Why should one care if ''God'' exists?

[Eudaimonist]

okay, here is some evidence. 'all of reality'. but atheist can not accept that because they already have certain opinions about how the universe was made and functions.

Not precisely correct. The problem is not that atheists have other views, since it is possible to change one's mind in the face of persuasive evidence. The problem is that "all of reality" isn't persuasive evidence of the existence of God. This is an epistemological issue.

atheist tend to be atheist.

I assume you mean that atheists tend to stay atheists over time. I suppose that is true.

they don't believe in a god and thus all that they see is based in the idea that god is not.

One could say something similar about Christians -- they only see what they want to see based on the idea that god is.

But I'm not sure what such pessimism gets one. People can change their minds.

a decent physical evidence of God is the experience of God teaching you how to understand the bible

How is that physical evidence? What you are describing is subjective.

yet they are foolish in that they do not understand that God operates on all levels of reality which is why it is necessary for the physical brain to do certain things when a person has some sort of mystical experience.

Foolishness could just as easily be thinking that there are different "levels of reality" when there is only one.

atheist dismiss God because they found how certain things operate. "I know how a game works and thus it must be that no one made the game!"

I don't know of any atheists who argue that way. That strikes me as a straw man atheist.

it is just speculation to believe God made or did not make the universe. you people can't know objectively.

I don't think that it is merely speculation, but with insufficient evidence to conclude that a God was involved, the rational thing to do is to lack belief in such claims.

in fact you can't even prove that the universe is completely objective either!

What do you mean? Why would this be a challenge?

so stop acting like you have objective evidence to disprove God.

What evidence are you talking about?

you don't see and thus you do not see. simple as that.

The same could be said of you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Noxot]

Not precisely correct. The problem is not that atheists have other views, since it is possible to change one's mind in the face of persuasive evidence. The problem is that "all of reality" isn't persuasive evidence of the existence of God. This is an epistemological issue.

it is not persuasive to you because you already believe in certain things that make you believe that it is not persuasive. everything is right in front of our faces but people only speak about their own belief structures because they are caught in the wilderness of their own soul/brain. what is persuasive to one is not to another. from the point of view of the soul or the brain we can not come to a conclusion of any kind of ultimate reality because the brain is not part of ultimate reality. that is why we have to go past our brain but your brain does not believe it is something past what it is due to the belief system that it has built up.

I assume you mean that atheists tend to stay atheists over time. I suppose that is true.

I mean that a eagle can not be a hippopotamus. spiritual knowledge is obtained in a different manner than you are used to utilizing ( though all function in it to some degree even if they don't realize they do ). hippos simply don't fly.

One could say something similar about Christians -- they only see what they want to see based on the idea that god is. But I'm not sure what such pessimism gets one. People can change their minds.

this is true on the baby levels of understanding in the spiritual lives of humans. by getting rid of those things we begin to see more clearly as we become more and more receptive to God. we watch as those things we once knew become transmuted and we see them in a different kind of light. on the more mature levels we simply swim in God and there is no asking of "if there is a god or not". atheist have a real problem with this kind of understanding because they do not taste him like we taste him. many religious people also have problems with this kind of understanding.

i'm not pessimistic. i believe people can change their minds too. but often when people think about changing they only want to change their earth rather than the entire universe. so what if all the sudden there is a rise in the population of hippos in the earth? one gamma ray burst puts an end to the silly logic and laws of the earth.

How is that physical evidence? What you are describing is subjective.

what is physical evidence to you? explain what is subjective as opposed from that which is objective.

Foolishness could just as easily be thinking that there are different "levels of reality" when there is only one.

so then who is a fool and who is not? can you objectively know who is foolish and who is not?

I don't know of any atheists who argue that way. That strikes me as a straw man atheist.

I never said they argue that way. i said that is how they believe.

I don't think that it is merely speculation, but with insufficient evidence to conclude that a God was involved, the rational thing to do is to lack belief in such claims.

I don't believe it is only speculation either. you can know God is real for certain without any doubt at all. all you need to do is pick up your cross and be crucified. when you die then you will live. when the forest burns down it helps the ground. then better plants grow. you are scared to die. you don;t think it is logical to die. you will suffer until you die. you won't know what suffering is until you experience God. when you taste him then you see how much everyone suffers and that they cause themselves to suffer. this is not logical to you i bet. why should I care if God is? because God makes everything better and solves all problems. it is not rational to not believe in God but non-rational people think it is rational to not believe in God since they don't know him.

What do you mean? Why would this be a challenge?

What evidence are you talking about?

The same could be said of you.

I mean that you can't prove to me that all of reality is objective.
okay then prove that all of reality is objective.
the evidence of your denial of god as reality. you reject god because you believe certain things about reality. you say he might exist but that you don't have evidence only so you don't looks like I look, in claiming an absolute that is more solid than a tree or a sun, which things fade away after a few years give or take a few billion. you have a 'materialistic' view of reality which automatically means that you do not understand reality to be an expression of God as I define God. it is impossible for you to affirm there is a God as I know him to be because of what you already believe about reality. keep in mind that i don't really know you or much of what you believe and so I simply reflect what i think about certain types of atheist just like you have to assume things about me since you don't really know me that much. i tend to attempt to question how someone came to a conclusion as that is the main problem with understanding in my pov.

I don't see and that is how I see. darkness and light are the same thing to me. reality is so simple that it can never be expressed properly with words.

this is going to get dangerous for the both of us if you have to reply to all my replies and then I have to reply to all of your replies. i wish I could simply speak a few words to you to answer your questions. human language is limiting. >.< not to mention attempting to make sense of what I see and attempting to make sense of what you say. there has got to be an easier way of communicating. with spiritual people it is easy, we just feel reality and we nod at each other, tis much more of an absolute than a potato or a star.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean that a eagle can not be a hippopotamus. spiritual knowledge is obtained in a different manner than you are used to utilizing ( though all function in it to some degree even if they don't realize they do ). hippos simply don't fly.

This sort of claim doesn't consider that eagles might not exist, only a few hippos dreaming that they are eagles. Spiritual "knowledge" might not be anything more than experience with one's mental contents, which may contain all sorts of fictions. We know that the human brain is fully capable of creating fiction, such as while dreaming.

this is true on the baby levels of understanding in the spiritual lives of humans. by getting rid of those things we begin to see more clearly as we become more and more receptive to God. we watch as those things we once knew become transmuted and we see them in a different kind of light. on the more mature levels we simply swim in God and there is no asking of "if there is a god or not". atheist have a real problem with this kind of understanding because they do not taste him like we taste him. many religious people also have problems with this kind of understanding.

You are talking about some form of inner experience on top of which you are placing an interpretation. Yes, I understand that perfectly. Perhaps mine don't have the same "taste", and I certainly don't interpret them in the same way, but I do understand what you are talking about.

what is physical evidence to you? explain what is subjective as opposed from that which is objective.

Certainly. I'd like to draw a distinction between introspection and extrospection.

Introspection means focusing your attention on your mental contents. For instance, if you focus on your thoughts and feelings, you are introspecting.

Extrospection (or observation) means using your sense organs, such as eyes, ears, nose, taste buds, and skin, to examine the world about you.

Physical evidence (and objectivity) is achieved through extrospection, not introspection. While both activities pertain to your awareness, only extrospection involves the senses needed to examine the world about you. Introspection only tells you about your psychology, which may be part of the world, but only a very tiny part, and it contains fictions. Introspection is fundamentally "subjective" in this sense, in that it refers to a subject -- you.

so then who is a fool and who is not? can you objectively know who is foolish and who is not?

Yes, by using careful judgment. I don't claim to be infallible, but I do think that distinctions may be drawn for carefully thought-out reasons.

I don't believe it is only speculation either. you can know God is real for certain without any doubt at all. all you need to do is pick up your cross and be crucified. when you die then you will live. when the forest burns down it helps the ground. then better plants grow.

All you are talking about here are subjective psychological changes, not answers to whether or not God exists.

you are scared to die. you don;t think it is logical to die.

Please speak for yourself. Don't try to speak for me.

you won't know what suffering is until you experience God. when you taste him then you see how much everyone suffers and that they cause themselves to suffer.

I do see how other people suffer and cause themselves to suffer, and I don't mean just physically. This awareness might not come naturally, but it is not some superpower reserved for Christians.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[digitalgoth]

well if god wanted people in heaven,would he not show himself to people who need physical evidence and objective evidence like bhsmte?

No, because preacher needs a new Mercedes. And God isn't about to prevent preacher from getting his new car. So He doesn't show Himself. If you don't understand that, you don't have a "relationship" with God.

Have you not paid preacher to tell you what God thinks?

Power to the Preacher!

 

[Aldebaran]

No, because preacher needs a new Mercedes. And God isn't about to prevent preacher from getting his new car. So He doesn't show Himself. If you don't understand that, you don't have a "relationship" with God.

Have you not paid preacher to tell you what God thinks?

Power to the Preacher!

I hope this wasn't meant to demonstrate insightfulness.

 

[digitalgoth]

I hope this wasn't meant to demonstrate insightfulness.

Nah, more real world. Sometimes you need to add a little reality into these theoretical discussions.

The topic is why we should care if God exists. The case is, if no one believed in God, preacher (or priest if you prefer) doesn't get paid, therefore doesn't get a luxury car. The point being, lack of belief causes lack of funding. The same reason that belief causes funding.

Outside of that and there being far less wars, there's going to be little difference if God doesn't exist. Evil men will find other ways to manipulate other people into killing each other.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nah, more real world. Sometimes you need to add a little reality into these theoretical discussions.

The topic is why we should care if God exists. The case is, if no one believed in God, preacher (or priest if you prefer) doesn't get paid, therefore doesn't get a luxury car. The point being, lack of belief causes lack of funding. The same reason that belief causes funding.

Outside of that and there being far less wars, there's going to be little difference if God doesn't exist. Evil men will find other ways to manipulate other people into killing each other.

I see. Preachers getting paid is an incentive to keep the story going.

Wait, how much do scientist get paid these days? How much money is the government giving out for Green Energy projects to, you know, address the "global warming" issue?

Just because someone is paid for something doesn't mean it's not valid, although many anticapatalists would use that basis to discredit pretty much anything they didn't like.

 

[digitalgoth]

I see. Preachers getting paid is an incentive to keep the story going.

Wait, how much do scientist get paid these days? How much money is the government giving out for Green Energy projects to, you know, address the "global warming" issue?

Just because someone is paid for something doesn't mean it's not valid, although many anticapatalists would use that basis to discredit pretty much anything they didn't like.

That is correct. Preacher getting paid is the absolute incentive. The reason is this.

Not all religions or preachers require money, there are several religions, including some branches of Christianity that requires no money whatsoever.

Long ago you could believe in the Sun, which I still say is the best religion there is, since the Sun is real, is necessary for life, we can see it, it follows rules of science, and it wants nothing from us but to give us life, but I digress.

Then the moon hid the Sun for an afternoon, and an evil person, realizing he could get food and virgins, required those things to bring the Sun back. Many fearful gave their power and resources to the preacher because they thought he could hide the Sun.

Preacher found he liked the power he had, and continued to abuse that power over others to get more resources and virgins. He made up more and more claims about the Sun, and asserted dominion over the Sun because scared people will do anything to take the fear away.

Over time preacher realized that he would be murdered and robbed for all the nice things he had, his Sun worshipping meetings were very opulent and he was given many more things than he needed. There was grumbling about how much the preacher had, since many people were poor from having given their food and daughters to the preacher, so the preacher found some of the poorest and most grumbling of the people and gave his resources to them. "How charitable am I, ", he cried, "For I am giving the bounty of the Sun to the weak and the poor; I am a great preacher.", and for every offering his had, he gave a scrap to the poorest and most grumbling until they were won over.

Over time, some pointed out that maybe the Sun wasn't mad, and since the Sun had always shown up through the clouds and rain and when the moon was being a jerk, and we could just enjoy the Sun's bounty without giving their food and daughters (which the Sun provided to them) to the preacher. These people were shouted down. How could they say such things when the preacher was giving so much to the needy and poor? They must be heretical for saying such things. The ones shouted down realized they could not compete with the preacher, because so many people were scared of the Sun going away, and the preacher had so many offerings and followers that they couldn't get their message out about the Sun and that giving their things away to preacher wasn't absolutely necessary since, well, the sun didn't seem to be having much of a problem. Several of the preachers followers hurled rocks at the heretical Sun worshippers that they quickly quieted down.

Evil men, however, had been watching the preacher, and have cravings and jealousy in their hearts that he was consuming resources and power. "He should be sharing with us; he has far more than he needs." and readied their weapons.

See when preacher enjoyed his resources and power, he only needed to assure the fearful that, yes, he kept the Sun working, and even those times when the Sun wasn't working, that a little more of the people's daughters and food would help bring the Sun back. Or stoning gay people. Preacher didn't like gay people because one had said something snarky in gym class when preacher had a hard time climbing the rope.

The evil men, however, could cause fear, because they had spears. And although the Sun provided the light and warmth and everything necessary for everyone to live happily, there are just some evil people who have to have power over others. The evil men went and talked to the preacher, and explained that, although the Sun might go away, the spear point in the preachers throat might be a little more dangerous. They explained that they would take all the preachers offerings, if he did not tell his followers to give them food and virgins too, and to always make sure the followers of the Sun bowed to authority of both the spear and the Sun.

The preacher realized he could have a comfortable life and worked out a deal with the evil men to always support their goals, and in return, they would support his right to have power over the Sun and receive offerings. The followers would have to give some of their offerings to the evil men, and some of their offerings to the preacher. The preacher controlled the Sun and the evil men got their power, so for a time things went pretty well.

Every now and then, however, it appeared that the followers of the Sun would grumble about how much of their things evil men were taking, so now and again the evil men and the preacher would rail against the evil Sun worshipers in Oceania or Eurasia, and the evil men would send their armies to take the evil worshippers virgins and food so they wouldn't present a threat to the fearful Sun worshippers.

Sometimes the preacher wished for a simpler life, where the Sun was just enjoyed by everyone as the blessing it was, but he had held power over the Sun for so long, and the evil men were also powerful as he and he was bound to them, that he amused himself with virgins and opulent palaces, even though sometimes he just wanted to lay down and get a tan.



Of course that's nonsense. The intermingling of religion and politics and being the gatekeepers to God has never happened. However, for unrelated reasons, all the religions that wanted to keep to themselves and not make war and just enjoy their lives and their spirituality had to be wiped off the earth, made heretical, and never ever allowed to get power over anyone ever.

Or I could just say, "Preacher wants a new Mercedes".

Interesting story, the "Preacher wants a new Mercedes" is a conversation I overheard. I live in the bible belt, and I was listening to a couple of women going on and on about how preachers brand new Mercedes was wonderful, and he had gotten the custom leather which just looked so beautiful. And it showed that the church was doing so well.

This was after they had been talking about not having enough money to go on a vacation together.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is correct. Preacher getting paid is the absolute incentive. The reason is this.

Not all religions or preachers require money, there are several religions, including some branches of Christianity that requires no money whatsoever.

Long ago you could believe in the Sun, which I still say is the best religion there is, since the Sun is real, is necessary for life, we can see it, it follows rules of science, and it wants nothing from us but to give us life, but I digress.

Then the moon hid the Sun for an afternoon, and an evil person, realizing he could get food and virgins, required those things to bring the Sun back. Many fearful gave their power and resources to the preacher because they thought he could hide the Sun.

Preacher found he liked the power he had, and continued to abuse that power over others to get more resources and virgins. He made up more and more claims about the Sun, and asserted dominion over the Sun because scared people will do anything to take the fear away.

Over time preacher realized that he would be murdered and robbed for all the nice things he had, his Sun worshipping meetings were very opulent and he was given many more things than he needed. There was grumbling about how much the preacher had, since many people were poor from having given their food and daughters to the preacher, so the preacher found some of the poorest and most grumbling of the people and gave his resources to them. "How charitable am I, ", he cried, "For I am giving the bounty of the Sun to the weak and the poor; I am a great preacher.", and for every offering his had, he gave a scrap to the poorest and most grumbling until they were won over.

Over time, some pointed out that maybe the Sun wasn't mad, and since the Sun had always shown up through the clouds and rain and when the moon was being a jerk, and we could just enjoy the Sun's bounty without giving their food and daughters (which the Sun provided to them) to the preacher. These people were shouted down. How could they say such things when the preacher was giving so much to the needy and poor? They must be heretical for saying such things. The ones shouted down realized they could not compete with the preacher, because so many people were scared of the Sun going away, and the preacher had so many offerings and followers that they couldn't get their message out about the Sun and that giving their things away to preacher wasn't absolutely necessary since, well, the sun didn't seem to be having much of a problem. Several of the preachers followers hurled rocks at the heretical Sun worshippers that they quickly quieted down.

Evil men, however, had been watching the preacher, and have cravings and jealousy in their hearts that he was consuming resources and power. "He should be sharing with us; he has far more than he needs." and readied their weapons.

See when preacher enjoyed his resources and power, he only needed to assure the fearful that, yes, he kept the Sun working, and even those times when the Sun wasn't working, that a little more of the people's daughters and food would help bring the Sun back. Or stoning gay people. Preacher didn't like gay people because one had said something snarky in gym class when preacher had a hard time climbing the rope.

The evil men, however, could cause fear, because they had spears. And although the Sun provided the light and warmth and everything necessary for everyone to live happily, there are just some evil people who have to have power over others. The evil men went and talked to the preacher, and explained that, although the Sun might go away, the spear point in the preachers throat might be a little more dangerous. They explained that they would take all the preachers offerings, if he did not tell his followers to give them food and virgins too, and to always make sure the followers of the Sun bowed to authority of both the spear and the Sun.

The preacher realized he could have a comfortable life and worked out a deal with the evil men to always support their goals, and in return, they would support his right to have power over the Sun and receive offerings. The followers would have to give some of their offerings to the evil men, and some of their offerings to the preacher. The preacher controlled the Sun and the evil men got their power, so for a time things went pretty well.

Every now and then, however, it appeared that the followers of the Sun would grumble about how much of their things evil men were taking, so now and again the evil men and the preacher would rail against the evil Sun worshipers in Oceania or Eurasia, and the evil men would send their armies to take the evil worshippers virgins and food so they wouldn't present a threat to the fearful Sun worshippers.

Sometimes the preacher wished for a simpler life, where the Sun was just enjoyed by everyone as the blessing it was, but he had held power over the Sun for so long, and the evil men were also powerful as he and he was bound to them, that he amused himself with virgins and opulent palaces, even though sometimes he just wanted to lay down and get a tan.



Of course that's nonsense. The intermingling of religion and politics and being the gatekeepers to God has never happened. However, for unrelated reasons, all the religions that wanted to keep to themselves and not make war and just enjoy their lives and their spirituality had to be wiped off the earth, made heretical, and never ever allowed to get power over anyone ever.

Or I could just say, "Preacher wants a new Mercedes".

Interesting story, the "Preacher wants a new Mercedes" is a conversation I overheard. I live in the bible belt, and I was listening to a couple of women going on and on about how preachers brand new Mercedes was wonderful, and he had gotten the custom leather which just looked so beautiful. And it showed that the church was doing so well.

This was after they had been talking about not having enough money to go on a vacation together.

I just skimmed over this post. Glad I did too. It looks like a copy/paste job. I could counter all of this by simply pointing out that in the early days, the Word of God was spread by people meeting in private homes. It had nothing to do with a preacher getting paid.

Nobody is paying me to be on this forum either.

 

[Deidre32]

I hope this wasn't meant to demonstrate insightfulness.

Lol! That was funny

 

[Deidre32]

That is correct. Preacher getting paid is the absolute incentive. The reason is this.

Not all religions or preachers require money, there are several religions, including some branches of Christianity that requires no money whatsoever.

Long ago you could believe in the Sun, which I still say is the best religion there is, since the Sun is real, is necessary for life, we can see it, it follows rules of science, and it wants nothing from us but to give us life, but I digress.

Then the moon hid the Sun for an afternoon, and an evil person, realizing he could get food and virgins, required those things to bring the Sun back. Many fearful gave their power and resources to the preacher because they thought he could hide the Sun.

Preacher found he liked the power he had, and continued to abuse that power over others to get more resources and virgins. He made up more and more claims about the Sun, and asserted dominion over the Sun because scared people will do anything to take the fear away.

Over time preacher realized that he would be murdered and robbed for all the nice things he had, his Sun worshipping meetings were very opulent and he was given many more things than he needed. There was grumbling about how much the preacher had, since many people were poor from having given their food and daughters to the preacher, so the preacher found some of the poorest and most grumbling of the people and gave his resources to them. "How charitable am I, ", he cried, "For I am giving the bounty of the Sun to the weak and the poor; I am a great preacher.", and for every offering his had, he gave a scrap to the poorest and most grumbling until they were won over.

Over time, some pointed out that maybe the Sun wasn't mad, and since the Sun had always shown up through the clouds and rain and when the moon was being a jerk, and we could just enjoy the Sun's bounty without giving their food and daughters (which the Sun provided to them) to the preacher. These people were shouted down. How could they say such things when the preacher was giving so much to the needy and poor? They must be heretical for saying such things. The ones shouted down realized they could not compete with the preacher, because so many people were scared of the Sun going away, and the preacher had so many offerings and followers that they couldn't get their message out about the Sun and that giving their things away to preacher wasn't absolutely necessary since, well, the sun didn't seem to be having much of a problem. Several of the preachers followers hurled rocks at the heretical Sun worshippers that they quickly quieted down.

Evil men, however, had been watching the preacher, and have cravings and jealousy in their hearts that he was consuming resources and power. "He should be sharing with us; he has far more than he needs." and readied their weapons.

See when preacher enjoyed his resources and power, he only needed to assure the fearful that, yes, he kept the Sun working, and even those times when the Sun wasn't working, that a little more of the people's daughters and food would help bring the Sun back. Or stoning gay people. Preacher didn't like gay people because one had said something snarky in gym class when preacher had a hard time climbing the rope.

The evil men, however, could cause fear, because they had spears. And although the Sun provided the light and warmth and everything necessary for everyone to live happily, there are just some evil people who have to have power over others. The evil men went and talked to the preacher, and explained that, although the Sun might go away, the spear point in the preachers throat might be a little more dangerous. They explained that they would take all the preachers offerings, if he did not tell his followers to give them food and virgins too, and to always make sure the followers of the Sun bowed to authority of both the spear and the Sun.

The preacher realized he could have a comfortable life and worked out a deal with the evil men to always support their goals, and in return, they would support his right to have power over the Sun and receive offerings. The followers would have to give some of their offerings to the evil men, and some of their offerings to the preacher. The preacher controlled the Sun and the evil men got their power, so for a time things went pretty well.

Every now and then, however, it appeared that the followers of the Sun would grumble about how much of their things evil men were taking, so now and again the evil men and the preacher would rail against the evil Sun worshipers in Oceania or Eurasia, and the evil men would send their armies to take the evil worshippers virgins and food so they wouldn't present a threat to the fearful Sun worshippers.

Sometimes the preacher wished for a simpler life, where the Sun was just enjoyed by everyone as the blessing it was, but he had held power over the Sun for so long, and the evil men were also powerful as he and he was bound to them, that he amused himself with virgins and opulent palaces, even though sometimes he just wanted to lay down and get a tan.



Of course that's nonsense. The intermingling of religion and politics and being the gatekeepers to God has never happened. However, for unrelated reasons, all the religions that wanted to keep to themselves and not make war and just enjoy their lives and their spirituality had to be wiped off the earth, made heretical, and never ever allowed to get power over anyone ever.

Or I could just say, "Preacher wants a new Mercedes".

Interesting story, the "Preacher wants a new Mercedes" is a conversation I overheard. I live in the bible belt, and I was listening to a couple of women going on and on about how preachers brand new Mercedes was wonderful, and he had gotten the custom leather which just looked so beautiful. And it showed that the church was doing so well.

This was after they had been talking about not having enough money to go on a vacation together.

There are a lot of corrupt preachers no doubt. But there are some who have their eyes on what they feel is right. And are humble about it.

Having said that, religion in many denominations, has become a business. Some have boards of directors etc...I mean, seriously?

Just seems wrong.

 

[Radagast]

Why should anyone care if a god exists?

Well, if God created the Universe, He might have all kinds of opinions about how it should be run. He might make rules, even.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, if God created the Universe, He might have all kinds of opinions about how it should be run. He might make rules, even.

Okay, why should one care about that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Radagast]

Okay, why should one care about that?

The Creator of the Universe might have the power to enforce rules.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Creator of the Universe might have the power to enforce rules.

Yes, so? The power to enforce a rule and the ethical justification of a rule are two completely different things. An enforced rule can be evil.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Radagast]

Yes, so? ... An enforced rule can be evil.

And how does that give a reason to not care?

 

[Deidre32]

Well, if God created the Universe, He might have all kinds of opinions about how it should be run. He might make rules, even.

Sounds like man's idea of a god.
Whose rules might those be? The Christian version of god or Islam or Mormon or Jewish or Gnostic or....?

Lots of different religions with different "rules."
Leads me to think that those "rules" are man's inventions. If there is one god, why isn't everyone's "rule book" the same?

 

[Eudaimonist]

And how does that give a reason to not care?

It depends on how Stoic one is. If one only cares about living a good life, then even mistreatment by someone in a position of power because one had stuck to one's principles might seem like something one shouldn't care about. If one is mistreated, then one is mistreated. This diagram might help make my point:

I suppose that most people would care about divine punishment for reasons of their own, so you do have a point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Noxot]

This sort of claim doesn't consider that eagles might not exist, only a few hippos dreaming that they are eagles. Spiritual "knowledge" might not be anything more than experience with one's mental contents, which may contain all sorts of fictions. We know that the human brain is fully capable of creating fiction, such as while dreaming.

one could say that dreams are fiction but that is only one perspective of what a dream is and means. in my view of reality everything is connected together in a seamless whole and many different facets of reality can be seen, understood, and mean things on various levels and spheres depending on what kind of manner you wish to understand a thing by.

Certainly. I'd like to draw a distinction between introspection and extrospection.

Introspection means focusing your attention on your mental contents. For instance, if you focus on your thoughts and feelings, you are introspecting.

Extrospection (or observation) means using your sense organs, such as eyes, ears, nose, taste buds, and skin, to examine the world about you.

Physical evidence (and objectivity) is achieved through extrospection, not introspection. While both activities pertain to your awareness, only extrospection involves the senses needed to examine the world about you. Introspection only tells you about your psychology, which may be part of the world, but only a very tiny part, and it contains fictions. Introspection is fundamentally "subjective" in this sense, in that it refers to a subject -- you.

no doubt that extrospection contains many fictions as well and this is because man is a subjective being. the more we learn the more our views change. man has not and can not come to ultimate conclusions with mere extrospection or introspection.

Yes, by using careful judgment. I don't claim to be infallible, but I do think that distinctions may be drawn for carefully thought-out reasons.

All you are talking about here are subjective psychological changes, not answers to whether or not God exists.

I would say that judging what a fool is is based on what you are talking about. we judge when something is foolish and have reasons as to why this or that makes one a fool. soometimes calling a person a fool is an insult sometimes it is used in not such a harsh manner. words have whatever meaning we give to them though obviously humanity shares many ideas and concepts as they need to communicate with one another. on a physical level all it looks like are psychological changes as that is what i'm made out of on this level of reality. psychological changes can be for or against proving God. it comes down to ones world view and what they believe those things mean. someone who believes only in the physical can only come to physical conclusions about reality... even if there is some kind of reality that is not physical which intermingles with this reality and which has influences on this reality and on peoples psychology.

Please speak for yourself. Don't try to speak for me.

I do see how other people suffer and cause themselves to suffer, and I don't mean just physically. This awareness might not come naturally, but it is not some superpower reserved for Christians.

I will have to work on attempting to speak to people in a better manner that is not so introverted. in a sense it is impossible to not speak for someone else if one person is speaking to another. but I hear you. I will try harder to not speak for you or anyone and I will try not to objectify you as this reduces who and what you are into a shoddy form since each person is more kin to the reality of spirit which is better spoken of as a kind of subjective reality in some sense... seeing as this thing which gives birth to spirit is called "freedom" or "nothing" and spirit is freedom at it's core. you define who you are as much as I do ( we all define self and others and anything in different ways). this is part of the nature of the brain. it's always attempting to think about something, to measure something, to understand something by it's own capacity. it is always trying to "give birth" to something. it is good (that is, this part of the brain/soul ) at some forms of understanding and terrible at others.

you have your ideas of what suffering is just as I do. "Christians" is just a label that can never define anything properly though it could hint at possible qualities a person has. "suffering" is just a word that we give meaning to and we use it to attempt to describe certain things though a person could probably write a large book about what "suffering" is. Christians don't really have anything special over another. everyone has their own merit and everyone is utterly irreplaceable and unrepeatable. how much more can we not explain God as he is if the godhead is the basis for all of reality.

 

[Aldebaran]

I suppose that most people would care about divine punishment for reasons of their own, so you do have a point.

Like spending eternity in hell? I guess if you don't mind that, then you'll be quite happy there.