Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

When put in a social context, and especially when postulated to be universal absolute 'truths' without any valid proof, it's 'nonsense'.

Just 'nonsense'? How about foolishness?


"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." ~ 1 Corinthians 1:18

I'll stick with nonsense, as in non-sense. The word 'sense' relates to use of rational reasoning, which is absent in much theist argumentation.

As for the bible-reference: Such are YOUR premises; the pushy imposition of your premises on people not sharing them and not wanting to share them is invasive missioning.

reply to post by bogomil

not wanting to share them is invasive missioning

That's a pretty laughable remark considering you don't have to click this forum and can leave at any time if random Bible verses get too horrifying for you to read.

You may have not considered this before, but this is the Religion, Faith, and Theology forum, a random verse here or there might show up.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

not wanting to share them is invasive missioning

That's a pretty laughable remark considering you don't have to click this forum and can leave at any time if random Bible verses get too horrifying for you to read.

You may have not considered this before, but this is the Religion, Faith, and Theology forum, a random verse here or there might show up.

No thank you, I'll stay where I am, just taking the opposite position of yours as a part of a 'Religion, faith and theology' forum.

You may have forgotten (though I have reminded you often enough), that a debate forum isn't a pulpit. It'a a place for communication in dialogue-form. Your ilk have manifestedly no intentions of finding a common communication platform, from where a dialogue can start.

It's just repetitive propagandistic speculative nonsense on 'god'. Without a iota of evidence and with no respect for others' religions or lifestyles.

reply to post by bogomil

No thank you, I'll stay where I am, just taking the opposite position of yours as a part of a 'Religion, faith and theology' forum.

That's fine and dandy, I'm not the one crying about you making your opinions and beliefs known.

Remember, 'Do what thou wilt'.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

No thank you, I'll stay where I am, just taking the opposite position of yours as a part of a 'Religion, faith and theology' forum.

That's fine and dandy, I'm not the one crying about you making your opinions and beliefs known.

Remember, 'Do what thou wilt'.

"Do what you will", inside the frame of democratic society. Can you only see two options: That of your authoritative system or total anarchy? As common for theists thinking black/white?

But anyway, what about relating to 'speculative nonsense' again. The opposite of 'speculative nonsense' would be to try first to establish a basis for meaningful dialogue, from where facts (instead of nonsense) can be presented.

reply to post by bogomil


Sorry, no matter how vividly you envision it, you're not the authority for what is nonsense or not. I don't formulate my opinions and worldview to ensure you sleep comfortably at night or have a web browsing experience free of heartburn.

If you want me to jump through your hoops your arms are going to get quite tired. My worldview will not be conformed to appease your God complex.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

Sorry, no matter how vividly you envision it, you're not the authority for what is nonsense or not. I don't formulate my opinions and worldview to ensure you sleep comfortably at night or have a web browsing experience free of heartburn.

If you want me to jump through your hoops your arms are going to get quite tired. My worldview will not be conformed to appease your God complex.

edit on 22-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

So now it's the amateur psychologist direction.

I'm a non-theist, we don't have 'god complexes'; such is reserved for theists who fabulate universal 'absolutes'.

As to my reference-points, from where I make my evaluations, I have two.

Liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy, where I have some freedom and some obligations. None of which are decided on my whims alone.

And

Objective procedure, which is completely independent of my personal character.

When I oppose you and other christian missionaries, it's done from these two positions.

Your present direction is just distractions from the present issue: Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?

Could you possibly relate to that WITHOUT trying your hand inexpertly as character-profiler.

So state your method for making sense on the subject of 'god is speculative nonsense' (or not).

reply to post by bogomil

So now it's the amateur psychologist direction.

LOL, seeing as "God complex" is a NON-CLINICAL term I think I can get away with using it not being a Psychologist. Although, you have no issues using non-clinical terms yourself, E.g. 'homophobia'. (Special pleading)

You've spent a couple pages here, and numerous other threads telling myself and others what we need to believe or say to appease your worldview.

A god complex is a non-clinical term generally used to describe an individual who consistently believes he or she can accomplish more than is humanly possible or that their opinion is automatically above those with whom he or she may disagree.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

So now it's the amateur psychologist direction.

LOL, seeing as "God complex" is a NON-CLINICAL term I think I can get away with using it not being a Psychologist. Although, you have no issues using non-clinical terms yourself, E.g. 'homophobia'. (Special pleading)

You've spent a couple pages here, and numerous other threads telling myself and others what we need to believe or say to appease your worldview.

A god complex is a non-clinical term generally used to describe an individual who consistently believes he or she can accomplish more than is humanly possible or that their opinion is automatically above those with whom he or she may disagree.

edit on 22-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I have spent 2-3 years at university studying psychology and have worked professionally with mentally ill for years. I believe I'm familiar enough with clinical terms to understand them and use them.

I don't tell anybody what to believe. I ask for clarification of positions, so the preachers know and acknowledge that they are preaching, instead of assuming they are communicating with real knowledge.

(Trans-cosmic) speculative nonsense is the area of preachers. (Cosmic) reality is the area of objective procedure.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

I have spent 2-3 years at university studying psychology and have worked professionally with mentally ill for years. I believe I'm familiar enough with clinical terms to understand them and use them.

Appeal to authority.

but for sake of argument I'll accept it.

Did you ever deal with any 'homophobes' who needed treatment for their fear of homosexual people? Is homophobia a clinical term?

Sure. Appeal to authority concerning my ability to understand technical terms. I also have 'authority' concerning the specific parts on a car.

I have met a few people in my life, who would have benefitted from some homophobia treatment. People VERY close to me. Phobias can vary in intensity, from the mildly neurotic to borderline symptoms.

In a medical context a phobia can be a clinical term.

In a non-specialist context a phobia is a strong aversion.

End of the semantic escapade on my part. It has little bearing on the major subject of 'theist speculative nonsense'.

Originally posted by bogomil
Special interests, like extremist ideology etc. wanting MORE than that, will just have to demonstrate the value of their ideas. Not pushing the ideology like a product needing advertisement, disregarding merits.

And that is a sad failure, really a misunderstanding I believe as to what ideological discussions should be about. I will be the first to tell you what I believe and why but I'm not going to push you into believing what I do to earn some sort of theological brownie-points. This is the failure of many of these discussions of God.

Theology discussions often look like this because people mistakenly think this is how to get your point across.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69fdde0ee30b.jpg[/atsimg]

When the truly productive discussions actually look like this.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7c09d871764.jpg[/atsimg]


Christians often come at this with the viewpoint that they have to shake the truth into the non believers and atheist want to slap the stupid out of Christians. So long as either one of both sides comes at the discussion with this point of view then no one learns anything. Are discussions of God speculative nonsense? Of course not so long as they are actual discussions and not one-sided rants yelling at the opposing viewpoint.

reply to post by dbates


Thanks for your answer.

What I believe to be relevant is, that I myself have a metaphysical position. Not just pantheism or deism, but a personal belief, that there's a trans-cosmic form of existence also. Or maybe just some unknown part of cosmos, which is so 'weird' (like e.g. an element of ultimate chaos), that it's beyond present comprehension.

I have, say like the 'mystic' position.

But I don't want the metaphysical 'area' filled with prematurely guessed at 'gods' and similar thingumajics.

I am, in some meaning, standing in the middle between gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, but I have been met decently from the atheist faction (also the more gnostically inclined atheists), exactly because I'm no threat (using rational reasoning for my aims), and because I have no intentions of spreading my message as an ultimate truth.

Personally I find it difficult to get such a communicative response from evangelistic theists. It's usually a black/white situation: "If you're not for us a long part of the road, you're against us". So a rather tough confrontation usually developes, admittedly also from my end of it.

I'm very happy, that I don't have to be a moderator in such situations.

Originally posted by bogomil
I have, say like the 'mystic' position.

But I don't want the metaphysical 'area' filled with prematurely guessed at 'gods' and similar thingumajics.

Sure then we would all be like the Greeks. One of the most amusing stories in the Bible is when Paul visited Athens and found they had a temple to everything. Even one dedicated to "The Unknown God" just in case they overlooked one.

Obviously we can look at that and say it's undue superstition and a lot of guesswork and unknowns. Still on the other hand I can see someone's hesitance at picking just one God as the true source because that might offend the real one just on the happen stance that you picked the wrong one. Still there's nothing wrong with talking to the "Creator" since if this deity did exist he (he is just an easy use pronoun) would most certainly know that when you spoke of or to the source you were referencing him. If this Creator/God cared enough then it would understand the gap between your knowledge and his and credit you with reaching out to the source.

Personally I do think that the Creator does know and understand and knew our knowledge needed some gaps filled in. This Creator chose to reveal parts of himself to us through Abraham and his offspring. (O boy, here come the conspiracy points for some) Why not directly to each and everyone? Hmm, I still wonder about that but I'll take what I can get. I think we all eventually do get this chance one-on-one but you have to die first. Perhaps our bodies can't handle the energy output standing so close to the creator. So for now we have a shield between us and him for our own good. *shrugs* Who really knows for sure?

This isn't to say that the Bible explains everything or that there are no questions or doubts. Our knowledge is incomplete for sure. But I think we do know enough to act on. I do think we can draw conclusions based on what we see in the world around us and determine that a Creator for this world, which in my view is too orchestrated to be accidental, this creator does exist. In that light it's not nonsense to discuss God. Even if you're a true atheist it isn't nonsense to discuss the topic of God. Discussion and exchange of thoughts is a noble thing even if you don't fully buy into the topic. Knowledge is still knowledge.

reply to post by dbates


Again thanks for your answer to me.

It deserves a well-considered response, but presently I'm in a hectic period building my new house, so neither time nor mental energy is something I have much of just now.

If you are interested in getting an answer in a few days, I can U2U you, when I post it on the forum.

Best wishes

Bogo

reply to post by dbates


The 'god' concept is to imprecise. I have repeatedly met christians (with missionary attitudes), who claim that buddhists are seeking 'god' in their buddhistic practises.

And presently we have a thread here on ATS, where a person claimed, that the 'holy spirit' can be used as a measure-tape for other religionists to 'explain' these non-christian religions to non-christian religionists.

It's not only patronizing; it can be right out insulting.

I'm here referring to

Quote on 'god': ["(he is just an easy use pronoun)"]

Concerning the 'creator' aspect, there are also different opinons on that concept, with no final or uniform answers.

So a communicative and non-invasive attitude would be either the completely 'unknown' (un-nameable, un-knowable) 'mysterious god' or alternative THE specific, but optional 'god', as e.g. "my 'god'" or the 'god' of the bible, or Zeus, Woden, Brahma.

Quote: ["This Creator chose to reveal parts of himself to us through Abraham and his offspring."]

I consider it sound to present models, where 'facets' of reality are part of the offered. Ultimately that's also what science/logic does (at its best in an agnostic position). But to inverse the 'incomplete reality model' (which I usually call 'relative reality') to automatically including doctrinal claims as 'valid' is going to far. E.g. can I on the spot construct a 'doctrine' of 'kmdubnt' (I just closed my eyes and let my fingers make random movements).

Obviously, if I believed in this 'doctrine' and fleshed it out with 'reasons' fitting with it, this is worthless. That's not saying, that a 'creator' concept is without some justification. Mankind do after all operate much with regressive causality. The problem is, that such a reversed causality also must follow rational reasoning as far as possible (if it wants to be considered more than just a 'faith').

Quote: [" Why not directly to each and everyone?"]

To search for the footprints (or existence) of 'god' or 'ultimate reality' is never an easy thing, no matter what knowledge-seeking model is used. But to start with a pre-determined answer is meaningless, because then you don't search anymore. You just re-actively try to justify this 'answer'.

Quote: ["I think we all eventually do get this chance one-on-one but you have to die first"]

The optional 'perspectives' on this is far more varied than just the abrahamic versions. The common asian approach of terminating 'dualism' is a functional alternative to the method of changing existential level through dying.

Quote: ["Perhaps our bodies can't handle the energy output standing so close to the creator."]

The cessation-of-dualism approach have similar concerns. The basis of physical existence is dualism; when dualism is terminated, the body also is terminated (together with other mundane phenomena).

Quote: ["But I think we do know enough to act on. I do think we can draw conclusions based on what we see in the world around us and determine that a Creator for this world, which in my view is too orchestrated to be accidental, this creator does exist."]

Being a metaphysicist myself, I'm naturally positive to the option of trans-cosmic existence. But as with my arguments above, it's one thing to have an option of an existing unknown, another is to people (or godle) it with guesses. On the basis of the many seemingly random factors working together to form our cosmos, I would go so far as to 'intent' being possible. But not more.

Quote: [" In that light it's not nonsense to discuss God."]

People DO get carried away and start on claimed 'specifics' almost from the start.

Originally posted by bogomil
To search for the footprints (or existence) of 'god' or 'ultimate reality' is never an easy thing, no matter what knowledge-seeking model is used. But to start with a pre-determined answer is meaningless, because then you don't search anymore. You just re-actively try to justify this 'answer'.

That's a very valid point and many if not most all people do this when it comes to religious answers. They pick an answer and then try to make the solution add up to what they predetermined was the correct path. So do you think it is best to just explore all reasonable possibilities and then draw your own conclusions later? Should we meditate and try to gain this knowledge, read ancient texts, follow our "gut" feelings? How do we reach the point of picking a path to follow? Can we ever know or be sure of any of the answers to the great questions?

On the basis of the many seemingly random factors working together to form our cosmos, I would go so far as to 'intent' being possible. But not more.

I guess then the question is as to what exactly this "intent" is. Is it a concentrated core being of ultimate power that has thoughts and reasonings, or is it just a general overall source of some kind that causes order generically out of chaos? Of course I'm just seeking what your (or anyone's) opinion is and it doesn't have to be something that can be backed up by observable science. Or is that the only thing you believe we should use to make these decisions?

reply to post by bogomil

To search for the footprints (or existence) of 'god' or 'ultimate reality' is never an easy thing, no matter what knowledge-seeking model is used. But to start with a pre-determined answer is meaningless, because then you don't search anymore. You just re-actively try to justify this 'answer'.

Besides meditation, how can one search for God without some knowledge of him/her/it? What else do we really have but speculation? Ancient texts from relitively unknown sources, which arn't proveable as truely written or inspired by God... People who claim to have experienced/met God... People who are considered Channels. Various teachers or even Masters.

And all of it is speculation. Theres no possible way to prove any of it.

As i've said before, one can't prove the existance of God to another, you have to prove it to yourself. Which also requires belief, and faith in what you believe.

All discussions about God are speculation... But not all are nonsence.

reply to post by dbates

How do we reach the point of picking a path to follow? Can we ever know or be sure of any of the answers to the great questions?

I would say you go with what you feel is correct in your heart. Everyone knows what is right and what isn't. We all know how we should treat others, but various emotions/feelings/experiences get in the way of the correct action. Your bias towards things grows as you age due to your experiences.

Everyone without exception has a conscience, its wether they chose to follow it or not... that determines your path