...it is you who choose not to believe God

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 113
#91
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
You always go back to the "You are the way you are because of the way you were raised" argument.

The religion I was most exposed to growing up was satanism, witchcraft, and the like. I grew up on the south side of Chicago in the ghetto. Yeah, some form of Christianity was there, but like the other stuff, it didn't appeal to me. I developed my own custom personal religion you could say. Just like you! I even debated online back then, but I was debating as an atheist. I thought I was pretty good too, because according to the handful off people who would vote, I was a winner and I became very popular.

I changed. It only happened after years of learning charity and humility. The charity to listen and the humility to say, "I don't know, maybe" Instead of "I know better than to say I know."

In otherwords, I needed to go through a purification process before God would be revealed to me. When I was haughty and judgemental, I could not receive it. 

But even after I realized I was a Christian, I didn't have a church. After finding frustration everywhere in evangelical/protestant churches, I just threw my arms up in the air and said, "Oh well, I guess this is just how it has got to be. I better concentrate on being a good Christian", and so I just volunteered to help do charitable things with churches.

I found Orthodoxy much later on. Now I actually can recommend people to a church instead of just handing them a bible, a team Jesus jersey, and then telling them to figure it out. I never in good conscience could recommend any protestant and evangelical churches because 1, they are far too varied and inconsistent, and 2 they often times preach glaring heresies from the pulpit, and just by resding the bible I could discern this.

No, I wasn't raised in a church or anything. When I was younger, I was thoroughly pagan. Not much different than all you around here whose lives revolve around entertainment. Ya'll have videogames, movies, trolling on the internet. My life was sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. Most of my life I was a musician. Not a very Christian environment at all.






#92
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac

The religion I was most exposed to growing up was satanism, witchcraft, and the like. I grew up on the south side of Chicago in the ghetto. Yeah, some form of Christianity was there, but like the other stuff, it didn't appeal to me. I developed my own custom personal religion you could say. Just like you! I even debated online back then, but I was debating as an atheist. I thought I was pretty good too, because according to the handful off people who would vote, I was a winner and I became very popular.

I would say every sentence in this paragraph requires demonstration. These are extraordinary claims. 
#93
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
If you don't believe me, then don't. My personal life is nobody's business.

If I wanted people to know who I was, I wouldn't be so ambiguous about myself.

I am an honest person. If you don't believe I am honest, I don't know what to tell you.

Charity believes people are honest about the things they say. What can I say? Show me some charity. Or don't, if that is the kind of life you want.




#94
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It is a choice to be charitable!

What is this topic about?


God is Love.

Topic's author
#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
For now I will refer to it as G.O.D as this fit's nicely with my current way of thinking. 
Ok, great.

So, ONTOLOGICAL differences aside, we all agree now.
#96
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Ironically it's possible the term Ultimate Reality and its meaning are taken from the Hindu religion, and we all know their scriptures are among the oldest recorded if not the oldest.

"In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe"

"The concept is found in various layers of the Vedic literature"

And, since they are the premier articulators of the nature of consciousness that could be why Mopac doesn't understand that God is the Ultimate Observer, it is the very conscious Reality of God that is the backdrop and foundation of all reality and existence. All things come out of that first Reality.
Topic's author
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
These are extraordinarily meaningless claims. 

Your identity cannot validate or invalidate your logic.
Topic's author
#98
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Excellent point.

Magnum Mysterium

The Sioux call it "Wakan Tanka".

The Jews call it "Ein Sof".

The Chinese call it "Tao".

The Hindus call it "Brahman".

Kant calls it "NOUMENON".

I call it, "NTURTTGgTS" (Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source).
#99
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
In so much as we all agree that there is an ultimate reality of some sort.

But none of us actually have any idea what that ultimate reality is.

Which basically sums up ontology.
#100
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Some or none.
It's wholly dependant upon the recipient.

What is a debate, other than a string of subjective statements?

When is a personal judgement not based upon ones personal opinions?

Would it not stand to reason that Belief being an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data also be wholly dependent on the recipient?
#101
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe we are communicating and I believe you would abandon the conversation if you did not believe we were communicating.

Your typed words are verifiable data points.
That's presumptuous. I do not object to your presumption as long as its recognized as such.

Although efficacious, it is not 100% fool-proof.  That's why marketers are ever so interested in children (basically fish-in-a-barrel) and the magical "18-24" (idiots with money) demographic.  Most people develop some immunity to NEW propaganda after graduating although many retain the commercial jingles and other prejudices acquired in their youth for the rest of their lives (that's why nostalgia is so powerful).
So at what proportion is psychology efficacious? At what point does that argument not fall into the ecological inference fallacy?

Presumably you're a human who speaks English and knows how to use a computer.
I can, but so can an A.I.

You remember being a helpless child.  You have certain foods that you prefer over others.  You are intelligent and thoughtful.
This could just as easily describe a dolphin.

You could be a figment of my imagination, however, you are a very persistent and scientifically verifiable figment of my imagination, which makes you functionally identical to a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
Have I been scientifically verified? I've had blood tests. But my blood could be a simple cocktail of perfluorocarbons. I could be a very sophisticated Turing test. All of this is to say, how is that which you believe is real "functionally different" from that which "is real"?

The only thing you've proven is that you find significance in this conversation (which answers your own question).

Your participation is de facto acknowledgement of your interest.


Please feel free to explain.
Significant in a context where it addresses the scope of its claim. Belief's being an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data is an explanation for all individuals who exhibit belief, right? But that in and of itself is a belief. If it's valid, it constitutes a paradox: if it's true, it cannot be an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data. And if it's not an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data, then it's not a belief.

By saying that you sustain this very belief zedvictor put forth, you are undermining the logical consistency of his argument. It's no longer personal. Hence, I ask: what significance does it bear to anyone other than him? This is not to say that I'm not "interested" in his posit. I question only whether he can extend the consequence of said posit to anyone beyond himself. But to do so is to undermine his argument.

Have you ever seen an ant?  Or a newborn infant?
Yes... and yes. How are they excluded?

You can debug a program by running the program.  That's what I'm doing here.  You're assisting me.  Error checking.  Testing for logical coherence.
Presuming there's a bug.
#102
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Without humans there's no gods.
#103
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Ultimately the individual is dependant upon themself.  As far as I can be aware.


Belief is a multifarious word that tells us very little, other than it's own possibilities.

Therefore as far as I am currently concerned, (in so much as how data currently amalgamates within my conscious brain relative to the expression of someones assumed belief) the assumed possession of belief, can only be taken with a pinch of salt.

For me belief is no more than a guess.
#104
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Yep. I would think that it is fair to say that belief is a wholly individual thing.

As far as I can be aware, a collection of believers who ostensibly share similar beliefs are nonetheless just that.

Though I have noticed that Janesix has recently been proposing a possible  "hive mind" principle, which on first consideration is quite a fascinating concept.
#105
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as I can be aware, a collection of believers who ostensibly share similar beliefs are nonetheless just that.

Though I have noticed that Janesix has recently been proposing a possible  "hive mind" principle, which on first consideration is quite a fascinating concept.

Wouldn't the concept of a "hive mind" inform a God?
Topic's author
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
For me belief is no more than a guess.
Or a hypothesis.
#107
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Or a hypothesis.
What's the difference?
#108
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,949
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
But what percentage do you believe? 
Be it god or anything. 
Do you believe in god 73.7%
Surly one could not believe in god 100% .
They can't.  Well unless they have meet him.

Soooooooo yeah.  I'm going to go with what you said. 
Nice posts man. 

#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Hive mind could possible inform a purpose.

God, or more appropriately what the term God represents, could be the primary enabler of the purpose.

NB. No hymns or prayers required.
#110
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep. What's the difference?
#111
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
With regard to a God hypothesis.

I do just that, rather than believe.

God, Creation, Evolution, Finality maybe, God, Creation, Evolution etc. Maybe

Certainly not a Northern European looking hippy type that goes around screwing Middle Eastern virgins, getting them pregnant and then having their only son nailed to a cross so that mere mortals can repent of their sins or some such shit as that..
Topic's author
#112
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm just adding "hypothesis" to the list.
#113
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Certainly not a Northern European looking hippy type that goes around screwing Middle Eastern virgins, getting them pregnant and then having their only son nailed to a cross so that mere mortals can repent of their sins or some such shit as that


Nobody believes that anyway, with the..exception of maybe BrotherDThomas.