What religion are you?

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

That's exactly it ... the concept of God or Gods is not testable and therefore cannot be proven or disproven. But by the same token, if you are open to the notion of existence of one God, you cannot be closed to the idea that maybe there are multiple Gods.

But if you INSIST that there is ONLY one God, then I think Stephen Roberts said it best:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Quoted for truth.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

...where did you ask a question? And that point has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm asking or addressing, which is who told you (and the rest of us) there's a god in the first place, and why do we assume that those people were right? Though it's changed shape, form and name many times over throughout history, the idea that there's a god or gods was a random thought of ancestors from 10k+ years ago based on nothing but an assumption about the unexplainable, and today, you tell me we can't disprove god(s) because they're not of this world? Think about it. Under your premise, ANYONE could claim ANYTHING about the supernatural/non-material world, and it would be protected under the "can't prove or disprove the supernatural by scientific criteria" clause. But that's not the reality of what happens, or how we react when we make OTHER supernatural claims, is it? No. Instead, we demand proof that this person's claim is valid, and not a hallucination, a misunderstanding, a rouse, etc. So why is it we apply logic and scientific criteria to other supernatural phenomenon, but not to god? Quite frankly, I find it akin to minorities crying "racist!" every time they're rightfully called out on doing something wrong, while whites can do nothing of the sort in like situations.

The problem with this premise is it's based on someone's CLAIM that there is an entity known as god, and that this entity is beyond our comprehension. What makes this so, other than words written by men? Nothing. It is merely an elaborate script for the oldest fairytale. In other words, you're giving me the premise to the nature of a made up, fictional character. I could say the same thing about Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China. You can't disprove Lo Pan exists, because he is not of this world. But that's only relevant to the context of the movie (or ancient Chinese myths and legends). In reality, the nature of this character does not matter outside of the movie/Chinese mythology, because the character is not real. Same applies to a current deity. What difference does it make if the BIBLE (or any holy book) CLAIMS that god is beyond our comprehension? That only matters to the plot of the fictional story.

Basically, what we've done is opened up a book, read a wild and ridiculous claim, and said, "d'oh! We're f*cked. It says right here that we can't disprove this book because the creator of it (those writing for him, anyway) says so right here. He's beyond our understanding. Welp....guess he's got us there. We'll just have to believe. PWND!". Name me another instance were we use this kind of mentality. Tell me of another book making supernatural claims (aside those involving deities) were we just ASSUME the words written are true, therefore, blindly believe in their claims. Talk about a foolproof plan. Just like Stephen King said, once you except the primary premise of what god is, there's really no way to refute it. The question is, how or why do/did we accept the primary premise of god in the 1st place?

I am asking and pointing out A.

You are having a discussion about B.

This cannot work.

You are still insisting on using a method of proof/evidence which cannot be by definition applied to supernatural natural claims because they are relegated to the natural world, because it must be so in order for you to feel validated about your own set of assumptions (everyone has a set of assumptions by the way, and every system has a set of assumptions built into it). Supernatural claims are not testable or falsifiable per the standards of science.

[jgk3]

Re: What religion are you?

what if we made an inquiry about how people distinguish between natural and supernatural, the framework by which they construct these concepts for categorization.

In essence, I think both of these categorizations share some basic approaches. I think that when we start to inquire about what factors trigger and construct our feelings/attitudes and judgements, we start to break down these broader categorizations of natural vs supernatural. We go beyond the idea that we construct these categories through belief, because to me, the concept of "belief" too is constructed by more minute constituents, namely:

- trust in the existence of a certain thing
- capability for interaction
- memory (plays a great role in being able to recall and think about a remote entity)

I'm sure we can come up with more or more accurate criterion if we thought about it. My underlying point is that if we inspect where our attitudes come from, how they are constructed and organized, perhaps we'll be able to communicate better with eachother when we talk about our respective beliefs. I dunno, just a thought?

[Siggie]

Re: What religion are you?

The fundamental assumption upon which science operates is that the natural world is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

The assertion of god's existence does not contradict science as we understand it. Since the assumption stipulates specifically that god exists in a supernatural universe which is outside the boundaries of the natural universe, that hypothesis cannot be tested by science, which deals only with the natural universe.

I don't like this because if the claim is that the supernatural phenomena can influence the natural world then we should still be able to apply science and test it.

Saying it's beyond our capacity for knowledge allows for cheats, liars, swindlers, etc to continue what they do (e.g. astrologers, psychics, etc).

This seems awfully close to the "Join us in learning about Jesus" people who say, oh we don't know the answer to these questions because we're not God and it's not for us to know.

[jgk3]

Re: What religion are you?

Yes, some people make religions out of anti-logic by making use of those lame copouts, and they end up making money off of people that way. I don't approve of this.

I prefer it when those who believe in God are able to use logic to account for why they are different in their belief system from agnostics or atheists.

[MrHyeSev]

Re: What religion are you?

Like Benny Hinn is he one of them that you are referring to?

[yerazhishda]

Re: What religion are you?

I don't like this because if the claim is that the supernatural phenomena can influence the natural world then we should still be able to apply science and test it.

Siggie, no one has claimed that as we have yet to agree on the definition of God and his Nature.

[jgk3]

Re: What religion are you?

this is where a basic understanding of theology by both parties might come in handy as a platform for communication with common terms. By the same token yeraz, I think you would do well to expand your means of explaining notions of God and his Nature beyond the domain of theology. In the end, it's up to you.

[Crimson Glow]

Re: What religion are you?

I am asking and pointing out A.

You are having a discussion about B.

This cannot work.

You are still insisting on using a method of proof/evidence which cannot be by definition applied to supernatural natural claims because they are relegated to the natural world, because it must be so in order for you to feel validated about your own set of assumptions (everyone has a set of assumptions by the way, and every system has a set of assumptions built into it). Supernatural claims are not testable or falsifiable per the standards of science.

There's no discussion A, or discussion B. We are discussing the same thing. The only reason the discussion cannot work is because you're using circular logic. I'm trying to conduct a discussion, and you keep clinging to the "human logic does not apply to god" cop out instead of individually addressing my points, even though MY posts revolve around the fallacy in that argument in a very clear, precise way. Rather than refuting my points that eradicate the "can't apply logic to god" clause, you ignore them, and keep using the clause. This is not unlike when Turks are proven wrong about the genocide, yet keep clinging to the "you rebelled, we had no choice" clause. Sure, it's true we rebelled, but it had nothing to do with the true reasoning behind the genocide. Likewise, sure, as outlined BY THE BIBLE, god is beyond our comprehension. But that has nothing to do with the truth about the source of that claim. It means nothing outside of that book if the book itself is fictional.

Let's try this another way. Answer me this simple question. When/where were you introduced to this claim that an incomprehensible god exists?

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

There's no discussion A, or discussion B. We are discussing the same thing. The only reason the discussion cannot work is because you're using circular logic. I'm trying to conduct a discussion, and you keep clinging to the "human logic does not apply to god" cop out instead of individually addressing my points, even though MY posts revolve around the fallacy in that argument in a very clear, precise way. Rather than refuting my points that eradicate the "can't apply logic to god" clause, you ignore them, and keep using the clause. This is not unlike when Turks are proven wrong about the genocide, yet keep clinging to the "you rebelled, we had no choice" clause. Sure, it's true we rebelled, but it had nothing to do with the true reasoning behind the genocide. Likewise, sure, as outlined BY THE BIBLE, god is beyond our comprehension. But that has nothing to do with the truth about the source of that claim. It means nothing outside of that book if the book itself is fictional.

Let's try this another way. Answer me this simple question. When/where were you introduced to this claim that an incomprehensible god exists?

At least one of us is using logic as opposed to pure emotion that it has to be so because it has to be so. I must say, right about now, you are looking more and more like those in this thread which you adamantly opposed, who claim those who don't believe in God are not Armenian, or are going to hell. Both of you show more zeal and emotion, than logic and reason.

There is nothing in your "points" to refute. If you had stopped being so ideological about this, you would have comprehended what I had stated, that there cannot be a refutation of the "god does not exist" dogma which you are ranting about. The only thing you are content with is if everyone submits to your badgering that "there is no god because there is no evidence of god because I said so because that is the way I think the criteria should be" when it has already been pointed out, you cannot use that criteria in making your assessment. What do you do? You jump around that and you instead resort to accusing the other side of somehow dodging the issue, ignoring the points, etc., etc., in order to have something to argue with and it is everyone else that is somehow warped and evading the issue, not you. No, definitely not you.

As much as it may give you a crack in your edifice of thought, what you have is nothing more and nothing less than what the fundamentalists you oppose have - a belief.

You do not know that God does not exist, because knowledge is the arena of the material world based on the five senses. That which cannot be known, is ipso facto, in the realm of belief. If this is too dreadful for you to accept, much like it might be dreadful for fundamentalists to accept that there are people who do not believe in God, then you are only displaying that you are no different than those who cling and grip desperately to their cherished beliefs.