I accept that. I think that's how it should be. But that view of Scripture isn't Majority (of those who hold office in most churches - and interpret for their congregations).
Is it attacking a person to question their beliefs?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
So so true. Solar, you might really like the podcast my church does. Me and Arbygil go to the same church. What the pastor at our church talks about is nothing but stuff like this. I highly recommend it! Let me know if you're interested.
This is like me saying, "Well, disprove that I have 20 pounds of uranium in my bedroom and maybe then I'll doubt it" or "Disprove that the mooninites really do live on the moon and maybe then I'll believe you."
See, reason doesn't work that way. Instead, if you say, "I have 20 pounds of uranium in my room," the burden is on you to prove it. "The mooninites really do live on the moon" is the same way. "God really exists" is of the same format, and so is subject to the same rules.
This is elementary logic. It is called "burden of proof." Thing is, it's a reliable and powerful source of judging facts about the world. Logic has been the intellectual step that has produced the computer, and all of mathematics. Without understanding the rules of logic (at least in an intuitive sense), we could not build the pyramids or empire state building, we couldn't do any science what-so-ever, and we couldn't even talk to each other.
It's been a while since I've written one of these types of posts, but I often urge people to recognize religion for what it truly is, and instead embrace knowledge, imagination, and humanism. The hope that religion gives people is attainable with a more rational point of view of the world, including the ethical parts. Given effort, we humans have done things from sail the seas to "sailed" to the moon. We've ended slavery, we've developed medicine, we've conquered the deepest ocean, and some have learned to make peace with their neighbors.
People have done these things, not God. Why people hang onto this vision of supernatural beings "making it right" for us, when the unfathomably beautiful potential of our own brain lies right in front of them mystifies me.
The world is already getting better. The world becomes more rational as time goes along. Little by little it sees that the old appeals to the supernatural, to hatred, to racism and to desecration of the environment...that these appeals have failed us. They don't serve anyone's purpose but those who choose to manipulate them to create social fervor.
You can have spirituality without religion or the supernatural. You can have hope. You can even do one thing better: contribute. You can help the world and not have to rely on a God to make it all better in the afterlife or an armageddon.
A deity you claim exists solely on a belief system.
If you can provide empirical evidence that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I will accept your arguments in regards to homosexuality. I will also pay you 1 million dollars.
Frankly, I don't bother trying to reason someone out of a belief that they never reasoned themselves into.
Very well, let's reserve all further comments to PM. Although I think our little dialogue provides a good example of what I have been arguing.
Last edited:
Thanks for the lesson, Duty.
I'm fully aware of what I was doing though and I knew that someone would would write a reply about logic. So thanks.
But before you can talk about logic, reason, or proof. Your presupposition is that I believe in reason and logic. And before you can talk about those things, I think you have to come to an agreement about truth.
What is truth? Is there such a thing as absolute truth? If two people can't agree that there is true and false in the world, it's pointless talking about logic.
I mean... truth is even MORE basic and logic or reason. Let's put it this way. It's hard to have a discussion on quantum physics if you can't agree on addition.
What? Pretty much all progress man has made has been derived from logic and experimentation. The fact that you are typing on an electronic medium is proof of how not pointless logic is to the human species.
In fact...
I think therefore I am. -Descartes
Tah dah! I just stated the fundamental truth of existence. Do you disagree with it?
1 + 1 = 2
Is that not an absolute truth?
Sorry! I had to interject here because my math teacher once proved that 1+1 = 1...which was hilarious. But no, I'm not ragging on you, Satya. I think absolute truth can and does exist, but not everyone agrees.
If you assert "there is no truth" then you are directly contradicting yourself, as you are stating a truth.
Since we have a contradiction there, we must conclude the opposite, there is not not objective truth. Simplified: there is objective truth.
Second, there are many things that we all, as humans, have natural brain structures that could not function if we didn't assume certain truths. For example, we have to take our senses as giving us truth, unless circumstances give us reason to doubt them.
Logically understanding the world is a natural function in our brains. It mostly happens in the frontal lobes. We're not the greatest at it, as there is benefit to saying "there is a tiger in the grass!" when there is only sparse evidence to support it. However, we have the capability to understand the actual structure and mechanics of the world. "This volcano will cool enough for me to escape across it!" doesn't work because it is convenient or just because we believe it.
So we have the capability to understand the world for what it truly is. As time has gone on, we've become more adept at this, and is why we build airplanes instead of chariots now. In our pursuit of understanding, we have developed tools, clarified our understanding, and even investigated into the rules of understanding/how we understand.
This is where logic comes in. It is the tool we have developed directly in response to the question, "What are the rules of understanding?" It has evolved, in a similar way to biological evolution, and is the most fit tool to judge the world by now. Logic informs us as to what cannot be truth and informs us as to what we are justified in believing. Let me make this clear: it does not tell us what is truth, but instead informs us as to what we are not justified in believing and what facts are truth about the world.
Those rules clearly lead to the conclusion that believe in a supernatural God is unjustified. We don't have good enough reason/evidence to support the conclusion.
The rest of what I wrote was by suggestion of my girlfriend. She says not to just "knock down" beliefs, but understand why people have religious faith and try to "fill the gaps" that I may be creating. Awe, love, ethics, and the like can be improved upon, instigated, and propagated by people...religion isn't needed. Feel the wonder of your own mind!
I know I haven't directly answered your question: "What is truth?" It's a question that only a deep philosophical investigation can answer. Many philosophers have given their opinion on it. The classical view is "truth is those collection of statements that express facts about the world" and facts are "statements which correspond to reality."
Last edited:
True...and I might add even though agreement does not exist in all thing, there are very significant areas where there is agreement, at least among religious leaders. Different terminology, for example, might describe the same reality.
There is an absolute truth before your own existence though. Something that is outside of you that attributes to you the ability to draw on reason to make the above deduction.
I think, therefore I am - is a truth.
Our church has three campuses. We go to different campuses. lol sorry that is a bit confusing!
Yeah, its called a brain. It evolved over the course of billions of years. There is a fossil record that demonstrates the intricate step by step process of natural selection that lead to its evolution.
Or were you talking about the invisible deity in that book that was written 1,700 years ago that also indicates the world in only 6,000 years old?
Last edited:
I go to a satellite campus; Wyst goes to the main campus. I have a different campus pastor and my campus uses a podcast feed to see the main guy.
Yup
I get it now. My assumption of the meaning of 'go to the same church' was based on my experience with church = 1 congregation meeting (primarily) in one place for services.
Satya, I think we've reached the point where we can't constructively talk about this anymore. I honestly wanted to help you understand what I believe and why I believe it - I was not trying to convert you, man.
Sorry if you feel this is unfair, but I learned from past mistakes that to continue beyond this point will be fruitless unless sarcasm is dropped.
That is fair. The moment the "God says homosexuality is wrong" card is in play, there really isn't much room for agreement or enlightenment in such a discussion.
Man, I would love to see that proof. It's gonna bug me forever trying to figure out how he did it.