Why (Self) Identity Is Bad

[Chriliman]

So... do you then hear like an actual audible voice or...?

No, more like a feeling of being lead and guided to the truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, more like a feeling of being lead and guided to the truth.

Aaah... a "feeling".

Do you think that having "feelings" is a thrustworthy path to truth?

 

[Chriliman]

Aaah... a "feeling".

Do you think that having "feelings" is a thrustworthy path to truth?

Yea, I sure do. If I'm an emotionless being, then I might as well not exist because emotion and feeling are half of what makes me, me. Why should I try to remove that from myself in order to find truth? Do emotions have no place in our existence, or in our pursuit for the truth?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yea, I sure do. If I'm an emotionless being, then I might as well not exist because emotion and feeling are half of what makes me, me. Why should I try to remove that from myself in order to find truth? Do emotions have no place in our existence, or in our pursuit for the truth?

I didn't ask you to remove and ignore emotions and become half a robot.
I merely asked you if your emotions are a thrustworthy path to truth.

Apparantly you do.

This means that you must believe that not liking the idea of your wife having an affair, is a valid reason to accept it as a true-ism that your wife isn't having an affair.

I embrace my emotions, but I actively try to not let my emotions guide me in what to believe and what not.
I suggest you try to do the same thing.

Sometimes, the truth is not to your liking. And that's okay.

 

[Chriliman]

I didn't ask you to remove and ignore emotions and become half a robot.
I merely asked you if your emotions are a thrustworthy path to truth.

Apparantly you do.

This means that you must believe that not liking the idea of your wife having an affair, is a valid reason to accept it as a true-ism that your wife isn't having an affair.

I embrace my emotions, but I actively try to not let my emotions guide me in what to believe and what not.
I suggest you try to do the same thing.

Sometimes, the truth is not to your liking. And that's okay.

Based on your objective observations of me, do I seem like an unreasonable person who only allows my emotions to guide me?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Based on your objective observations of me, do I seem like an unreasonable person who only allows my emotions to guide me?

Honestly, when it comes to the subject of your religious beliefs, yes. A thousand times, yes.

As per your own implicit admission, even.

 

[Chriliman]

Honestly, when it comes to the subject of your religious beliefs, yes. A thousand times, yes.

As per your own implicit admission, even.

Is it possible for you to consider God objectively, without any negative religious connotations?

IOW, is it possible for you to take someone seriously who believes in God and not ascribe the negative religious connotations to them?

Or does your lack of belief in God require you to admit that all who believe in God are unreasonable? You do find it unreasonable to believe in God, correct? So you must view all who believe in God as unreasonable. Is this fair way to view those of faith?

 

[bhsmte]

Is it possible for you to consider God objectively, without any negative religious connotations?

IOW, is it possible for you to take someone seriously who believes in God and not ascribe the negative religious connotations to them?

Or does your lack of belief in God require you to admit that all who believe in God are unreasonable? You do find it unreasonable to believe in God, correct? So you must view all who believe in God as unreasonable. Is this fair way to view those of faith?

Since you have admitted to being fallible, how you can you possibly objectively consider God, when this fallibility is present?

 

[Davian]

Is it possible for you to consider God objectively, without any negative religious connotations?

Sure. I can consider a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, and find that this concept does not comport with observations of reality.

IOW, is it possible for you to take someone seriously who believes in God and not ascribe the negative religious connotations to them?

Not if they insist that virtually all of mainstream science has to be wrong in order for their beliefs to be true.

Or does your lack of belief in God require you to admit that all who believe in God are unreasonable? You do find it unreasonable to believe in God, correct? So you must view all who believe in God as unreasonable.

It would depend on how they define their "God".

Is this fair way to view those of faith?

i demand fairness

• Davian
• Apr 3, 2015

 

[Chriliman]

Since you have admitted to being fallible, how you can you possibly objectively consider God, when this fallibility is present?

Since I am fallible, I can rationally objectively consider a God who is infallible.

If I were infallible, I would be God, but I know I am not God.

The fact that I know I'm not God because I'm fallible means I must admit an infallible God is possible. Just because I admit an infallible God is possible does not mean I have to accept this God as true. All it means is that I'm being intellectually honest, regardless of my preconceived notions about particular religions that claim an infallible God exists.

 

[HitchSlap]

Since I am fallible, I can rationally objectively consider a God who is infallible.

If I were infallible, I would be God, but I know I am not God.

The fact that I know I'm not God because I'm fallible means I must admit an infallible God is possible. Just because I admit an infallible God is possible does not mean I have to accept this God as true. All it means is that I'm being intellectually honest, regardless of my preconceived notions about particular religions that claim an infallible God exists.

You would also have to accept the possibility that your god may not exist.

 

[Chriliman]

You would also have to accept the possibility that your god may not exist.

In order to do that I must first accept the possibility that God does exist.

I can't accept the possibility that God does not exist if I have not accepted a possible concept of God to begin with.

 

[HitchSlap]

In order to do that I must first accept the possibility that God does exist.

I can't accept the possibility that God does not exist if I have not accepted a possible concept of God to begin with.

Do you accept the possibility a god exists?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you accept the possibility a god exists?

Yes, I did this a long time ago and have deeply questioned God ever since and am now convinced that God does exist.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, I did this a long time ago and have deeply questioned God ever since and am now convinced that God does exist.

Then you can accept that some of us have considered the same evidence, and remain unconvinced.

 

[Chriliman]

Then you can accept that some of us have considered the same evidence, and remain unconvinced.

Yes of course, but we all desire the truth which is what motivates me to really think things through and make sure I'm not being deceived by anyone or anything.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes of course, but we all desire the truth which is what motivates me to really think things through and make sure I'm not being deceived by anyone or anything.

Then you understand that the idea of "faith" is unnecessary in the search for true things. "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is it possible for you to consider God objectively, without any negative religious connotations?

IOW, is it possible for you to take someone seriously who believes in God and not ascribe the negative religious connotations to them?

Or does your lack of belief in God require you to admit that all who believe in God are unreasonable? You do find it unreasonable to believe in God, correct? So you must view all who believe in God as unreasonable. Is this fair way to view those of faith?

It would depend on what "god" actually was. The god of the bible has committed atrocities against humans with the only excuse being that "it created us". That's like saying I get to destroy a building I sold to someone else just because I built it. If this god were different, I would judge it on its actions, just like I would for the god of the bible. The only difference is that I would have to find them out first.

Of course, most atheists can take religious people seriously, even on the subject of faith. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we think you are twits sipping on religious koolaid. It does mean that we don't find the reasoning behind your faith convincing though.

Having an unreasonable belief in and of itself would not make a person wholly unreasonable. And disagreeing with a position doesn't mean that I find said position unreasonable either. Except for maybe extreme antitheists, most atheists are not going to think that religious people are somehow mentally deficient or illogical on the whole.

 

[Chriliman]

It would depend on what "god" actually was. The god of the bible has committed atrocities against humans with the only excuse being that "it created us". That's like saying I get to destroy a building I sold to someone else just because I built it. If this god were different, I would judge it on its actions, just like I would for the god of the bible. The only difference is that I would have to find them out first.

Of course, most atheists can take religious people seriously, even on the subject of faith. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we think you are twits sipping on religious koolaid. It does mean that we don't find the reasoning behind your faith convincing though.

Having an unreasonable belief in and of itself would not make a person wholly unreasonable. And disagreeing with a position doesn't mean that I find said position unreasonable either. Except for maybe extreme antitheists, most atheists are not going to think that religious people are somehow mentally deficient or illogical on the whole.

The only logical God to believe in, is a perfectly good God that created perfect beings with free will to choose itself(Good/truth) or not(Bad/lie).

The reason this God is good and true is because it created perfect beings in a completely fair way by allowing them to choose itself or not. Our current reality suggests this is true because some believe and some do not.

A God that only created perfect beings with the only option of choosing itself, would not be considered good or fair, but rather tyrannical. Plus if this God existed then there would be no created being that does not know it exists(this is clearly not our reality)

 

[Chriliman]

Then you understand that the idea of "faith" is unnecessary in the search for true things. "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

A wise man understands that in order to search for truth he must first have faith that truth can be found.