I am Joe and I am a Christian.....WTF!

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by grimlock

To me it's not just faith because I can see it and use it - the 'universal law'.
The thing you are supposed to have faith to believe in, well it's because you can't see/feel it so you have to trust.
I don't trust at all.. so to me its pure science (logical).
Not that it's a bunch of fairy tales, but the reasoning behind them is universal.. and pervasive
Kind of like the hologram pictures - can you see it?
Well no amount of hoping and trying to make yourself see it is going to affect whether you see it or not

I don't work on my faith as such, more on my contradictions which point to false beliefs and the search for the correct beliefs (=the truth) which is my spiritual quest.

I don't think what you're talking about is faith.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by 42

You guys realize that my post is number 345 and nothing has been or will be resolved on this topic. Further more nothing will ever be resolved on this topic as long as man has a closed mind.

Fixed that for ya.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by 42

You guys realize that my post is number 345 and nothing has been or will be resolved on this topic. Further more nothing will ever be resolved on this topic as long as man has a mind.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by i dunno

I don't think what you're talking about is faith.

Faith is what you rely on when you are not certain by your mental faculties through which you understand the word of God.
When it because clear, when you see the truth, faith is no where to be seen because you already know the truth, what is there to 'try' for?

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Faith is what you rely on when you are not certain by your mental faculties through which you understand the word of God.

From my knowledge, you don't need faith to understand religious doctrine. A follower and non-follower of a religion are both capable of understanding doctrine. The difference is that the follower accepts the doctrine as being real and factual, while the non-believer writes it off as just old stories.

Since you mention word of God, I'm guessing you mean the Bible so I'll use Christianity as an example. Anyone can pick up a Bible and read it, but some people believe it's the truth, while others consider it a book of fairy tales. It requires faith to believe that God from the Bible is real, but you don't need faith to understand what the words in the Bible say.

Originally Posted by grimlock

When it because clear, when you see the truth, faith is no where to be seen because you already know the truth, what is there to 'try' for?

Are you saying that eventually, we'll have the capability to determine that God definitively does or doesn't exist?

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by grimlock

To me it's not just faith because I can see it and use it - the 'universal law'.

I also don't really understand what you mean by this. What part of faith are you seeing and using? Universal law? Are you talking about morals?

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by i dunno

Are you saying that eventually, we'll have the capability to determine that God definitively does or doesn't exist?

I am saying eventual, your questions will be answered. But if you are still asking, of course they haven't been answered yet.
(Speaking as someone who has just had a question answered.)
You can say it is 'proven' to exist, but in the limited context that you asked the question!
It's all personal, what was your inquiry, and how that relates to God, will give you your asnwerm plus the part that relates to God.
I think everyone just wants to know the answer to their question, the question about God is just casting your net wide.

Originally Posted by i dunno

I also don't really understand what you mean by this. What part of faith are you seeing and using? Universal law? Are you talking about morals?

I mean the only way I interpret religion or science, is through comprehension. If I read a story (can't say bible because i have never really read it) I read it for the 'story' (ok, bad word, more like "point" or "lesson") so it must make sense to me. Meaning it must fit my own logic (thus far) and so is 100% true and integrated with me, I have accepted it because it passed my logic filters and thus can build on it.

By "Universal Law" I am just using a term that is bandied about by God-seeking non-religious people() (like me) to describe the 'reason' or logic that they perceive to be true in religion, hence why they think its worthy to look there.
Besides confirmed immutable physical laws, it encompasses everything under the sun basically all human knowledge --because these things makes sense and are in the realm of the conceptual mind.

Here is one of my favorite books on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Magic-Wo.../dp/1466311681

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by grimlock

I am saying eventual, your questions will be answered. But if you are still asking, of course they haven't been answered yet.
(Speaking as someone who has just had a question answered.)
You can say it is 'proven' to exist, but in the limited context that you asked the question!
It's all personal, what was your inquiry, and how that relates to God, will give you your asnwerm plus the part that relates to God.
I think everyone just wants to know the answer to their question, the question about God is just casting your net wide.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Originally Posted by grimlock

I mean the only way I interpret religion or science, is through comprehension. If I read a story (can't say bible because i have never really read it) I read it for the 'story' (ok, bad word, more like "point" or "lesson") so it must make sense to me. Meaning it must fit my own logic (thus far) and so is 100% true and integrated with me, I have accepted it because it passed my logic filters and thus can build on it.

By "Universal Law" I am just using a term that is bandied about by God-seeking non-religious people() (like me) to describe the 'reason' or logic that they perceive to be true in religion, hence why they think its worthy to look there.
Besides confirmed immutable physical laws, it encompasses everything under the sun basically all human knowledge --because these things makes sense and are in the realm of the conceptual mind.

Here is one of my favorite books on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Magic-Wo.../dp/1466311681

What you're describing isn't using or seeing faith. Using your own comprehension to understand religion/science doesn't require faith. Faith answers questions that can't be settled by evidence.

[Exite]

I saw the sky wizard in my oatmeal this morning.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by i dunno

What you're describing isn't using or seeing faith. Using your own comprehension to understand religion/science doesn't require faith. Faith answers questions that can't be settled by evidence.

It's not faith, as you said.
It's pure logic.
What I said, was when you find the truth, through logic, faith is not necessary because faith is trying to wish you believe something when your rational mind rejects it as being true.
That's perhaps a point. You cannot fool nor force the rational mind, if you believe something, it cannot be falsified or made to believe something you don't.
So, you have to lookf for ways to convince yourself.
Gather more evidence, more and more until eventually the balance flips and you believe what you wanted to.
Faith does not work (in my limited experience), because logic is the only language of the rational mind.
THe only way the mind can be convinced is through evidence.
If no evidence of the thing you want to believe exists, look to strengthen your logic 'power' which is how much you believe in your own logic. This is basically making yourself smarter.. by praticing logic constantly.
As you see you logic become more powerful, when you know something is not true, but you have no evidence, belief in your own logic can be enough to convince you your hypothesis is correct, even though it is just that, because no relevent evidence exists, only the circumstance (the power of your logic).. but it works because all things that exist are linked in a complex yet logical way.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by grimlock

What I said, was when you find the truth, through logic, faith is not necessary because faith is trying to wish you believe something when your rational mind rejects it as being true.
That's perhaps a point. You cannot fool nor force the rational mind, if you believe something, it cannot be falsified or made to believe something you don't.
So, you have to lookf for ways to convince yourself.
Gather more evidence, more and more until eventually the balance flips and you believe what you wanted to.
Faith does not work (in my limited experience), because logic is the only language of the rational mind.
THe only way the mind can be convinced is through evidence.

This is only true if you're looking for questions that logic addresses. Logic is a human construct, so it has the same limitations as the physical and mental capacity of man. Faith is not necessary for logical truths, but faith doesn't interfere with rationality and vice versa. Faith doesn't seek to answer logical truths. If faith does not work for you, it's probably because you don't have interest in the questions that faith tries to address. There's nothing wrong with naturalism, but just be aware that logic doesn't negate faith. Science and faith can easily coexist.

Originally Posted by grimlock

As you see you logic become more powerful, when you know something is not true, but you have no evidence, belief in your own logic can be enough to convince you your hypothesis is correct, even though it is just that, because no relevent evidence exists, only the circumstance (the power of your logic).. but it works because all things that exist are linked in a complex yet logical way.

If you're subscribing to logic, how can you believe something without evidence? If I were approaching this issue rationally, I would just say I dunno because there's no evidence to support a certain position.

[Ahmed]

Originally Posted by grimlock

This thread should attract the searchers and not the people busy living, so what are you doing here? Do you feel doubt in your ways?
HAHAH
I sound like a preacher

I love M5's

Originally Posted by grimlock

I appreciate this practical and realistic viewpoint..
Seems like you do not believe as you purport to that guilt must be proven because a person is inherently innocent.
This is what you have been told and you believe you believe.. but I detect doubt on this matter.
Where is this doubt? Can you sense it?

I believe that occurances need to be proven. FULL STOP

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by i dunno

This is only true if you're looking for questions that logic addresses. Logic is a human construct, so it has the same limitations as the physical and mental capacity of man. Faith is not necessary for logical truths, but faith doesn't interfere with rationality and vice versa. Faith doesn't seek to answer logical truths. If faith does not work for you, it's probably because you don't have interest in the questions that faith tries to address. There's nothing wrong with naturalism, but just be aware that logic doesn't negate faith. Science and faith can easily coexist.



If you're subscribing to logic, how can you believe something without evidence? If I were approaching this issue rationally, I would just say I dunno because there's no evidence to support a certain position.

i cringe at the thought of contributing to this thread's ongoing existence, however i've seen this statement a few times now and just have to ask. How do you figure that logic is a human construct?

Everything that humans know are based on what we have experienced on this planet and as of late in our universe. Logic isn't something humans invented, it's something that we named. Like you said about science figuring out the HOW in our world, logic is something that existed before we were here. We just observed it and gave it a name, then applied it to other things we came up with and invented.

But by the definitions i've seen in this thread, some people believe that logic is something that we dreamt up in our feeble little minds and then gave to the planet, solar system, universe, etc... Evolution, adaptation, strongest/smartest survive... all logic. Our planet is a perfect example of logic. We as humans are seeking an alternate planet to possible colonize, right. What would be the most logical option for us look like? If we were going to design it i would be willing to bet that it would be covered in about 70% water and 30% land. That the land would be spread out around the water. It would have an atmosphere made up of moist air containing about 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases, assuming those other gases are a detriment for us to breath. It would ideally be about 93 million miles from the start that it orbits or at least the same distance in proportion to the size of that star. You get the picture....

I just don't see how any person can think that logic didn't exist before humans thought it up. Logic is rampant throughout nature. Nearly every species of mammal and fish has male and female counter parts, both required for procreation. Plants produce oxygen, vital for animal existence, yet animals produce carbon dioxide, vital for plants existence. Salt water deadly for us to drink evaporates into the air yet leaves the salt behind, then condenses which gives us fresh water which is just as vital for animal existence as our atmosphere. I could go on and on with more examples of logic as we define it which is void of human contributions.

So i'll ask, how can logic only exist within our own construct, physical and mental limitations? Isn't it safe to say that logic existed before man came up with a name for it and logic likely exists on a scale currently inconceivable by man? After all, man is the most fallible being on this planet.

[grimlock]

To me, logic is inseperable from anything, in it's simplest form its the relationship between A and B, between a man and a woman, the land and the sea.
Logic exists as our minds comprehend the world.. where it comes from religion attempts to explain.
To me, the world simple exist, I can see myself here, so I exist, the world exist .. what else is there? There relationship between you, the individual (your viewpoint) and the world.
This is essentially the existential question - what is the relationship between you and everything else.
To me, it's not "Why are we here?" or "What is the purpose of life?"
I choose the answer the simpler question of 1. you are here, 2. the world exists because you can see it, hence: can you relate these two?
In this sense, we are simply here, there is no "why" .. but this may be because this is the incorrect question to ask.
Rather if you asked: "I am here, what the fuck am I supposed to do?" Then logic would give you the answer, you simply live the best that you can.. but ofcourse you probably knew that, the difficultly lies in HOW do you live well.
What do you mean by "purpose"?
Why do you eat - to get full, accumulate calories to stay alive, and it's also enjoyable.
So is the point to stay alive - in therein what is the point of that? - or is it to enjoy eating?
What if both are the point, you should enjoy eating simply because, if possible, it's better than not enjoying it.. and after that being alive allows you to do more stuff.
But why would you want to be alive and do stuff?
Because it is fun. If it wasn't, what would be the point of living? That's why people kill themselves.
So why would the world be 'skewed' towards being enjoyable?
To make the damn bug put food in it's mouth. But why must the bug be alive? Because bug does important bug stuff. Life convert green biomass into shit and move around, basically converting entrophy into order. So HUMANS can exist.
Why do humans need to exist?
Ahah.
To know God? To fuck around and wrap cars around trees? To eat and shit and fuck like pigs? No - thats what pigs do - provide bacon.
Because humans can think. So they produce wonderful things .. but so what purpose do these things fulfill?
Basically, if you've never thought about God, or purpose, then you basically live Bug Life 2.0 advanced version, no shame in that. It's your 'purpose'. You provide food and shit for all the people.
But isn't it grandiose to think the world exists so that you may know God? I suppose it is..
Hence it does not seem this is the 'purpose' of everything.
How about no purpose? - That the world just exists as the transition from randomness (big bang) to order .. without purpose.
But wait - what if the purpose of life is to realize you are living?
How can that be a 'purpose'?
Do you live you life as a bug, blinders on, wallowing in happiness and filth () or do you have the thought: "Hmm, I'm alive!" ()
But what would be the point in that?

[grimlock]

So what is God's plan?
We cannot know or there would be no point in living. It is for us to find out. (I'll leave out "It's for Him to know" since that brings in the deity)
If we knew what was going to happen, you would not want to live.. not knowing is the raw ingredient of life.
Life is like a movie, except your in it, but the similarity is you do not know what is going to happen. This is certain. You may know what path you are going to take, what direction, but the details or even the storyline you are not able to predict.
So life is just this.
Knowing you are here and you are going to go somewhere, which you will only find out then, and your life happens like steps in a game.
Well that's the easy life or as far as I know it.
I have run out of useful things to say.
The end.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

i cringe at the thought of contributing to this thread's ongoing existence, however i've seen this statement a few times now and just have to ask. How do you figure that logic is a human construct?

Everything that humans know are based on what we have experienced on this planet and as of late in our universe. Logic isn't something humans invented, it's something that we named. Like you said about science figuring out the HOW in our world, logic is something that existed before we were here. We just observed it and gave it a name, then applied it to other things we came up with and invented.

But by the definitions i've seen in this thread, some people believe that logic is something that we dreamt up in our feeble little minds and then gave to the planet, solar system, universe, etc... Evolution, adaptation, strongest/smartest survive... all logic. Our planet is a perfect example of logic. We as humans are seeking an alternate planet to possible colonize, right. What would be the most logical option for us look like? If we were going to design it i would be willing to bet that it would be covered in about 70% water and 30% land. That the land would be spread out around the water. It would have an atmosphere made up of moist air containing about 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases, assuming those other gases are a detriment for us to breath. It would ideally be about 93 million miles from the start that it orbits or at least the same distance in proportion to the size of that star. You get the picture....

I just don't see how any person can think that logic didn't exist before humans thought it up. Logic is rampant throughout nature. Nearly every species of mammal and fish has male and female counter parts, both required for procreation. Plants produce oxygen, vital for animal existence, yet animals produce carbon dioxide, vital for plants existence. Salt water deadly for us to drink evaporates into the air yet leaves the salt behind, then condenses which gives us fresh water which is just as vital for animal existence as our atmosphere. I could go on and on with more examples of logic as we define it which is void of human contributions.

So i'll ask, how can logic only exist within our own construct, physical and mental limitations? Isn't it safe to say that logic existed before man came up with a name for it and logic likely exists on a scale currently inconceivable by man? After all, man is the most fallible being on this planet.

Yes, this thread is pretty drawn out, but I still think it's still fun lol. Everything you mention is still based solely on our own understanding. Logic is a human construct because it stems from how humanity perceives the world. It's our mode of reasoning. The events and order of nature have been around long before logic had a name, but the way we understand them is still through our own perception. Everything we experience is filtered through our senses and human minds. Like you mentioned with the alternate planet, our idea of life is only based on our own frame of reference. Everything in nature that has happened before or will happen only relates to us through our own human perspective. That's why logic shares the same limits as us. It's only relative to humanity.

I mean, there could possibly be a parallel universe out there where 2+2=5 is true, where nothing makes logical sense.

[Nkc]

The more we know, the less we know

[Ahmed]

Still no one has proven that God exists! I find that hilarious actually.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by Ahmed

Still no one has proven that God exists! I find that hilarious actually.

I think we agreed that the existence of deities can't be physically proven.

[Wraith.]

Originally Posted by Exite

I saw the sky wizard in my oatmeal this morning.

Just as legitimate as anything posted here...

[AndreyT]

Published August 6, 2013.
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

Nothing new there, just an example of some points stated in a precise and concise language

"Abstract

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices."

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early...97266.abstract

[42]

Originally Posted by AndreyT

Published August 6, 2013.
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

Nothing new there, just an example of some points stated in a precise and concise language

"Abstract

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices."

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early...97266.abstract

What no independent thought, just what someone else thinks or says. Come on now you're smarter than that aren't you? Well maybe not!