Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

sand is correct, science can point out which areas of the brain and which hormones give us our emotions.
and the investigation of religion is important because it is such an atrosity, it commits and has commited many evils in the world.
the liklihood of god existing is extremely slim, and at the moment is only at that because we lack the knowledge to conclusively disprove it, but like all things in science it is only a matter of time, we learn more and more every day.

your knowledge of what science can and cant do seems to be dated,possibly due to your religious upbringing, they seem to like covering things up that arent convinient to them.

how do you know this?

It's a matter of probability. When a phenomenon has no physical manifestation that counters the observed causes and effects attributed to natural forces, that phenomena can be relegated to the unlikely.

Hardly! And it is you who are being dishonest. You refuse to answer the question. It is not a trap. It is not a game. Your "answer" is not an answer.

Do you exist?

Just answer the question.

You are being evasive again. If you can't answer, then perhaps you don't know if you exist or not.

To everyone else that has responded: I understand and respect that we all have different views on religion. If you ask me if I can "prove" God exists in any empirical way, I'll be honest and tell you that I can't. I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable and confident that I can say I "know" for myself, but that there is any conclusive "proof" that is satisfactory for all people would be a silly case to try to make.

For the time being, let's set aside the issue of whether God exists.

I want to know if Sand exists. That's a yes or no question. Either you exist or you don't. Personally, I think he does exist, else his words wouldn't appear in this forum. But my belief is irrelevant. I want to know what Sand thinks.

Here's what I think, and this is strictly MY opinion: I don't think Sand knows he exists. I also think that for someone to "know" so many things and yet not even be confident of his own existence is to be delusional. Someone who, in all honesty and sincerity, goes around saying "I don't know that I exist" has some deep psychological issue and is in need of counseling to help him come to terms with his own existence.

No traps. No games. Answer plainly: Do YOU exist?

Not for you.

OK, fair enough. Not for me. Is that an acknowledgment that you exist at all? That's the answer I'm looking for--Do you exist (at all)?

Your response does demonstrate that my question does have at least a modicum of vagueness which I myself did not see. In that sense, I was in error and I apologize.

So now that we've cleared that up, perhaps a better question is do you believe that you exist? Not exist for me or anyone else. I just mean is there any sense at all in which you might be said to exist?

I'm worried about repeating this question in too many different ways.

Do you exist at all?

That fact that one can even ask the question: "Do I exist" proves his existence. Descartes got that one right.

ruveyn

Well... Whether Descartes' reasoning in coming to his conclusion is correct is a matter for debate, but I took up the same idea when I took a philosophy class almost 15 years ago (my professor pointed out some problems with it, but I've long since forgotten).

The problem here is I'm not asking myself the question. I'm asking Sand. His reply was "Not for you." My question was not "Do you exist for me?" It was plainly "Do you exist?" Sand is avoiding the answer. It puzzles me why he should. Sand is adept at holding others accountable for their statements. He has greatly helped me in examining my own position and has forced me to learn even more and think even harder about the kinds of things I've put forth. Why shouldn't Sand be held accountable for his own?

Sand challenges by insinuation, and I feel at times I've broken through parts of those walls. However, Sand is EXTREMELY evasive on this one question. He has no reason to be evasive. He has nothing to fear from me. He holds others to a high standard and points out the delusions of others. But when he exhibits the same behaviors, he runs from the issue. I wonder if Sand irrationally suspects that I'm setting a trap. I haven't set any traps. I'm not privy to any special knowledge. There's no mystery here. I don't know how old Sand is, but what little I do know about Sand is that he's got a lot of wisdom and experience on me. I'm just a lowly piano player. I can't do any harm.

I want to know what Sand thinks or believes: Does Sand exist at all, in any way, in any form?

I really hate repeating the question, but there has been no forthright answer. Does Sand exist?

I have posted this elsewhere but it applies here.

The reason I have decided it is futile to interact with AngelRho is that his open question of "Do you exist" is not simply answerable. And he has exhibited enough open sophistication to clearly demonstrate he is fully aware of this and it is offered as a trap. He is obviously operating under some sort of agenda which indicates to me that his discussion is basically dishonest and I find this offensive. His request for a simple yes or no answer is the key since neither the simple appearing words "you" nor "exist" are simply defined. It is an undercover attempt to prove the existence of God which, under the general concept of an all powerful being is not available for this type of basic query. It is unfalsifiable.

His proposal that only special Christians are qualified to assert the actuality of the supernatural is the obvious scam of the snake oil salesman that only he and a specially selected coterie have the secret powers if insight and undeniable capability to make judgments in this area. The rest of us are provided with inferior brains who cannot penetrate the depths of this wonderful mystery. If it were the simple amusement of producing pigeons or rabbits from secret pockets I could be entertained. In this case I am not amused.

Are you certain about that?

AngelRho's position with respect to the subjectivity of knowledge strikes me as well founded--but not what I understand his conclusion to be.

If the argument runs something like, "I cannot know for certain whether or not my perception of the world is an accurate reflection of its actual state. If I am prepared to put my faith in scientific observation that may be flawed, I can equally put my faith into a Divinity whose existence is no more certain." To my way of thinking, you cannot put the existence of God on the same plane as the Atomic Theory.

But Sand appears to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, arguing that there is little or no value in a system of belief that is predicated on faith in a concept that lacks the internal consistency of something like the Atomic Theory.

For me, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I do not feel the need for me to believe in the existence of God to believe that there is much of value to be found in scripture (indeed, from the writings of many faiths). To my mind, there is no divine mandate, but at the same time, there is a elegance to the dictum, "love thy neighbour as theyself."

But the liberalism of my position also requires the adherent to recognize that scripture does not create a foundation for public law. AngelRho appears to be clearly aligned with this view, but I regret that many of his concredists are not so open in their thinking.

The problem arises in the apparently unshakable assumption that the Bible is the word of a supreme unquestionable being with total knowledge of everything. If it is conceded that the Bible was written by people, some exceedingly ignorant and not particularly bright, and some fairly wise to the ways of the world and capable of formulating reasonable ways of operating socially, then the Bible might be accepted as worth perusing for useful ideas. But to assume every word carries the force of absolute law strikes me as psychotic.

Why the hyperbole, Sand?

How many Christians maintain the unshakable assumption that you posit? Some, certainly, but by no means all. And to describe those who do as psychotic seems to me to import invective that is not required. You can critize a person's lack of critical thinking without ascribing to them mental illness.

I would agree with you if this total lack of critical thinking had absolute justification. But repeatedly the tight constraints of some of the statements in the Bible are used for the justification of horrible brutal actions by the more righteous and this, to my mind, invades psychotic territory.

That doesn't make it right, though. I've been reading the Bible over the last year--not just letting my eyes wander over the words, but really trying to STUDY what it all means. A few assumptions have to be made:

1. More of the Bible has to be taken literally than not; the Bible itself points out several instances where the language is necessarily symbolic
2. The Bible must be understood in the context in which is was written. Certain features of language must be understand in terms of culture traditions at the time of writing.

While MANY egregious acts have been committed in the name of God, the Bible cannot be blamed--only the people who wrongfully interpreted the Bible or twisted its meaning around to fit a certain agenda. For instance, that God would direct the Israelites in holy wars to purge Canaan from pagan influence IS NOT THE SAME as justifying the Crusaders' looting the Holy Land and merciless slaughter of Muslims and Jews. Forced conversion and inquisitions are NEVER ONCE sanctioned in the NT. Cult leaders, time and time again, have misled people by twisting and distorting scripture until it's almost completely unrecognizable.

The Bible texts themselves have remained virtually unchanged since the the 200's. There is no justification for holding the Bible responsible for the atrocities of sinful men.

I do not claim great familiarity with the Bible but in matters of general human behavior I am suspicious of declaring the Bible totally innocent. I have this very uncomfortable feeling of an echo of my arguments with gun proponents who quite correctly claim that a gun never killed anyone. It takes a person with an eye to aim and a trigger finger to pull to do the job. The Bible is very frequently a weapon.