "extremes" of materialistic atheism and fundamentalist Christianity that superior enlightened you is "far away from."
Then we have the lecturing, arrogant you who advises me to "let go of pushing and pulling," to "stop fighting the tide," to "break free" and "stop promoting rules," who informs me that I'm "just full of aimless assumption" and am "so sure of myself" even when I "have it completely wrong," and indeed that I am "not fit for enlightenment."
(Never mind the fact that I can see absolutely nothing I've said on this thread or elsewhere that would warrant this strident lecturing. As I said, it's as though you have some Christian stereotype in mind and are going to do your lecturing come hell or high water.)
To be blunt, you sound arrogant as hell and about as enlightened as a Ford hubcap. Which would be fine if you were actually focusing on something I've actually said, but this exchange has frankly been ridiculous. (If others are seeing what Thoreau54 is seeing, please let me know.)
Oh, O'Darby. Should be Oh Darby. I'm not angry, and have no emotion in this discussion. Negative emotions are mostly childish and a waste of time. You might check the level and content of your emotions though, because they are escaping your attention.
LOL I don't need the last word, so feel free to say whatever you want afterward. I don't care. This just isn't that important to me. I really think you're going to want the last word though, so don't hold back.
I'm going to head off to the weekend now, with a chuckle as to your approach. I might toast you and say a prayer for you too. It's been fun. Cheers!
Last edited by Thoreau424; 10-27-2023 at 06:28 PM..
This thread was simply - SIMPLY - my attempt to highlight the reality that the real differences are at the level of atheism vs. theism, not atheism vs. cartoon Christianity (or Buddhism, or Islam, or Hinduism), and that the most productive discussions are likely to occur at this level.
Several times in this forum atheists have said that they have nothing against religion, they simply do not believe in a God or gods. I was quite surprised when this assertion first occurred, and confused because most of the arguments in R&S are the over the Bible, which to me is religion, not God.. And this is not about the violation of the first amendment either, which is not an atheist argument as most Americans would support that.
But what do you really expect over a discussion about theism? Evidence is the first argument. There is no evidence for God, because God is self-evident, is in everything, without exception, but everything is not God. (I do not mean the creator God of Christianity when I say God.)
Take the ontological argument(s) for the existence of a deity. It has occupied some of the greatest philosophical and theological minds for centuries and continues to do so. An atheist vs. theist discussion would be substantive and potentially worthwhile. Yet an atheist here who postures himself as an intellectual in recent weeks said he had quickly determined that the ontological argument, which he incorrectly attributed to Aquinas, was too silly to bother with. Uh-huh. So, no, I have no illusions.
One atheist made one mistake, therefore he is not an intellectual? Einstein also made a mistake. That would also refute your use of Alvin Plantinga.
On the other hand, if there is a deistic or theistic level of reality, or any sort of reality outside or beyond the natural order, science is never going to discover it. Such a higher reality is certainly a logical possibility. Some scientific disciplines provide evidence that is difficult to square with a purely materialistic reality and arguably points to a higher reality. Large bodies of experiential evidence point toward a higher reality. Some philosophical arguments point toward a higher reality.
Several times in this forum atheists have said that they have nothing against religion, they simply do not believe in a God or gods. I was quite surprised when this assertion first occurred, and confused because most of the arguments in R&S are the over the Bible, which to me is religion, not God.. And this is not about the violation of the first amendment either, which is not an atheist argument as most Americans would support that.
Why are you confused over us accepting your right to hold false beliefs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
But what do you really expect over a discussion about theism? Evidence is the first argument. There is no evidence for God, because God is self-evident, is in everything, without exception, but everything is not God. (I do not mean the creator God of Christianity when I say God.)
Why are you confused over us accepting your right to hold false beliefs?
An assertion sans evidence.
You are unreachable since you refuse to see your assertions that what we have evidence OF is NOT our God despite the fact that it is why we exist. YOU have no evidence for such assertions except your demand for some other evidence you have no way to measure or gather. Your analogies using things that do not exist are asinine. Consciousness exists but our knowledge about how it exists is limited to our own version of it. But it EXISTS! You do not get to dismiss it using things that do not exist.
You are unreachable since you refuse to see your assertions that what we have evidence OF is NOT our God despite the fact that it is why we exist. YOU have no evidence for such assertions except your demand for some other evidence you have no way to measure or gather. Your analogies using things that do not exist are asinine. Consciousness exists but our knowledge about how it exists is limited to our own version of it. But it EXISTS! You do not get to dismiss it using things that do not exist.
No, "we" get to dismiss it just as you get to claim it.
You are unreachable since you refuse to see your assertions that what we have evidence OF is NOT our God despite the fact that it is why we exist.
Again you pretend I have the problem. I am 'unreachable' because you can not provide the evidence for your god. But I can argue for a god being unnecessary using logic and mathematics. Not assertions, logic and mathematics. And they do not suffer from the problems the 'god did it' assertions have.
That you need to once again dishonestly dismiss the logical and mathematical evidence as assertions is a big red flag there is a flaw in your methodology of making things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
YOU have no evidence for such assertions except your demand for some other evidence you have no way to measure or gather.
Logic and mathematics is my evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your analogies using things that do not exist are asinine.
I do not even know to what this is referring (perhaps you are misrepresenting probability as analogies), but it is yet another ad hominem. Your silly insults and excuses must exist in their hundreds of thousands, your actual evidence and rational arguments are still at zero.
We know why. Perhaps it is time for you to do some self reflection on your methodology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Consciousness exists but our knowledge about how it exists is limited to our own version of it. But it EXISTS! You do not get to dismiss it using things that do not exist.
Correct. And should I ever be that stupid to pretend consciousness does not exist, you would have a point, and not a straw man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
