EDIT: This thread comprises two mearged threads. One which the user started in Introductions (starts with this post) and one he started in Religion. -Tank
Hello. This is post #1. My life is one of belief in the Trinity of God and all that this implies. My main goal in life has been an attempt to confirm or refute this belief. My journey in life has been an attempt to allow my belief to be beaten down, challenged in dark allies and trampled by anyone willing to debate. As a result, the pendulum of my mind swings from doubt to faith. I intentionally upset the equilibrium to produce wisdom from the experience. Since this is a dark alley I have never walked, allow me to present a challenge:
I would like to match my understanding of God, the universe and truth against the opposite swing of the pendulum as an exercise in growth. If you are up for the challenge, here is the request. Convince me why I am in error as a believer in God.
As a rule: Speak to the subject and do not step on the object. I will follow this rule when speaking of God as well. I will not speak toward any perceived bias against or for God's character. If possible, this should be about evidence and not bashing of character.
I will start with my basic understanding of God and physics.
Einstein said that the universe starts with Time, Space, Matter and Energy.
Moses said, "In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy)."
Right now, I am in an image called The Happy Atheist Forum. Although I am a physical person, my image here is represented purely by my Word. You know I exist simply because you are familiar with how the process of a forum works. You may doubt that I am writing my own words or that the image I project is true, but you do know I exist. You may never meet me face to face, yet you take it for granted that I am a human and have typed these words sometime in the past.
Moses said, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
From my ability to reason, I realize that the universe is an artificial reality and we are artificial lifeforms to God's perspective. To our perspective, this reality is real. As the Bible suggests, we are inside His created image on the other side of His reality. We are also made in His likeness. Today is the only age in history when man possesses a metaphor for this type of Created reality. Consider the screen that you are using to read these words. It is an image. I am in this image represented by something physical, with words that tell a story, and consciousness connecting me to you.
How is this image projected?
As I stated at the top, the Trinity of God is where it starts for me. Most believer's see God as three persons. The Father is most often referenced toward light. The Son is referenced as the Son of God and the Word (John 1). John 1 states that the Word was the Son who spoke the image into existence. The final person of the trinity is the Holy Spirit. Here is how I see these three figures in relation to the image of reality and the physics of creation.
Light is a misunderstood duality of particle and wave. Since this understanding is a theory, it is the best clue I have to go on when considering how time, space, matter and light (energy at high frequency) operate. Since all particles have an associated wave, then the wave (force) that binds particles into matter is the main force that is governed by the laws of physics. Since I can clearly see that the laws of physics are governed, I must assume a governor. How can this relate to an image that is projected into an artificial reality you ask?
God is one. We realize Him from the three aspects of His claim to creation. We see him as particle and wave making up all matter. We also see him as consciousness and aware. He refers to Himself as the Great I AM. I can then extrapolate the meaning behind this to see myself. I am one person. I have consciousness and I am made up of animated particle and wave. How do we explain the projection point from God to us? Why is God hidden apart from His manifestation in material reality? Why does He refuse to be represented by matter?
As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both.
End of Post 1
Welcome to HAF.
I think the better question is can you make it to 10 posts without breaking forum rules ;) The answer to your question is no because you aren't allowed to post in the religious section till after 10 posts and that means not discussing religion.
Plus the fact that becoming an Atheist is a personal journey that often takes years. If you were deconverted within ten posts, I'd say your faith wasn't that secure long before you found us.
Hello Superior - nicely disarming name!
I have no desire to unpick this abortion of opinion, conjecture and unfounded conclusions, but welcome anyway...
Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 12:58:38 AM
Welcome to HAF.
I think the better question is can you make it to 10 posts without breaking forum rules ;) The answer to your question is no because you aren't allowed to post in the religious section till after 10 posts and that means not discussing religion.
Duly noted and I will keep it quite. POST 7
Quote from: KingPhilip on September 26, 2011, 01:11:08 AM
Plus the fact that becoming an Atheist is a personal journey that often takes years. If you were deconverted within ten posts, I'd say your faith wasn't that secure long before you found us.
Sure. I have searched both sides for years already. This doesn't mean the subject of reason cannot speak louder than the subject of belief. I am always open. POST 8
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 26, 2011, 01:28:02 AM
Hello Superior - nicely disarming name!
I have no desire to unpick this abortion of opinion, conjecture and unfounded conclusions, but welcome anyway...
How so? Care to provide context to your use of language concerning the taking of human life? How does the world abortion imply an unfounded conclusion. I fail to draw the relationship. Is the comment aimed at me the object, or the subject of what I said? POST 9
Welcome!
Well, you make it a tough challenge, because it seems to me like you would like something else to replace your conception of god, and quickly. That's just not the way it happens, unless you come across some strong evidence. Since I can't provide you with evidence that god does not exist, my guess is that any attempt to deconvert you was a fail from the start.
Especially since
QuoteAs a rule: Speak to the subject and do not step on the object. I will follow this rule when speaking of God as well. I will not speak toward any perceived bias against or for God's character. If possible, this should be about evidence and not bashing of character.
You're wanting people to tackle the idea of a simplified version of a semi-deistic god creating the universe?
QuoteDefinition of ABORTION
1
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2
: monstrosity
3
: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
Just because a word has one meaning doesn't mean that a person was using it...in the context it was likely definition 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Now that I have reached 10 posts, this is a recap of my first post in the into section. I assume this is a safe place to discuss the topic.
My life is one of belief in the Trinity of God and all that this implies. My main goal in life has been an attempt to confirm or refute this belief. My journey in life has been an attempt to allow my belief to be beaten down, challenged in dark allies and trampled by anyone willing to debate. As a result, the pendulum of my mind swings from doubt to faith. I intentionally upset the equilibrium to produce wisdom from the experience. Since this is a dark alley I have never walked, allow me to present a challenge:
I would like to match my understanding of God, the universe and truth against the opposite swing of the pendulum as an exercise in growth. If you are up for the challenge, here is the request. Convince me why I am in error as a believer in God.
As a rule: Speak to the subject and do not step on the object. I will follow this rule when speaking of God as well. I will not speak toward any perceived bias against or for God's character here. I am after an inquiry into the subject of belief form the standpoint of evidence. If possible, this should be about evidence and not bashing of character (even God's). A subject should be able to stand from evidence and not a bias against the individuals involved.
I will start with my basic understanding of God and physics.
Einstein said that the universe starts with Time, Space, Matter and Energy.
Moses said, "In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy)."
Right now, I am in an image called The Happy Atheist Forum. Although I am a physical person, my image here is represented purely by my Word. You know I exist simply because you are familiar with how the process of a forum works. You may doubt that I am writing my own words or that the image I project is true, but you do know I exist. You may never meet me face to face, yet you take it for granted that I am a human and have typed these words sometime in the past.
Moses said, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
From my ability to reason, I realize that the universe is an artificial reality and we are artificial lifeforms to God's perspective. To our perspective, this reality is real. As the Bible suggests, we are inside His created image on the other side of His reality. We are also made in His likeness. Today is the only age in history when man possesses a metaphor for this type of Created reality. Consider the screen that you are using to read these words. It is an image. I am in this image represented by something physical, with words that tell a story, and consciousness connecting me to you.
How is this image projected?
As I stated at the top, the Trinity of God is where it starts for me. Most believer's see God as three persons. The Father is most often referenced toward light. The Son is referenced as the Son of God and the Word (John 1). John 1 states that the Word was the Son who spoke the image into existence. The final person of the trinity is the Holy Spirit. Here is how I see these three figures in relation to the image of reality and the physics of creation.
Light is a misunderstood duality of particle and wave. Since this understanding is a theory, it is the best clue I have to go on when considering how time, space, matter and light (energy at high frequency) operate. Since all particles have an associated wave, then the wave (force) that binds particles into matter is the main force that is governed by the laws of physics. Since I can clearly see that the laws of physics are governed, I must assume a governor. How can this relate to an image that is projected into an artificial reality you ask?
God is one. We realize Him from the three aspects of His claim to creation. We see him as particle and wave making up all matter. We also see him as consciousness and aware. He refers to Himself as the Great I AM. I can then extrapolate the meaning behind this to see myself. I am one person. I have consciousness and I am made up of animated particle and wave. How do we explain the projection point from God to us? Why is God hidden apart from His manifestation in material reality? Why does He refuse to be represented by matter?
As stated by Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both.
End of Post 1
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 01:46:27 AM
From my ability to reason, I realize that the universe is an artificial reality and we are artificial lifeforms to God's perspective.
Could you explain how your came to the idea that reality is an illusion through reason alone?
Just to add:
When people (or I at least) attack god's character, it's not because of bias, it's because we don't have much to go on until people describe or define what they mean by 'god'.
Most Christians refer to the bible and what their holy book tells them their god's character is. By attacking that, it's to show that such a being cannot exist. Disproving the god of the bible does not by default disprove any and all possibilities of gods known and unknown till now. That's why, if your version of god is simplified and based on the laws of known and experienced reality, nobody is going to shift your interpretational paradigm in a few minutes...
By what you've written, looks like you're making parallels between the laws of physics and your conception of 'the governer' (which is IMO a flawed leap of logic). I don't know enough about your beliefs to say, but I can't disprove to you that those laws don't exist.
What are your beliefs exactly? Especially the bible...
I don't believe I called it an illusion. But since you suggest this, many prominent scientists have suggested this very thing. We are made of energy. Our computer realities follow this same format. Why should I deny the possibility when I have a valid example that compares in every way? DNA is a language. It appears to be programmed. It uses logic that programmers use, only far superior. Quantum physics suggests that consciousness collapses the indeterminate wave of probability when choice is made. This changes matter. Since consciousness changes matter, I must assume that consciousness is responsible in some way for the form matter takes presently. Why should I doubt design when it is evident? Entropy in information theory states clearly that a bit of information degrades over time. DNA improves over time. It goes against entropy in information. An acorn has an enfolded oak tree inside it. I know this to be true because science provides evidence that the acorn expresses from information and transmutes the matter around it. A tree is living like me. Parallels can be drawn from this to how we construct trees in a fractal environment of computer generated reality. Yet another example.
To us, it is not an illusion. Does this mean it is not an illusion to the designer. Genesis 1:27 seems to say it is an image of what it represents.
Hebrews 11:1
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Quantum weirdness is not visible, yet is makes the universe and you and me. It might be an illusion if we consider that we do not see where it comes from, yet we know and can verify it is there, whatever it is.
Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 02:00:52 AM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 01:46:27 AM
From my ability to reason, I realize that the universe is an artificial reality and we are artificial lifeforms to God's perspective.
Could you explain how your came to the idea that reality is an illusion through reason alone?
I don't follow your proof....could you explain what logical steps you took to know that reality is an illusion (and if you didn't mean illusion then could you re-explain what you think the universe is?)? If you could list your steps philosophically as premise proof etc that would help us all get where you are coming from.
To answer this, I need to describe how I see myself. I am a child of God. A child of God is a term used in the Bible to describe what a believer is. I assume that my concept of God cannot see Him for what He is, therefore I am a child seeing the world from the perspective of true oblivious sentience. If God is what He claims, then He is infinity at rest. There is your description of God. From this point, I see His character as a child. Sometimes I get angry at Him and sometimes I marvel at the wonder of it all. This is what a child (early sentient life) does.
Most atheists will will make their conclusions based on a childish understanding form what they have observed. Believers are the same, but emotional intelligence plays a large role in this. Believers are as weak as atheists in this ability to conceive infinity at rest or in deciphering emotion. How can we perceive all when we only see 'now'. If God is infinity at rest, then reality is merely the movement of one set of thoughts in an image that we move through. My ability to conceive in no way demands that this is not possible.
Most atheists will make their conclusions, as I said, based on this type of awareness. Suffering is normally the trigger that leads a person to this conclusion. Suffering is the point for me. When a person takes form life, they are stealing a reward that ends in suffering. Smoke and you get cancer. When a person gives to life, reward follows. Suffer an education and you get reward. There are no exceptions to this. If you find one, then the cause will reflect the actions of others. In my view, God is one of the others. Chance is providence. We are all affected in life by our actions or the actions of others. Chance is only the laws of nature accounting for unequal actions. Suffering is explained in this and God can be seen as helping us manage to learn.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 02:04:01 AM
Just to add:
When people (or I at least) attack god's character, it's not because of bias, it's because we don't have much to go on until people describe or define what they mean by 'god'.
Most Christians refer to the bible and what their holy book tells them their god's character is. By attacking that, it's to show that such a being cannot exist. Disproving the god of the bible does not by default disprove any and all possibilities of gods known and unknown till now. That's why, if your version of god is simplified and based on the laws of known and experienced reality, nobody is going to shift your interpretational paradigm in a few minutes...
By what you've written, looks like you're making parallels between the laws of physics and your conception of 'the governer' (which is IMO a flawed leap of logic). I don't know enough about your beliefs to say, but I can't disprove to you that those laws don't exist.
What are your beliefs exactly? Especially the bible...
Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 02:17:09 AM
I don't follow your proof....could you explain what logical steps you took to know that reality is an illusion (and if you didn't mean illusion then could you re-explain what you think the universe is?)? If you could list your steps philosophically as premise proof etc that would help us all get where you are coming from.
Read genesis 1:27 and John 1:1. LOGOS is Word in John 1:1. I study physics as a passion. I study the Bible for references to physics. There are plenty. When Jesus said that the veil had been torn to the temple enterance of the Holy area, I realized what this was saying. The veil is the block over our consciousness so we do not see God as fact. We need to experience Him by faith. When the Bible speaks of the temple, it references the body and mind of man.
Ephesians 2:21
In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
The veil was torn on our consciousness so that we see. The industrial revolution and the tech revolution followed. Today, as I said earlier, is the only day in history that we have an idea of how to conceive a created image from information management. We are beginning to see.
That's quite the intense "hello"
Theists want evidence for why a god doesn't exist. However, their proof that a god does exist most often involves metaphysics, philosophy, and the Bible, none of which are evidence.
Is it a metaphysical, philosophical, or Biblical proof you are seeking from us as well? Since you like a game with limits, how about, in 1 post or less, you submit something of actual, physical proof for the existence of a deity. The Bible is not evidence, in this case, otherwise we'd have to consider the possibility that Hogwarts is a real place.
I think you have a very interesting explanation for the definition of God, but I still don't see how you end up with the Judeo-Christian God based on what you've said. Why not "ultimate reality" or something of that nature? I don't see the connect between what you've described and why we should feel that the Bible is the key to relating to this "infinity at rest". Why is Christianity is the only "true" expression of the reality you've described?
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:38:14 AM
Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 02:17:09 AM
I don't follow your proof....could you explain what logical steps you took to know that reality is an illusion (and if you didn't mean illusion then could you re-explain what you think the universe is?)? If you could list your steps philosophically as premise proof etc that would help us all get where you are coming from.
Read genesis 1:27 and John 1:1. LOGOS is Word in John 1:1. I study physics as a passion. I study the Bible for references to physics. There are plenty. When Jesus said that the veil had been torn to the temple enterance of the Holy area, I realized what this was saying. The veil is the block over our consciousness so we do not see God as fact. We need to experience Him by faith. When the Bible speaks of the temple, it references the body and mind of man.
Ephesians 2:21
In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
The veil was torn on our consciousness so that we see. The industrial revolution and the tech revolution followed. Today, as I said earlier, is the only day in history that we have an idea of how to conceive a created image from information management. We are beginning to see.
Then again there are preachers who will tell you that the veil tearing was the end of the Abrahamic Covenant and the beginning of the new covenant in Christ.
So by the veil tearing are you saying that now, without the "block" there, we should be seeing god as fact instead of relying on faith? I'm a bit confused there. I'm also confused how that has anything to do with the study of physics.
Also, when theists quote religious scripture to an atheist, I don't think they realize that it doesn't have quite the clout they expect it to. To me, the Bible was written by humans, not inspired by any deity, therefore it has no spiritual hold over me. I don't trust it any more than I trust the Count of Monte Cristo as being factual.
It's of no matter, however. Your god is a jerk for allowing people to be born in places where they cannot hear the word of Jesus, and then proceed to condemn them to hell for not accepting him as their savior. If he did exist, I think I'd choose hell over your god on principle alone.
As for beginning to see... we are beginning to see gods less and less in our world as we explain more aspects of nature that used to be attributed to deities. The population of non-believers in the world is increasing. If we were beginning to see, as you put it, I would think that would go in the other direction.
"Re: Can you make an atheist out of me before I reach 10 posts"?
Lets say there have been 10,000 gods proposed, you seem to believe in one or oneish.
Divide 1 by 10,000 do some wibbling and wobbling and I conclude you are 99.99% atheist
Oh damn I was too slow, you're on 21 posts already, no cookie from Satan for me today.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 03:39:27 AM
I think you have a very interesting explanation for the definition of God, but I still don't see how you end up with the Judeo-Christian God based on what you've said. Why not "ultimate reality" or something of that nature? I don't see the connect between what you've described and why we should feel that the Bible is the key to relating to this "infinity at rest". Why is Christianity is the only "true" expression of the reality you've described?
I tell you how I can arrive at this. The fingerprint of nature is found in only one religious text. Read the OP again and see where that finger print is. Genesis and John 1. God and Jesus. Son and Father. Light and Wave. Energy and Word. Any way you look at it, the Bible is just astounding as to its accuracy on a host of subjects. Physics is the most exciting.
Consider what I said about Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation.
"...our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two universes represents the projection point of both. The BBC did a thought-provoking documentary on this subject."
Now read this:
Hebrews 11
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Quantum weirdness is not visible.
1 Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
How can it get clearer from the context presented? The key is all you need to understand. When the Bible says that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, it states that a man that says that consciousness does not pre-exist matter is dead in unbelief. But why? Pride. Genesis 3 states that man reached for knowledge apart form God. God desired to teach the education. The result is walking alone. The education is full of toil as stated in Genesis 3.
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
So, you can see more of my process. We toil when we do not walk in the garden (earth) with God.
Consider this verse. According to the Bible, Heaven contains many dwelling places made specifically for us. God prepares a new heavens and a new earth for us. Could the parallel universe of Dirac's equation suggest that Heaven is a twin to our own reality?
John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
2 Peter 3:12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
As I consider Dirac's equation, it is interesting to ponder the significance of matter and anti-matter. The verses above seem to suggest a connection. It is also interesting to consider the fact that we must be more than flesh and blood to survive in Heaven. God says in the Bible that we cannot look upon Him without being consumed.
Where is this place? Parallel universe theory and the many world's theory holds the answer, or a clue to the answer. Theory is not a good way to describe God. Some say that God is not a good way to describe God. I say that God is science.
1 Corinthians 15:
50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Where is the kingdom of God we inherit? Look up. We cannot go there without taking some of earth with us. The universe is too big to describe. We inherit this:
Deuteronomy 4
19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.
We are appointed to a new home. But why? Our Exodus from Egypt. Egypt is the earth.
20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are.
Go back to the image idea and creation as the image of God and the image we are in. Read the verse that precedes the last two.
15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.
God refuses to be seen as an image. He is not. We are.
There you have it. More to my process in reply to your request.
Deleted as a duplicate.
The thing is, I don't worship physics. My very happiness and mental well-being isn't founded on the fact that I believe our current understanding of physics to be infallible. I don't. There was a thread here just the other day about how it may be possible that one of Einsteins theories may be proven false; there may be particles that can travel faster than light which, until now, has seemed to be impossible.
And, with this very large potential paradigm shift, did we all panic? Did we all lose our heads because our precious "physics" might be wrong? No. We all thought it was interesting and discussed it a bit and then went along our day.
We were able do that because our lack of belief gives us the flexibility to see reason and admit that we don't know all of the answers. And when we do get an answer wrong, what's the punishment? Nothing, there is no punishment.
So, the parallels that you drew between the bible and physics are interesting (though I'd argue tenuous, at best), but don't see why I should find it convincing. I don't worship physics, so why should I worship something that has "connections" to physics?
Other than that, I think it's quite arrogant to say that the "fingerprint of nature" is only in one religious text. Have you read every religious text?
Quote from: fester30 on September 26, 2011, 03:40:19 AM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:38:14 AM
Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 02:17:09 AM
I don't follow your proof....could you explain what logical steps you took to know that reality is an illusion (and if you didn't mean illusion then could you re-explain what you think the universe is?)? If you could list your steps philosophically as premise proof etc that would help us all get where you are coming from.
Then again there are preachers who will tell you that the veil tearing was the end of the Abrahamic Covenant and the beginning of the new covenant in Christ.
So by the veil tearing are you saying that now, without the "block" there, we should be seeing god as fact instead of relying on faith? I'm a bit confused there. I'm also confused how that has anything to do with the study of physics.
Also, when theists quote religious scripture to an atheist, I don't think they realize that it doesn't have quite the clout they expect it to. To me, the Bible was written by humans, not inspired by any deity, therefore it has no spiritual hold over me. I don't trust it any more than I trust the Count of Monte Cristo as being factual.
It's of no matter, however. Your god is a jerk for allowing people to be born in places where they cannot hear the word of Jesus, and then proceed to condemn them to hell for not accepting him as their savior. If he did exist, I think I'd choose hell over your god on principle alone.
As for beginning to see... we are beginning to see gods less and less in our world as we explain more aspects of nature that used to be attributed to deities. The population of non-believers in the world is increasing. If we were beginning to see, as you put it, I would think that would go in the other direction.
Is there a reason that the meaning needs to be a paradox form a revelation of knowledge? I think the Genesis 3 account is all about the fruit of knowledge. The meaning is both as far as I can see.
The Bible is written by humans. Yes. It is a mirror of God and man. We are also mirrors. What does a mirror see when it looks? What it reflects. What does a man see when he looks at the Bible? The same. Again, we are the image of God. Where do I find the parallel in the Bible to this context you and I discuss. So far in this reply, I have talked about education and a mirror.
1 Corinthians 13
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Is God a jerk? Consider this. Jesus said in John 3, "you must be born again." It is not an option. You will be born again. This is the process. He states in John 3 that we have two births. We are born into the water (baptism into the material world). Or, we can be born into the spirit. How is this possible? When we see nature, we see the sun and moon come together to create life on earth. We also see sperm and egg come together when a man and woman fall in love. Again, new life. Is this where union ends. No. The earth is yet another womb and our bodies are the next placenta. Crude but true. We fall in love with God and gain union with the spirit within. Your soul is only one aspect of you. The spirit (Consciousness) is the other. Satan is the animal nature to be defeated. Again, symbolism.
Why doesn't God just come out and say it and save the suffering? Suffering is the point. We suffer to earn. Suffering either has us or others as a cause, or we choose to suffer work for reward. Either way, we must suffer to learn.
Confucius says, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."
You must be born again. It is the process.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
Other than that, I think it's quite arrogant to say that the "fingerprint of nature" is only in one religious text. Have you read every religious text?
Yes. Buddha is very close.
Dhammapada Choices:
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our
thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws
the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our
thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed
me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in
hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed
me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in
love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
O-kaayy?
Also, in regard to your response to Fester, quoting the bible will get you absolutely no-where unless you are able to convince us that it has validity. Your appeal to authority, in of itself, isn't going to work because we don't acknowledge the authority.
Saying "the Bible is a mirror" means nothing to us. I might as well worship my mirror because, heck, my mirror is REALLY a mirror!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
The thing is, I don't worship physics. My very happiness and mental well-being isn't founded on the fact that I believe our current understanding of physics to be infallible. I don't. There was a thread here just the other day about how it may be possible that one of Einsteins theories may be proven false; there may be particles that can travel faster than light which, until now, has seemed to be impossible.
I am not trying to convince you. Faith is not something a person finds. Faith is something God works in us. It is his burden. Our burden is living life and finding God as he works. My job here is to allow the flaming sword to do its work. In Genesis, God protects the tree of life with the flaming sword of His consuming fire. This works to cut away pride in the individual. I am doing some alchemy here and trying to find answers to more. Since I have taken this path, all roads lead back to the Bible. No matter where I go or what I read, the Bible is steadfast as the source of all streams that flow from it.
As I present my thoughts, I am hoping for something to reveal any pride that is left in me. If there is a better answer, I am waiting patiently. It is pretty hard to beat education from a bestowal of love.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
Other than that, I think it's quite arrogant to say that the "fingerprint of nature" is only in one religious text. Have you read every religious text?
Yes. Buddha is very close.
Dhammapada Choices:
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our
thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws
the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our
thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed
me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in
hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed
me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in
love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
Nice themes, makes for good memes and if pushed far enough, pop philosophy and psychology. Is that what religion is?
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:35:39 AM
I am not trying to convince you. Faith is not something a person finds. Faith is something God works in us. It is his burden. Our burden is living life and finding God as he works. My job here is to allow the flaming sword to do its work. In Genesis, God protects the tree of life with the flaming sword of His consuming fire. This works to cut away pride in the individual. I am doing some alchemy here and trying to find answers to more. Since I have taken this path, all roads lead back to the Bible. No matter where I go or what I read, the Bible is steadfast as the source of all streams that flow from it.
You may have your emotional reasons for believing in a god, but that right there is the definition of confirmation bias...
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 04:35:28 AM
O-kaayy?
Also, in regard to your response to Fester, quoting the bible will get you absolutely no-where unless you are able to convince us that it has validity. Your appeal to authority, in of itself, isn't going to work because we don't acknowledge the authority.
Saying "the Bible is a mirror" means nothing to us. I might as well worship my mirror because, heck, my mirror is REALLY a mirror!
I am not here to convince you. Faith is God's department. I will, however, give you a higher ideal than rational reason. Rationality is only the first step to truth. The second is humility apart form theology and especially bias. Humility is much more intellectual than rational reason. Rationality clings to bias. Humility is free from bias and open to what is most obvious. Pride causes a person to stick to a mindset. Humility allows truth to set a person free. I cannot convince you of this and don't need to. I'll say it anyway. Bias blinds. Martin Luther King Jr. realized this and overcame his. Truth followed. Humility is the key. The next best mindset is faith from humility. Hope is the result.
Why does the flaming sword blind knowledge but cut away pride? Suffering and healing at the same time.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:35:39 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
The thing is, I don't worship physics. My very happiness and mental well-being isn't founded on the fact that I believe our current understanding of physics to be infallible. I don't. There was a thread here just the other day about how it may be possible that one of Einsteins theories may be proven false; there may be particles that can travel faster than light which, until now, has seemed to be impossible.
I am not trying to convince you. Faith is not something a person finds. Faith is something God works in us. It is his burden. Our burden is living life and finding God as he works. My job here is to allow the flaming sword to do its work. In Genesis, God protects the tree of life with the flaming sword of His consuming fire. This works to cut away pride in the individual. I am doing some alchemy here and trying to find answers to more. Since I have taken this path, all roads lead back to the Bible. No matter where I go or what I read, the Bible is steadfast as the source of all streams that flow from it.
As I present my thoughts, I am hoping for something to reveal any pride that is left in me. If there is a better answer, I am waiting patiently. It is pretty hard to beat education from a bestowal of love.
Your pride is that you think God is talking to you, that he loves you, that you are special and you are doing "his work." Those are pretty much the most prideful things I think a person can believe. If God wanted creatures with real humility, he'd never let them know he existed.
Also, what you're doing is pretty much straight-up preaching and I doubt you'll be here much longer. It's really a pity that you couldn't give this forum a chance and talk to the people here as actual people. As we've told you before, there are religious people here who carry themselves respectfully and get the same treatment in kind.
There is humility in accepting that one doesn't know, you know. I would much rather prefer to based such beliefs (is there a god?) on what I know, and not on what I don't and in the process submit my limited intellect to someone's version of a higher power.
Religions push ignorance and try to sell their brand of 'knowledge'.
And you are preaching, which is a bit annoying. We have regular theist posters here who put out their opinions and defend their beliefs but don't keep trying to sell any 'higher ideals' as you are.
I'm thinking troll. ::)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 04:38:43 AM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:35:39 AM
I am not trying to convince you. Faith is not something a person finds. Faith is something God works in us. It is his burden. Our burden is living life and finding God as he works. My job here is to allow the flaming sword to do its work. In Genesis, God protects the tree of life with the flaming sword of His consuming fire. This works to cut away pride in the individual. I am doing some alchemy here and trying to find answers to more. Since I have taken this path, all roads lead back to the Bible. No matter where I go or what I read, the Bible is steadfast as the source of all streams that flow from it.
You may have your emotional reasons for believing in a god, but that right there is the definition of confirmation bias...
Augustine had a good answer to this. I also say that to avoid confirmation bias is to fall into the trap of misplaced concreteness. All the fallacies created by atheists to move a person away from faith can be equally mirrored back to the inversion of disbelief. There is no good result from inversion of bias. As I stated earlier, humility has all the reasoning paradigms beat.
"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, "When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false," says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 04:47:54 AM
There is humility in accepting that one doesn't know, you know. I would much rather prefer to based such beliefs (is there a god?) on what I know, and not on what I don't and in the process submit my limited intellect to someone's version of a higher power.
Religions push ignorance and try to sell their brand of 'knowledge'.
Sure. I see your point and raise you one more. We don't know, but we can know. Humility always assumes that the answer is there. Bias gives up. Not for me. Being open to rational logic must include a removal of bias as a quantity in the equation. Spock would agree with me.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:52:04 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 04:47:54 AM
There is humility in accepting that one doesn't know, you know. I would much rather prefer to based such beliefs (is there a god?) on what I know, and not on what I don't and in the process submit my limited intellect to someone's version of a higher power.
Religions push ignorance and try to sell their brand of 'knowledge'.
Sure. I see your point and raise you one more. We don't know, but we can know. Humility always assumes that the answer is there. Bias gives up. Not for me. Being open to rational logic must include a removal of bias as a quantity in the equation. Spock would agree with me.
You are just making up meanings to words now.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:49:02 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 04:38:43 AM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:35:39 AM
I am not trying to convince you. Faith is not something a person finds. Faith is something God works in us. It is his burden. Our burden is living life and finding God as he works. My job here is to allow the flaming sword to do its work. In Genesis, God protects the tree of life with the flaming sword of His consuming fire. This works to cut away pride in the individual. I am doing some alchemy here and trying to find answers to more. Since I have taken this path, all roads lead back to the Bible. No matter where I go or what I read, the Bible is steadfast as the source of all streams that flow from it.
You may have your emotional reasons for believing in a god, but that right there is the definition of confirmation bias...
Augustine had a good answer to this. I also say that to avoid confirmation bias is to fall into the trap of misplaced concreteness. All the fallacies created by atheists to move a person away from faith can be equally mirrored back to the inversion of disbelief. There is no good result from inversion of bias. As I stated earlier, humility has all the reasoning paradigms beat.
"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, "When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false," says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."
It is confirmation bias when you interpret vague and symbolic language to fit what you want it to fit, and look for other things that will also fit that vague paradigm, especially while ignoring all the other things that are not feeding that bias.
QuoteSure. I see your point and raise you one more. We don't know, but we can know. Humility always assumes that the answer is there. Bias gives up. Not for me. Being open to rational logic must include a removal of bias as a quantity in the equation. Spock would agree with me.
Prove that we can know, because everything I've seen so far points to god or gods, if there are any, are unknowable. I have good reasons not to accept any claims based on personal experiences and have not seen anything that could be shown to be the work of a god without it being an interpretational paradigm.
Deleted Duplicate
You Said:
"The thing is, I don't worship physics. My very happiness and mental well-being isn't founded on the fact that I believe our current understanding of physics to be infallible. I don't. There was a thread here just the other day about how it may be possible that one of Einsteins theories may be proven false; there may be particles that can travel faster than light which, until now, has seemed to be impossible.
Your pride is that you think God is talking to you, that he loves you, that you are special and you are doing "his work." Those are pretty much the most prideful things I think a person can believe. If God wanted creatures with real humility, he'd never let them know he existed.
Also, what you're doing is pretty much straight-up preaching and I doubt you'll be here much longer. It's really a pity that you couldn't give this forum a chance and talk to the people here as actual people. As we've told you before, there are religious people here who carry themselves respectfully and get the same treatment in kind."
SuperiorEd:
I have answered questions that have been asked. This is the religion section. I have also provided a context form science for my comments. I am an object and if the subject is preaching to your or not, this is not my job. I am only telling what I know for the purpose I presented. I want to be challenged with better information that what I can provide. It's not a contest. We should all be searching for truth from any perspective we can find. If I ever say that "you" should be doing something, then I am preaching. So far, I have not. Your life is up to you.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:35:39 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
Were you always Christian?
QuoteI am an object and if the subject is preaching to your or not, this is not my job.
You are the one putting your fingers on the keyboard, so you are the one responsible for what you write. If God wants to present his case to us, tell him to get his own account.
QuoteMy job here is to allow the flaming sword to do its work.
A nice way of saying: I'm preaching here. ::)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 05:03:03 AM
Were you always Christian?
I was Baptized at 9, then lived a life of doubt. I started the process of searching in 1996 and knew God in my heart. I needed to know Him in my mind. The doubt came from all the bias I felt toward suffering. Once I found that suffering has a direction, I was free from the reasoning of bias. There are two ways to suffer in this world. We either suffer from our own efforts or the efforts of others. If we take reward, suffering follows. If we suffer work for others (consider yourself on of the others), then reward follows.
The second thing that confirmed my faith was in my view of divine justice. When Satan visited God again in Job 2 after killing Job's children, God said this:
3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
4 "Skin for skin!" Satan replied.
Why Skin for skin as a reply? A snake sheds his skin, but the snake remains. Satan was just telling God it didn't matter, they would be back.
In John 3, Jesus says, "you must be born again." There is no other alternative.
For me, the final judgment of God implies that there are other judgments. Divine justice is truly divine. We must live under the veil by faith, not fact. Learning and testing reveals our heart. God is long-suffering.
These truths set me free to view God as He is. As a loving God who have given me the gift of life and the education to understand the next.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 05:11:04 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 05:03:03 AM
Were you always Christian?
I was Baptized at 9, then lived a life of doubt. I started the process of searching in 1996 and knew God in my heart. I needed to know Him in my mind. The doubt came from all the bias I felt toward suffering. Once I found that suffering has a direction, I was free from the reasoning of bias. There are two ways to suffer in this world. We either suffer from our own efforts or the efforts of others. If we take reward, suffering follows. If we suffer work for others (consider yourself on of the others), then reward follows.
You do realise that thinking that one is bias-free is in itself a bias, right? ;)
QuoteThe second thing that confirmed my faith was in my view of divine justice. When Satan visited God again in Job 2 after killing Job's children, God said this:
3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
4 "Skin for skin!" Satan replied.
Why Skin for skin as a reply? A snake sheds his skin, but the snake remains. Satan was just telling God it didn't matter, they would be back.
Yet god allowed satan to ruin Job, and even kill his sons who had nothing to do with anything.If there's a divine point to suffering, why did Job's sons have to suffer for that?
QuoteIn John 3, Jesus says, "you must be born again." There is no other alternative.
For me, the final judgment of God implies that there are other judgments. Divine justice is truly divine. We must live under the veil by faith, not fact. Learning and testing reveals our heart. God is long-suffering.
These truths set me free to view God as He is. As a loving God who have given me the gift of life and the education to understand the next.
Edited to add:
What do you think about the suffering of innocents? How do you reconcile that with god's love?
Defend your beliefs, but don't preach. There is a difference between the two...
I bought a shampoo "bar" and the packaging told me that it was supposed to last three weeks, but it's only a week and a half and it's almost gone!
I'm really thinking of complaining :(
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 26, 2011, 04:09:19 AM
"Re: Can you make an atheist out of me before I reach 10 posts"?
Lets say there have been 10,000 gods proposed, you seem to believe in one or oneish.
Divide 1 by 10,000 do some wibbling and wobbling and I conclude you are 99.99% atheist
Oh damn I was too slow, you're on 21 posts already, no cookie from Satan for me today.
Does Satan have those thin mint cookies the girl-guides sell? Those are the best.
Damn, now you got me thinking about mint chocolate chip ice cream. At 1:30 in the morning :(
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 26, 2011, 05:24:32 AM
Does Satan have those thin mint cookies the girl-guides sell? Those are the best.
I don't think there's much point keeping up the pretence with questions like this.
Everyone's known for years the girl guides are a Satanic franchise.
I'm sorry, but you wouldn't make a very good atheist at all, best for you to stick to religion.
Can god travel faster than the speed of light?
Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 01:40:03 AM
QuoteDefinition of ABORTION
1
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion
2
: monstrosity
3
: arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
Just because a word has one meaning doesn't mean that a person was using it...in the context it was likely definition 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Actually No.3 is nearer what I was aiming for, but No.2 is also appropriate. I prefer:
5. a failure to develop to completion or maturity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abortion
I take it we failed our challenge??!
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:28:14 AM
Is there a reason that the meaning needs to be a paradox form a revelation of knowledge? I think the Genesis 3 account is all about the fruit of knowledge. The meaning is both as far as I can see.
The Bible is written by humans. Yes. It is a mirror of God and man. We are also mirrors. What does a mirror see when it looks? What it reflects. What does a man see when he looks at the Bible? The same. Again, we are the image of God. Where do I find the parallel in the Bible to this context you and I discuss. So far in this reply, I have talked about education and a mirror.
1 Corinthians 13
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Is God a jerk? Consider this. Jesus said in John 3, "you must be born again." It is not an option. You will be born again. This is the process. He states in John 3 that we have two births. We are born into the water (baptism into the material world). Or, we can be born into the spirit. How is this possible? When we see nature, we see the sun and moon come together to create life on earth. We also see sperm and egg come together when a man and woman fall in love. Again, new life. Is this where union ends. No. The earth is yet another womb and our bodies are the next placenta. Crude but true. We fall in love with God and gain union with the spirit within. Your soul is only one aspect of you. The spirit (Consciousness) is the other. Satan is the animal nature to be defeated. Again, symbolism.
Why doesn't God just come out and say it and save the suffering? Suffering is the point. We suffer to earn. Suffering either has us or others as a cause, or we choose to suffer work for reward. Either way, we must suffer to learn.
Confucius says, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."
You must be born again. It is the process.
Mirror images... or perhaps we create God in our image, which explains all the different denominations of Christianity and different sects of Islam and Judaism and different interpretations of scripture. Humans see the world (or the supernatural) through their own eyes, and see god as their experiences demand. Some see an angry vengeful god, some see a kind and gentle god. People read scripture to conform to their own idea of god by ignoring some passages and enhancing others.
I used to consider myself "born again." I've given better arguments in favor of religion and god than I am seeing here, and even they had massive gaping holes in them. I feel repetitive but I must repeat myself one more time: quoting the Bible doesn't convince atheists, as the Bible is not a holy book to us.
Quotequoting the Bible doesn't convince atheists, as the Bible is not a holy book to us.
^^ exactly ^^
The bible means nothing to me. I have read it cover to cover, and to me, it is just a book.
Quote from: fester30 on September 26, 2011, 12:15:56 PM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 04:28:14 AM
Is there a reason that the meaning needs to be a paradox form a revelation of knowledge? I think the Genesis 3 account is all about the fruit of knowledge. The meaning is both as far as I can see.
The Bible is written by humans. Yes. It is a mirror of God and man. We are also mirrors. What does a mirror see when it looks? What it reflects. What does a man see when he looks at the Bible? The same. Again, we are the image of God. Where do I find the parallel in the Bible to this context you and I discuss. So far in this reply, I have talked about education and a mirror.
1 Corinthians 13
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Is God a jerk? Consider this. Jesus said in John 3, "you must be born again." It is not an option. You will be born again. This is the process. He states in John 3 that we have two births. We are born into the water (baptism into the material world). Or, we can be born into the spirit. How is this possible? When we see nature, we see the sun and moon come together to create life on earth. We also see sperm and egg come together when a man and woman fall in love. Again, new life. Is this where union ends. No. The earth is yet another womb and our bodies are the next placenta. Crude but true. We fall in love with God and gain union with the spirit within. Your soul is only one aspect of you. The spirit (Consciousness) is the other. Satan is the animal nature to be defeated. Again, symbolism.
Why doesn't God just come out and say it and save the suffering? Suffering is the point. We suffer to earn. Suffering either has us or others as a cause, or we choose to suffer work for reward. Either way, we must suffer to learn.
Confucius says, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."
You must be born again. It is the process.
Mirror images... or perhaps we create God in our image, which explains all the different denominations of Christianity and different sects of Islam and Judaism and different interpretations of scripture. Humans see the world (or the supernatural) through their own eyes, and see god as their experiences demand. Some see an angry vengeful god, some see a kind and gentle god. People read scripture to conform to their own idea of god by ignoring some passages and enhancing others.
I used to consider myself "born again." I've given better arguments in favor of religion and god than I am seeing here, and even they had massive gaping holes in them. I feel repetitive but I must repeat myself one more time: quoting the Bible doesn't convince atheists, as the Bible is not a holy book to us.
Very signature worthy, may I quote you?
Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 12:38:32 PM
Very signature worthy, may I quote you?
I would be honored!
Quote from: Scissorlegs on September 26, 2011, 08:18:25 AM
I take it we failed our challenge??!
Ya, whatever....frankly I found it childish to continue counting down the 10 posts after it was pointed out that the challenge couldn't be held even if someone were bored enough to try.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 05:15:41 AM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 05:11:04 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 05:03:03 AM
Were you always Christian?
I was Baptized at 9, then lived a life of doubt. I started the process of searching in 1996 and knew God in my heart. I needed to know Him in my mind. The doubt came from all the bias I felt toward suffering. Once I found that suffering has a direction, I was free from the reasoning of bias. There are two ways to suffer in this world. We either suffer from our own efforts or the efforts of others. If we take reward, suffering follows. If we suffer work for others (consider yourself on of the others), then reward follows.
You do realise that thinking that one is bias-free is in itself a bias, right? ;)
QuoteThe second thing that confirmed my faith was in my view of divine justice. When Satan visited God again in Job 2 after killing Job's children, God said this:
3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
4 "Skin for skin!" Satan replied.
Why Skin for skin as a reply? A snake sheds his skin, but the snake remains. Satan was just telling God it didn't matter, they would be back.
Yet god allowed satan to ruin Job, and even kill his sons who had nothing to do with anything.If there's a divine point to suffering, why did Job's sons have to suffer for that?
QuoteIn John 3, Jesus says, "you must be born again." There is no other alternative.
For me, the final judgment of God implies that there are other judgments. Divine justice is truly divine. We must live under the veil by faith, not fact. Learning and testing reveals our heart. God is long-suffering.
These truths set me free to view God as He is. As a loving God who have given me the gift of life and the education to understand the next.
Edited to add:
What do you think about the suffering of innocents? How do you reconcile that with god's love?
Bias that I speak of is tied to pride. Yes to what you said because we are all sinners. Pride is to be eliminated but sin cannot be eliminated here.
God allowed Satan to take Job's children in destruction. As we can use hindsight to see the bigger picture, this story has served as inspiration to countless generations. You cannot understand this until you get the point of suffering for good instead of suffering from the evil of those who steal, kill and destroy. Job was faithful and suffered toward reward. If you have read this thread, you have heard me describe how suffering can be approached from two sides. We either bring suffering to ourselves by taking reward. Smoke and you get cancer. Or, we suffer the work of giving of ourselves for others. We build our house before we build our home. This requires us to lower ourselves to raise others.
As a good father, I train my son in the way he should go. From this point, I step back and let him live his life. I minimize myself to allow growth by experience. Guidance is what I provide and not protection. Do I protect my son from himself? No. If I did, he would follow the path of others in my immediate family who still live at home, sheltered by the family to the child's detriment. We are in the wilderness. We are prodigal sons. Earth is an environment for the fallen. We have the keys to open the doors of our prison or we light the fire we burn by.
As for the suffering of innocents. We each suffer from our own actions or the actions of others. Suffering produces reward in the end. The direction of suffering is always toward reward, even when that suffering starts with reward. As I said above, Jesus states that "you must be born again." One life is not sufficient to experience a week in God's garden. One week is 7000 years.
Adam - Noah 2000
Noah to Christ 2000
Christ to Us 2000
Reign of Christ 1000
That's seven days.
The Epistle of Barnabas
15:3 He speaketh, too, of the sabbath in the
beginning of the creation: And God made in six days
the works of his hands, and finished them on the
seventh day, and rested in it and sanctified it.
15:4 Consider, my children, what signify the words,
He finished them in six days. They mean this: that in
six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all
things, for a day is with him as a thousand years. And
he himself beareth witness unto me, saying: Behold
this day a day shall be as a thousand years.
Therefore, my children, in six days, that is in six
thousand years, shall all things be brought to an end.
Even when I was Christian, I never bought "original sin". How can a newborn baby be a sinner?
Also, as people have pointed out, not all suffering leads to reward. Unless, you mean, that if you are Christian you get your "reward" because you get eternal life, or whatever, but I don't really see the point of suffering being necessary at all within that framework. If you are Christian you go to heaven regardless, why would you need to suffer? It's not like people who suffer a great deal get to go to heaven any "more" than non-sufferers. You either go, or you don't. Why so much suffering for some people and so little for others? Is there a "suffer scale" that God uses?
It makes no sense.
And while Job may have provided "inspiration" for countless of people, there are tons of un-known atrocities just like that story that happen all of the time. What is the point of those? And don't say "suffering brings them their reward", because, by your argument, if they're Christian they should get their reward either way. Christianity demands faith, not suffering, and those aren't the same thing.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 27, 2011, 02:33:22 AM
Even when I was Christian, I never bought "original sin". How can a newborn baby be a sinner?
Also, as people have pointed out, not all suffering leads to reward. Unless, you mean, that if you are Christian you get your "reward" because you get eternal life, or whatever, but I don't really see the point of suffering being necessary at all within that framework. If you are Christian you go to heaven regardless, why would you need to suffer? It's not like people who suffer a great deal get to go to heaven any "more" than non-sufferers. You either go, or you don't. Why so much suffering for some people and so little for others? Is there a "suffer scale" that God uses?
It makes no sense.
And while Job may have provided "inspiration" for countless of people, there are tons of un-known atrocities just like that story that happen all of the time. What is the point of those? And don't say "suffering brings them their reward", because, by your argument, if they're Christian they should get their reward either way. Christianity demands faith, not suffering, and those aren't the same thing.
As you ponder the suffering, realize that suffering is a product of need. What do you need in this life and what are you responsible for? Do you activate the cones and rods in your eyes for vision? No, it's done for you. Do you make your hair grow? No again. Do you make the sun shine or the earth's magnetosphere protect the planet? No again. What do we do?
We do two things. We think and we choose. That's all we do to produce our lives. The rest goes back to the original sin. A garden was given in a perfected state. We will leave it with a patch of weeds. Who did this, God or us? Suffering is a choice. We choose to take form the earth, which causes a debt. We can give to the earth / each other and make the choice to add positive to the garden. Positive is not debt, it is minimizing the self and elevating the others. Pride is the opposite and where we fell in the beginning. Original sin is still original and the choice is still there. The fruit of knowledge must be found as we walk with God. We have not walked with God for the most part.
Now, think about what you do to produce your life. Nothing other than thought and choice. The rest is produced by God and what we do with this is our choice. We light the fire we burn by or we are the light to those around us.
You speak in vague generalities and do no directly address any questions asked of you.
From now on, I will only speak to you about cookies.
Does God provide cookies? Because I hear Satan has some sweet thin mints on his side.
All of the other mumbo-jumbo you've been spouting hasn't been that enthralling, but I may be swayed by a decent double-fudge oreo.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 04:03:43 AM
As you ponder the suffering, realize that suffering is a product of need.
No. It can also be a product of pure spite, among other things.
QuoteWhat do you need in this life and what are you responsible for?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michelleinc.com%2Ffiles%2Fmedia%2Fhierarchy.jpg&hash=9710dba68b92c8f34b2bcf9827388732f0a7f468)
Maslow's hierarchy of needs illustrate our needs quite nicely. When all or most low-tier needs are satisfied, we move to higher tiers.
As for the responsibilities, we have a responsibility for self, social responsibilities and whatever we invent for ourselves.
QuoteDo you activate the cones and rods in your eyes for vision? No, it's done for you.
Bullshit. It may not be conscious, but it's still you doing it.
QuoteDo you make your hair grow? No again.
Of course... Your hippie neighbour does that for you. With fertilizers. ::)
QuoteDo you make the sun shine or the earth's magnetosphere protect the planet? No again.
The sun..? Nah, it does its things by itself.
QuoteWhat do we do?
Eat, shit, work, chill/entertain ourselves, have sex, sleep... Have I missed something?
QuoteWe do two things. We think and we choose.
How did you survive long enough to learn to type without breething..? Or eating or urinating for that matter?
QuoteThat's all we do to produce our lives. The rest goes back to the original sin.
Ah, The Sin... Just out of curiosity, even if such a thing existed, I would want to care because..?
QuoteA garden was given in a perfected state.
Were there paved roads and cars with unlimited fuel supply, bungee jumping and tavern brawls? Because if not, than that garden was not universally perfect... Which is pretty much impossible.
QuoteSuffering is a choice.
Bullshit more often than not.
QuoteWe choose to take form the earth, which causes a debt.
No it doesn't. We can suck this planet dry and still not owe anyone anything.
QuoteWe can give to the earth / each other and make the choice to add positive to the garden. Positive is not debt, it is minimizing the self and elevating the others.
Unless someone is my intellectual superior, why would I want to "elevate" them..? Out of the "goodness of my heart"? I think your concept of a perfect garden sucks.
EDIT: Before you call this pride, it is not. By default, I have a certain respect for those smarter than myself. The rest have to earn that respect if they are so inclined. I even give the absolute dumbasses a chance, though those usually prove to be exactly what they apppear.
Basically, I do not elevate for no purpose, but view everyone as a peer.
Now, why would I want to... What? Look for things worth finding in some idiot, I assume..? Is that what you mean?
QuotePride is the opposite and where we fell in the beginning. Original sin is still original and the choice is still there. The fruit of knowledge must be found as we walk with God. We have not walked with God for the most part.
Because if such a being exists as described, it is an idiot of... Well, godly proportions.
QuoteNow, think about what you do to produce your life. Nothing other than thought and choice. The rest is produced by God and what we do with this is our choice. We light the fire we burn by or we are the light to those around us.
OR we burn the others for our own personal gain and live happily ever after. Many a person who spent their life metaphorically walking over corpses, have been otherwise quite happy and fulfilled.
Not exactly a knightly path, that, but it is an option. The point is, fuck gods and sins and all that crap. Do what you want, then ay the price. Do as most and follow the social contract, as few and be "good" or as the rest and be an opportunistic SOB. The universe doesn't care.
EDIT: 6AM language so don't mind the profanity.
You are correct on Maslow. Needs are the foundation of self-esteem and seeking knowledge. My first book was written around this idea. What you fail to seek in your rant below is that you do nothing apart from movement and thought. Anything you can do is tied to these two. Apart from what you do to think and move, the rest is produced by another source entirely. You can claim none of it apart from thought and movement. Thought and consciousness is given to you. The rest is produced by God. Name one thing you can do apart form thought? Here is the 2nd chapter form my book on Maslow. http://teacherlingo.com/blogs/superiored/archive/2010/03/22/understanding-the-underlying-causes-of-misbehavior-and-underachievement.aspx (http://teacherlingo.com/blogs/superiored/archive/2010/03/22/understanding-the-underlying-causes-of-misbehavior-and-underachievement.aspx)
Quote from: Asmodean on September 27, 2011, 04:49:46 AM
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 04:03:43 AM
As you ponder the suffering, realize that suffering is a product of need.
No. It can also be a product of pure spite, among other things.
QuoteWhat do you need in this life and what are you responsible for?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michelleinc.com%2Ffiles%2Fmedia%2Fhierarchy.jpg&hash=9710dba68b92c8f34b2bcf9827388732f0a7f468)
Maslow's hierarchy of needs illustrate our needs quite nicely. When all or most low-tier needs are satisfied, we move to higher tiers.
As for the responsibilities, we have a responsibility for self, social responsibilities and whatever we invent for ourselves.
I always liked the Maslow pyramid, it fits neatly in a Pudding brain, but Maslow is kind of historical, there's some truth and some things you think should be true but,,, it's just more complicated unfortunately.
I like to think 19th century people demanded freedom for black people and women because they could, needs had been satisfied so they could be better people. But then people who visit dirt poor countries will often return with stories of extraordinary generosity. People are complicated, like ogres which are like onions which have many layers.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 28, 2011, 12:33:23 PM
What you fail to seek in your rant below is that you do nothing apart from movement and thought.
Apart from electric impulses and chemical reactions that ultimately lead to both, there is nothing else to a human.
Quotethe rest is produced by another source entirely.
If you break it down to the basics, there is no rest.
QuoteThought and consciousness is given to you.
It's not given to you, it is manufactured by you.
QuoteName one thing you can do apart form thought?
Just one? I can break down glucose to produce energy.
Here's my hierarchy of needs ;D
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Po20CmkbPWM%2FTNG1gpKcrNI%2FAAAAAAAAAsk%2FyOlmmdk5uuQ%2Fs1600%2FCookiePyramid.jpg&hash=a8e45a8b714941896ad8cae2ab5e00c8e944899b)
I can't respect the needs of another whose needs demand the scrunching of new baked sentience.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fl0fC2.jpg&hash=d65a703c703595cb58010d8749e68993fc37f227)
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 28, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
I can't respect the needs of another whose needs demand the scrunching of new baked sentience.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fl0fC2.jpg&hash=d65a703c703595cb58010d8749e68993fc37f227)
Who would eat E.T.?
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 28, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
I can't respect the needs of another whose needs demand the scrunching of new baked sentience.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fl0fC2.jpg&hash=d65a703c703595cb58010d8749e68993fc37f227)
It is the will of my gods, the Keebler elves.
On nom nom *___* that looks delicious, Juliet.
Dammit, now me want cookie!
Also, I find it amusing to think about what this book that was written by superiorguy would be like. Something tells me there wouldn't be enough brain-bleach to take care of what I might read.
Soups ED wrote a book?? :o
Anyone can write a book now that self publishing is easy.
A book for the faint of heart, perhaps? ;D
Quote from: Whitney on September 29, 2011, 02:42:59 AM
Anyone can write a book now that self publishing is easy.
Now that evrry dumb reality star has written a book, i've given up on taking it seriously. A chunk of my brain fell off and died when jersey shore's snooki became best seller.....
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 29, 2011, 03:31:20 AM
A book for the faint of heart, perhaps? ;D
...Which has sold like... 100 copies..? All of them purchased by SuperEddie..? ;)
Quote from: Asmodean on September 30, 2011, 06:57:38 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 29, 2011, 03:31:20 AM
A book for the faint of heart, perhaps? ;D
...Which has sold like... 100 copies..? All of them purchased by SuperEddie..? ;)
Don't know, if it had Jesus written all over it, it might have sold a bit more than that. That sort of thing really taps into the sheeple part of a person's brain. ::)
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 09:51:50 AM
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
I've read through a fair bit of his blog, which has lengthy quotes from his book. What I saw was very similar to what was written here.
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 09:51:50 AM
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
I, for one, wouldn't read it. First, wouldn't give the guy money to read anything of his after reading his posts here. Second, wouldn't do it for free either because I would assume that someone who I think is destined for the mighty banhammer on my favorite forum would not be worth reading.
If he payed me to read his book... I'd consider it. But probably wouldn't.
I wonder if being condescending and arrogant is part of his method for teaching people. If it is, he should probably fix that.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 30, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 09:51:50 AM
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
I've read through a fair bit of his blog, which has lengthy quotes from his book. What I saw was very similar to what was written here.
Ah! I see. Oh dear :(
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 30, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 09:51:50 AM
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
I've read through a fair bit of his blog, which has lengthy quotes from his book. What I saw was very similar to what was written here.
Didn't HF copypaste a lot from his/her own blog?
I associate his method of trying to get his point across with a 5 year old plugging his ears with his fingers and screaming his point of view. I don't mind having a discussion with someone who is willing to at least listen to the other side. Otherwise it becomes a lecture.
Quote from: Davin on September 30, 2011, 04:34:43 PM
I wonder if being condescending and arrogant is part of his method for teaching people. If it is, he should probably fix that.
One could only hope not. I can only imagine him spouting this pseudo scientific gobbaldy gook in front of vulnerable kids, the thought frankly fills me with dread.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 30, 2011, 04:46:06 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 30, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 09:51:50 AM
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
I've read through a fair bit of his blog, which has lengthy quotes from his book. What I saw was very similar to what was written here.
Didn't HF copypaste a lot from his/her own blog?
No, that was SeperiorEd, Happy Forever hasn't got a blog that I am aware of.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on September 30, 2011, 04:46:16 PM
I associate his method of trying to get his point across with a 5 year old plugging his ears with his fingers and screaming his point of view. I don't mind having a discussion with someone who is willing to at least listen to the other side. Otherwise it becomes a lecture.
Quite so. And if a person will not engage they end up being 'shown the door'.
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 30, 2011, 04:34:43 PM
I wonder if being condescending and arrogant is part of his method for teaching people. If it is, he should probably fix that.
One could only hope not. I can only imagine him spouting this pseudo scientific gobbaldy gook in front of vulnerable kids, the thought frankly fills me with dread.
That type of double speak is likely confusing and senseless on purpose to make the "vulnerable" assume he is more intelligent than them because it seems he is talking over their head, thus the overall meaning must be true..... Nobody here is going to fall for that. But children, thats another very scary story.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on September 30, 2011, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 30, 2011, 04:34:43 PM
I wonder if being condescending and arrogant is part of his method for teaching people. If it is, he should probably fix that.
One could only hope not. I can only imagine him spouting this pseudo scientific gobbaldy gook in front of vulnerable kids, the thought frankly fills me with dread.
That type of double speak is likely confusing and senseless on purpose to make the "vulnerable" assume he is more intelligent than them because it seems he is talking over their head, thus the overall meaning must be true..... Nobody here is going to fall for that. But children, thats another very scary story.
I completely agree with both of you.
I just don't take too well to people trying to mix any form of education and religious philosophies.
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 09:51:50 AM
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
The book, for those who wonder, is the same as my teaching philosophy. I separate church and state completely. I would not want someone teaching my child religion in the school and I did not use any religious references in my book. The entire book is based on the Superior Man of Confucius. I asked the question, what does it take to be a Superior Educator. The entirety of the book is based on a calm and assertive approach to education to preserve the dignity of the child. The approach used by others on this forum is the opposite of this method. In my method, bias, anger, condescension and prejudice is removed from the teacher's approach so that equality between the student and teacher is preserved. Bias can only build ground for the other person to stand against you.
Quote from: Asmodean on September 30, 2011, 06:57:38 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 29, 2011, 03:31:20 AM
A book for the faint of heart, perhaps? ;D
...Which has sold like... 100 copies..? All of them purchased by SuperEddie..? ;)
Try 5000+ in the last couple of years with no promotion. The book is sold by the largest music retailer in the world (JW Pepper) and on Amazon. It is used at the university level and by many schools for their teacher in-services. Our local university requires it for as a supplement in their education classes. Order a copy. It is inexpensive on Kindle.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 30, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 09:51:50 AM
Folks, if you haven't read the book then it's not very civil to slag off the work of a fellow member. Has anybody read the book?
I've read through a fair bit of his blog, which has lengthy quotes from his book. What I saw was very similar to what was written here.
The only quote from my book is the first article on the Blog. It is the 2nd chapter to the book. My blog is a personal reflection on education , philosophy, technology and religion. The articles are separated between these but never contain a mixture of religion and education unless I am referring to philosophy of being educated. Possibly you only skimmed the articles and made assumptions.
https://sites.google.com/site/superclassroommanagement/articles-by-stephen-t-mcclard (https://sites.google.com/site/superclassroommanagement/articles-by-stephen-t-mcclard)
Perhaps you would most enjoy the article on Guilt and Shame in the classroom. This article would provide a good example on how to avoid your own bias against people. As I stated in the OP, speak to the subject and do not step on the object. This is important in life and keeps your personal prejudice against others in check. Martin Luther said, Judge a man on the content of his character and not the color of his skin. We may as well include faith in this too. Bias only reveals your own hatred toward others. I have only written toward the subject.
I'm sorry for the quick judgement, without having read your book. I'm just to used to idiotic teachers to bother thinking things through beforehand these days.
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 30, 2011, 04:34:43 PM
I wonder if being condescending and arrogant is part of his method for teaching people. If it is, he should probably fix that.
One could only hope not. I can only imagine him spouting this pseudo scientific gobbaldy gook in front of vulnerable kids, the thought frankly fills me with dread.
I do not speak about religion in a band class--ever. Church and state should be separate. I speak about music. I do, however, live the same Christ-like character of agape love in the classroom, on the street and even when no one is looking. My actions and words always match my character. I do not use any substances, drink alcohol or use foul language. My moral character is beyond reproach. If given the choice between me and an Atheist, who would you rather your kids be with on a field trip? Be honest.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 01, 2011, 04:36:45 AM
I'm sorry for the quick judgement, without having read your book. I'm just to used to idiotic teachers to bother thinking things through beforehand these days.
No problem. Email me and I'll send you a free copy. superiored@gmail.com
Well, i'm an atheist who doesn't drink or do drugs. o_o Are you generalising? *puzzled*
Quote from: SuperiorEd on October 01, 2011, 04:43:38 AM
I do not speak about religion in a band class--ever. Church and state should be separate. I speak about music. I do, however, live the same Christ-like character of agape love in the classroom, on the street and even when no one is looking. My actions and words always match my character. I do not use any substances, drink alcohol or use foul language. My moral character is beyond reproach. If given the choice between me and an Atheist, who would you rather your kids be with on a field trip? Be honest.
Hitler didn't drink or do drugs either, I wouldn't want him to look after my kids.
I would always be very weary of someone that says "My moral character is beyond reproach". If a potential baby sitter came up with that one it would raise a red flag in my mind.
If I were hiring between you and an Atheist, actually I probably wouldn't know you are Christian and I wouldn't know that the Atheist was an atheist. I wouldn't ask a person about their religion as part of hiring criteria.
I do however like your stance "Church and state should be separate"
As someone who sees no sense whatsoever in any objective absolute morality, it isn't very convincing when someone says that they're moral character is beyond reproach. It depends on who's involved. Saying that you don't do things for the wrong reasons would be better put, IMO.
Also, just because someone's a Christian is no guarantee that they're moral.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on October 01, 2011, 04:43:38 AM
My actions and words always match my character. I do not use any substances, drink alcohol or use foul language. My moral character is beyond reproach. If given the choice between me and an Atheist, who would you rather your kids be with on a field trip? Be honest.
Given no more background information than that, the atheist. It's very nice that you walk your talk, don't alter your mood artifically or cuss (altho sometimes foul language is the best way to describe a situation). I will take your word that your moral character is beyond repoach, altho bearing in mind both that it is only your word and I don't know exactly how you define moral, since nothing that you wrote before necessarily has anything to do with it. However, since you seem to have automatically assumed that an atheist is morally inferior to you, I do greatly doubt your judgement and good sense so no, you don't get to lead the field trip.
Quote
Martin Luther said, Judge a man on the content of his character and not the color of his skin.
I thought that was Martin Luther King?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 01, 2011, 04:36:45 AM
I'm sorry for the quick judgement, without having read your book. I'm just to used to idiotic teachers to bother thinking things through beforehand these days.
I second.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on October 01, 2011, 04:23:38 AM...I asked the question, what does it take to be a Superior Educator. The entirety of the book is based on a calm and assertive approach to education to preserve the dignity of the child. The approach used by others on this forum is the opposite of this method.
Does your approach include ignoring calm and assertive responses to your assertions (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8350.msg127805#msg127805)?
Quote from: SuperiorEd on October 01, 2011, 04:43:38 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 30, 2011, 04:34:43 PM
I wonder if being condescending and arrogant is part of his method for teaching people. If it is, he should probably fix that.
One could only hope not. I can only imagine him spouting this pseudo scientific gobbaldy gook in front of vulnerable kids, the thought frankly fills me with dread.
I do not speak about religion in a band class--ever. Church and state should be separate. I speak about music. I do, however, live the same Christ-like character of agape love in the classroom, on the street and even when no one is looking. My actions and words always match my character. I do not use any substances, drink alcohol or use foul language. My moral character is beyond reproach. If given the choice between me and an Atheist, who would you rather your kids be with on a field trip? Be honest.
Apart from the obvious lack of humility ;)
You are implying you have some sort of moral superiority to an athiest, in fact that you have some sort of moral superiority to all atheists. You imply that atheists are somehow untrustworthy. I think that says enough about you that I wouldn't want you within 1,000 miles of my kids. Fortunatly they are all grown up and have a healthy disrespect for all institutionalised superstitions and those people that promote them.
You're such a good dad, Tank. It makes me wanna have hot cocoa with you, and listen to old stories. XD
Quote from: Sweetdeath on October 01, 2011, 09:50:45 AM
You're such a good dad, Tank. It makes me wanna have hot cocoa with you, and listen to old stories. XD
We'll if you ever get to the UK and you don't come for a cup of hot cocoa I shall be seriously disappointed. :)
Quote from: Tank on October 01, 2011, 09:58:58 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on October 01, 2011, 09:50:45 AM
You're such a good dad, Tank. It makes me wanna have hot cocoa with you, and listen to old stories. XD
We'll if you ever get to the UK and you don't come for a cup of hot cocoa I shall be seriously disappointed. :)
Aww ~ :) !
After eight pages, we can sum up the Superior's Education quantification of God, of which, physics is a side trip.
By using Maslow as a qualification...well, first...
Maslow was a proponent of Humanistic Psychology. His ideas have fallen out of vogue due to a lack of empirical evidence.
The problem for SupEd is that Judaism and Christianity promotes a Divine command theory of happiness in that happiness comes from following the commands of the divine - with one teeny tiny difference, that being; Christianity says that true happiness only comes in the afterlife.
How SupEd quantifies, qualifies and compartmentalises his belief in his God (let alone the existence of one) and its Divine command theory through Maslow's debunked humanistic theory, with humility as a prerequisite, and subsequent Positive Psychology is beyond me. But I reckon that's delusion for you; people will seek evidence for their gods any way they can.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on October 01, 2011, 04:43:38 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 30, 2011, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 30, 2011, 04:34:43 PM
I wonder if being condescending and arrogant is part of his method for teaching people. If it is, he should probably fix that.
One could only hope not. I can only imagine him spouting this pseudo scientific gobbaldy gook in front of vulnerable kids, the thought frankly fills me with dread.
I do, however, live the same Christ-like character of agape love in the classroom, on the street and even when no one is looking. My actions and words always match my character. I do not use any substances, drink alcohol or use foul language. My moral character is beyond reproach. If given the choice between me and an Atheist, who would you rather your kids be with on a field trip? Be honest.
No offense, but based on what I've seen from you here, an atheist. I would prefer my son be exposed to respectful, logical, unbiased people.
And swearing doesn't bother me. I swear all of the time. I realize I can't have my son go to kindergarten saying "fuck" all of the time, but that's just because it'll save us a lot of awkward social situations with the teacher and other parents later. People don't like little kids saying "fuck", so I'll probably try to avoid teaching our little boy to say it.
But my husband is currently doing his ph.d in English and he'll tell you that cursing can be a very effective use of language. When he's a professor of his own class, I'm quite sure he'll swear from time to time. :P
Whether someone is Christian (or any other theistic denomination) is not a good enough indicator of whether they're moral or not. But based on some of the Christians I know, I want them as far away from my family as possible, and I will go to great lengths to guarantee that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 01, 2011, 04:20:55 PM
Whether someone is Christian (or any other theistic denomination) is not a good enough indicator of whether they're moral or not. But based on some of the Christians I know, I want them as far away from my family as possible, and I will go to great lengths to guarantee that.
It truly bothers when a christian walks a moral high ground. Pffft
Quote from: Sweetdeath on October 01, 2011, 04:44:52 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 01, 2011, 04:20:55 PM
Whether someone is Christian (or any other theistic denomination) is not a good enough indicator of whether they're moral or not. But based on some of the Christians I know, I want them as far away from my family as possible, and I will go to great lengths to guarantee that.
It truly bothers when a christian walks a moral high ground. Pffft
It bothers me too, and I'm not talking about their lack of humility in this. They genuinely believe that they have their version of god on their side, and that can justify practically anything.
I just don't like bleating sheep. I don't respect them much either and don't put much faith in their competence or intelligence.
(not that all religious or those with religious philosophical inclinations are sheep)
SuperEd, in my opinion, you have developed a philosophy based on subjective intuitions which you arrived at by combining some things you know about science and some things you believe about religious writings. It seems you believe in it strongly. Good for you. However, I cannot agree with some basic statements you make about your beliefs.
You say in your opening post:
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 12:47:07 AM
My main goal in life has been an attempt to confirm or refute this belief.
I don't think this is true, nor do I think it is possible. One cannot confirm or refute a subjective belief which is based on intuition. If you really wanted to attempt to confirm or refute this belief, you would do it on the basis of examining the validity of the evidence on which your belief is based. I have seen none of that.
Not one verifiable piece of evidence has been presented to support your belief. Stating your passion for physics and making occasional reference to the discipline and things said in religious texts does not constitute evidence. Your attempts to tie physics and the universe to your interpretation of Bible passages contain only pseudo-philosophical, ethereal, feel-good BS.
The study of history seems to point to the universal need for humans to create a narrative to help explain the universe and their relationship to it. It provides us with a sense of perspective and security. You seem to have done that in a way that is very satisfactory to yourself.
However, in a forum such as this, the challenge which you present below is hollow and meaningless. Asserted beliefs which are not presented as based on verifiable evidence cannot be proved or disproved.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 12:47:07 AM
... allow me to present a challenge:
I would like to match my understanding of God, the universe and truth against the opposite swing of the pendulum as an exercise in growth. If you are up for the challenge, here is the request. Convince me why I am in error as a believer in God.
Allow me to present a challenge.
I have taken the liberty to put in bold a part of a statement which you made in response to a question:
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:38:14 AM
Read genesis 1:27 and John 1:1. LOGOS is Word in John 1:1. I study physics as a passion. I study the Bible for references to physics. There are plenty. When Jesus said that the veil had been torn to the temple enterance of the Holy area, I realized what this was saying. The veil is the block over our consciousness so we do not see God as fact. We need to experience Him by faith. When the Bible speaks of the temple, it references the body and mind of man.
Present to me verifiable proof that the above statement in bold is true. If your proof involves quoting any religious text, please present verifiable proof that the text is absolutely authoritative.
Then, we may have something to discuss.
Quote from: Always Amused on October 02, 2011, 10:25:08 PM
SuperEd, in my opinion, you have developed a philosophy based on subjective intuitions which you arrived at by combining some things you know about science and some things you believe about religious writings. It seems you believe in it strongly. Good for you. However, I cannot agree with some basic statements you make about your beliefs.
You say in your opening post:
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 12:47:07 AM
My main goal in life has been an attempt to confirm or refute this belief.
I don't think this is true, nor do I think it is possible. One cannot confirm or refute a subjective belief which is based on intuition. If you really wanted to attempt to confirm or refute this belief, you would do it on the basis of examining the validity of the evidence on which your belief is based. I have seen none of that.
Not one verifiable piece of evidence has been presented to support your belief. Stating your passion for physics and making occasional reference to the discipline and things said in religious texts does not constitute evidence. Your attempts to tie physics and the universe to your interpretation of Bible passages contain only pseudo-philosophical, ethereal, feel-good BS.
The study of history seems to point to the universal need for humans to create a narrative to help explain the universe and their relationship to it. It provides us with a sense of perspective and security. You seem to have done that in a way that is very satisfactory to yourself.
However, in a forum such as this, the challenge which you present below is hollow and meaningless. Asserted beliefs which are not presented as based on verifiable evidence cannot be proved or disproved.
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 12:47:07 AM
... allow me to present a challenge:
I would like to match my understanding of God, the universe and truth against the opposite swing of the pendulum as an exercise in growth. If you are up for the challenge, here is the request. Convince me why I am in error as a believer in God.
Allow me to present a challenge.
I have taken the liberty to put in bold a part of a statement which you made in response to a question:
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:38:14 AM
Read genesis 1:27 and John 1:1. LOGOS is Word in John 1:1. I study physics as a passion. I study the Bible for references to physics. There are plenty. When Jesus said that the veil had been torn to the temple enterance of the Holy area, I realized what this was saying. The veil is the block over our consciousness so we do not see God as fact. We need to experience Him by faith. When the Bible speaks of the temple, it references the body and mind of man.
Present to me verifiable proof that the above statement in bold is true. If your proof involves quoting any religious text, please present verifiable proof that the text is absolutely authoritative.
I agree with Always Amused, and I'd like to offer a 2nd, related challenge. Since neither god nor biblical claims about god can be proven (which, after all, is what faith is all about), please provide a convincing reason why people should behave "as if" god exists and the bible is his instruction book.
Just a note to say that at this time SuperiorEd is 3 days through his 7 day posting suspension with 4 days to go.
Quote from: Tank on October 03, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
Just a note to say that at this time SuperiorEd is 3 days through his 7 day posting suspension with 4 days to go.
Well then...he has 4 days to bolster his arguments with really good evidence, doesn't he?
I'm sure he will.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_pbr34vPMUpw%2FTRspnYRDOfI%2FAAAAAAAABJc%2F4-6H7pzV2hI%2Fs1600%2Fflying_pig.gif&hash=975628ffb799e23d3dab4fe15e6d29fd45485245)
Quote from: SuperiorEd on October 01, 2011, 04:43:38 AMIf given the choice between me and an Atheist, who would you rather your kids be with on a field trip? Be honest.
Dawkins, Hitchens (sad), Krauss, me... I'd pick thousands of atheists over you.
Quote from: Gawen on October 03, 2011, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 03, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
Just a note to say that at this time SuperiorEd is 3 days through his 7 day posting suspension with 4 days to go.
Well then...he has 4 days to bolster his arguments with really good evidence, doesn't he?
I didn't even know that he got a brief ban. ??? Well that's one less mystery of the universe to worry about.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 03, 2011, 09:44:26 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 03, 2011, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 03, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
Just a note to say that at this time SuperiorEd is 3 days through his 7 day posting suspension with 4 days to go.
Well then...he has 4 days to bolster his arguments with really good evidence, doesn't he?
I didn't even know that he got a brief ban. ??? Well that's one less mystery of the universe to worry about.
He picked it up for preaching on another thread.
Yeah, in the Jesus nipple thread. His comments were quite disturbing. I'm sending him my therapy bills. XP
can't believe I missed all this through being away on holiday. Properly mental. My alarm bells started ringing as soon as I read 'Moses said...'. I thought that nobody but the most ignorant or conservative Christian believes that Moses actually wrote the Torah these days. I'll look forward to seeing what Mr Ed has to say when he hopefully returns from suspension...
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg846.imageshack.us%2Fimg846%2F9318%2Fed6.jpg&hash=e3f2dbca51a316cd4c6147f7b2cd8d0ed6d89185) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/846/ed6.jpg/)
*jumpin up and down*
IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET!
it's gonna be like the Second Coming of Jesus, only this time the Bible thumper may actually come back...
I'd have let him preach, it's not like he's gonna convert anyone by blindly quoting from his favourite fictional book!
Quote from: Gawen on October 07, 2011, 08:40:34 PM
*jumpin up and down*
IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET! IS HE BACK YET!
His suspension has expired, he can post when he likes.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 07, 2011, 09:46:13 PM
it's gonna be like the Second Coming of Jesus, only this time the Bible thumper may actually come back...
I'd have let him preach, it's not like he's gonna convert anyone by blindly quoting from his favourite fictional book!
And if one gets away with it the nutters get free reign and board turns into a running flame war. If one likes that sort of thing then try RationalSkeptisism. Not suggesting you should leave TFL, just that there are different flavours of forum for when one is in different moods :)
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 07, 2011, 09:46:13 PM
it's gonna be like the Second Coming of Jesus, only this time the Bible thumper may actually come back...
I'd have let him preach, it's not like he's gonna convert anyone by blindly quoting from his favourite fictional book!
And if one gets away with it the nutters get free reign and board turns into a running flame war. If one likes that sort of thing then try RationalSkeptisism. Not suggesting you should leave TFL, just that there are different flavours of forum for when one is in different moods :)
Honestly, I don't mind a little bit of preaching if one backs it up with scripture - number and verse. In most cases, it is all to easy to nullify it.
Quote from: Gawen on October 08, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 07, 2011, 09:46:13 PM
it's gonna be like the Second Coming of Jesus, only this time the Bible thumper may actually come back...
I'd have let him preach, it's not like he's gonna convert anyone by blindly quoting from his favourite fictional book!
And if one gets away with it the nutters get free reign and board turns into a running flame war. If one likes that sort of thing then try RationalSkeptisism. Not suggesting you should leave TFL, just that there are different flavours of forum for when one is in different moods :)
Honestly, I don't mind a little bit of preaching if one backs it up with scripture - number and verse. In most cases, it is all to easy to nullify it.
Quoting chapter and verse isn't necessarily preeching if used in relation to a discussion, if it were I could technically ban you ;D But SupEd was using his own words to extol the virtues of his world view that did constitute preeching IMO.
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 08, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 08, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 07, 2011, 09:46:13 PM
it's gonna be like the Second Coming of Jesus, only this time the Bible thumper may actually come back...
I'd have let him preach, it's not like he's gonna convert anyone by blindly quoting from his favourite fictional book!
And if one gets away with it the nutters get free reign and board turns into a running flame war. If one likes that sort of thing then try RationalSkeptisism. Not suggesting you should leave TFL, just that there are different flavours of forum for when one is in different moods :)
Honestly, I don't mind a little bit of preaching if one backs it up with scripture - number and verse. In most cases, it is all to easy to nullify it.
Quoting chapter and verse isn't necessarily preeching if used in relation to a discussion, if it were I could technically ban you ;D But SupEd was using his own words to extol the virtues of his world view that did constitute preeching IMO.
Yes, and I agree
Aren't you glad I'm not a Christian, that I am able to side step the # and verse thing?...*wigglin me brows and grinnin*
Quote from: Gawen on October 08, 2011, 10:23:47 PM
{snip}
Aren't you glad I'm not a Christian, that I am able to side step the # and verse thing?...*wigglin me brows and grinnin*
I'm very glad you're no longer Christian :)
I'll second that. And fair enough on giving SupEd his ban, you're right we don't need preaching. Sorry, I wasn't questioning the wisdom of the moderators ;) it's just sometimes the debates with the crazier theists are good fun, and it's a shame I missed the entertainment with Mr Ed before he got banned!
I'm a bit worried that if I started looking at other forums too I might get a serious addiction to it all, and my girlfriend probably wouldn't appreciate that!
I clicked on a few of the links from SupEd's links and some were actually quite unpleasant, there was one blatantly anti-Muslim one which began with the line 'this film is not meant to be disparaging to the Muslim faith' then pretty much when on to suggest that Mohammed was the antichrist!
Quote from: Too Few Lions
I'm a bit worried that if I started looking at other forums too I might get a serious addiction to it all, and my girlfriend probably wouldn't appreciate that!
I clicked on a few of the links from SupEd's links and some were actually quite unpleasant, there was one blatantly anti-Muslim one which began with the line 'this film is not meant to be disparaging to the Muslim faith' then pretty much when on to suggest that Mohammed was the antichrist!
Ed was banned...and not just suspended?
TFL, you'll not easily find a more terrifying Christian discussion board than Rapture Ready:
http://www.rr-bb.com/
It would be an atheist psychologist's nightmare. The Mods there are extremely sensitive to anything that would disparage their beliefs and they are very trigger happy to ban. Entering is no problem. Saying what you will is at your own risk. I went there several years ago. I spent about an hour there, just reading, said nothing and I haven't been back since. From reports of other atheist posters I know and friends from other DB's, the place hasn't changed at all.
And honestly, one gets the distinct feeling that the Rapture Ready board is situated in an asylum. I wanted to visit the place when the last rapture scare happened earlier this year, but I just couldn't make myself do it.
I warned ya...
Now, back to the topic. I wonder if Superior Education's beliefs also include the rapture. There is, after all, biblical support for it. What I want to know is how something not of this universe is able to circumvent the laws of nature so that all dead believers are able to come alive again and are whisked off to Heaven...for starters.
sorry my bad English, I meant 'ban' in a temporary 7-day sense not a permanent one. I might give RR a look tomorow, it being the Lord's day and all. Somehow I don't think I'd last long. They've been fervently waiting some 1900 odd years for the rapture, you'd have thought they might have learnt and given up by now! They don't need to explain it to me in scientific terms, it's just another standard bit of mythology, although it would be fun to see SupEd try if he returns...
just to clarify the whole ban process.....anytime we take away someone's access to the forum they are banned; the only difference between short term ban and forever is if we click to change the ban length.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 09, 2011, 01:21:09 AM
sorry my bad English...
Well, I don't expect to much from a heathen gunslingin' chimp....*chucklin*..As long as I can pick up every other word or two, I can get by
Quote from: Gawen on October 09, 2011, 01:53:31 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 09, 2011, 01:21:09 AM
sorry my bad English...
Well, I don't expect to much from a heathen gunslingin' chimp....*chucklin*..As long as I can pick up every other word or two, I can get by
I don't talk bad for a chimp, and a ten-gallon hat wearing one at that. I'm not going to take any English lessons from a ventriloquist's dummy though, all my 'b's will become 'g's, and we all know you're just mouthing someone else's words who's got his hand up your ass ;)
Quote
...someone...who's got his hand up your ass ;)
Stay away from my banana,, you...*chucklin*
In response to your first post, I would suggest you do some research on the Trinity. It isn't taught in the Bible, you know, though it is very difficult to demonstrate that. The trinity was around long before Christ, and was introduced to the church through the philosophy of Plato. It certainly wasn't considered as a Christian teaching until late in the 4th century C.E.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." - (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575)
The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." - (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." - (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient religions." - (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
Dictionary of the Bible: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." - John L. McKenzie, S.J. (New York, 1965), p. 899.
Who else here thinks Earthling is kinda' likeable..? ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on October 27, 2011, 06:11:39 AM
Who else here thinks Earthling is kinda' likeable..? ;D
Agreed.
Quote from: Crow on October 27, 2011, 04:40:47 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on October 27, 2011, 06:11:39 AM
Who else here thinks Earthling is kinda' likeable..? ;D
Agreed.
Here! Here! A most likeable chap . . . 8)