Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Tricky]

Reconstructing him makes him alive again. Today he is dead. The evidence is overwhelming. It cannot be denied by any sane individual.

The evidence is overwhelming. Only an insane person would deny that he is dead (like a religious person who claimed he was "alive in heaven"). But it is still overwhelming evidence, not proof, in the scientific sense.

It can be proven today that President Kennedy is dead.

There is overwhelming evidence for it.

Proof. It exists in some cases. To deny it is a faith; a religion; a dogma.

Ah, Huntster, I had hope that you wouldn't be reduced to this type of defense. You never met Jedi Knight who made similar arguments. When backed into a corner, he finally was reduced to claiming that anything a person believed in, like personal hygene or changing your oil regularly, was a religion. Are you gonna go down that long dark path? You don't want Sceptic Realist to be disappointed in your arguing skills, now do you?

To say that science rejects the principle of "proof" is dogma. Religion. Doctrine. A settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

So belief that nothing is settled is an settled belief? Well, oh master of conundrums, try this one one:

This statement is a lie.

So unless you can show me what's wrong with that statement, you will excuse me if I fail to be impressed with your circular logic.

 

[Huntster]

The more I read your posts, the more I am impressed with your arguing.

Oh, oh! You just lost standing among some on this forum.

Prepare for heavy seas.............

Originally Posted by Huntster
If he has a woefully inadequate concept and understanding of God, and yet propounds with ferver that God cannot exist, he is in a position of ignorance, or very close to that end of the scale.

I see what you're saying, but the basic concept of it is that a supernatural being is the creator of life, watches over us, and also dictates which souls will be saved from hell and which won't, which all depends on faith.

That's close to my basic understanding.

I agree that "full" understanding of "god" is not nearly as simple, regardless of wether or not you believe or have faith, but if he is aware of this basic concept, yet chooses to embrace (again, excuse my word choice) "fact" rather than "faith", this is not ignorance. Nor is the opposite (believing in god).

I agree, yet if he were to exercise curiosity instead of full, unrepentant rejection, perhaps with a little study and reflection, he might learn more with which to use to further his understanding of the phenomena.

Full understanding of God will not be achieved by any humans. But, clearly, some have more than others.

I choose to be one with as much as I can gather. Paulhoff wants no more.

Ignorant? Not him as an individual. Proclaiming from ignorance? Maybe, from at least some respect.

Originally Posted by Huntster
It is not an insult. It is a statement of fact.

I am different than many here. With regard to the word "proof", I consider it the ultimate in evidence, and it establishes something "beyond the shadow of doubt." I have challenged several on this forum who have exchanged the words "evidence" and "proof", sometimes in the same post.

Yes and no. There are different kinds of "truth", and "proof", while based in fact, can be interpreted in different ways. Literal, universal fact can be and often is seprate from individual truth (what you hold to be true). That's the basis of opinion.[/quote]

Now you've injected "truth" into consideration along with "proof" and "evidence". I haven't even started to consider that mix.

This is much fun!

Indeed!

 

[I less than three logic]

Did you read the.............................?

(Any more stupid/ignorant/arrogant/whatever-you-want-to-call-it questions?)

Did I read the what? Did I read Tricky’s post? Yes. Did I read your reply to that post? Yes. It appears I even went a step further and actually understood Tricky’s post as well, because after reading his post and your reply, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it.

Reconstructing him makes him alive again. Today he is dead. The evidence is overwhelming. It cannot be denied by any sane individual. It can be proven today that President Kennedy is dead.

Proof. It exists in some cases. To deny it is a faith; a religion; a dogma.

You are wrong, yet again. You seem to want to pick and choose when you allow for the implausible to be possible or not. You, I suspect, believe in something like the resurrection of Christ. You’ll allow for whatever nonsense rationalization is needed to accommodate the improbably of such an event into the realm of the possible. Yet, it appears you’ve decided that you’ll not allow such explanations for President Kennedy. Why? At least the scientific position is a consistent one. If it can not be proven impossible, then you must admit is may be possible, no matter how improbable. In a like fashion, if you admit the possibility exists that you’re wrong; then you haven’t proven it, have you?

Let’s say the multi-worlds interpretation is correct. That every event splits the universe into another where different outcomes may exist, in this scenario Kennedy is dead in the universe we currently occupy and will be in each universe this thread may split off too. However, there may be hundreds, thousands, even millions or more universes in which Kennedy is still alive and kicking. Could we still claim that “Kennedy is dead” if the multi-worlds interpretation is true; are we able to prove that it isn’t true? At best, we could claim that he is in this universe, but nothing beyond that.

How about we move away from the odd scientific mumbo jumbo and use an explanation you may be more familiar with. Perhaps Kennedy was resurrected in a similar fashion to Jesus. We’ll deploy the standard, God’s will, He works in mysterious ways, and similar explanations for why he was resurrected. Are we able to prove this wrong? Yes, with this one just may be able to. We’d just need to go dig him up. If we find the remains of his body, then he didn’t rise from the dead. However, this only lasts as long as we actually watch the remains. If we just bury them again, how do we know he wasn’t resurrected just a few hours after we left? We simply cannot prove this is impossible, so we admit it is possible, while considering it highly improbable. The same holds true for Jesus’ story. If we admit it is possible that Kennedy may be alive, we can’t claim to prove he is dead, now can we?

There is nothing dogmatic about this rejection of absolute proof; it is simply based on being intellectually honest and logically consistent. This is a claim you cannot make, not while you’ll allow yourself to believe one thing while rejecting another both with the same rationalization.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

Ah, Huntster, I had hope that you wouldn't be reduced to this type of defense. You never met Jedi Knight who made similar arguments. When backed into a corner, he finally was reduced to claiming that anything a person believed in, like personal hygene or changing your oil regularly, was a religion. Are you gonna go down that long dark path?

I think you're confusing religion with dogma. Religion is much more specific:

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

So no, personal hygene is not a religion, because it does not concertn the cuase, nature, and purpose of the universe. However, while his description is somewhat ambiguous, denying science IS a religion, because it DOES concern the aforementioned things. It has several forms: Christianity, Islam, etc.

You don't want Sceptic Realist to be disappointed in your arguing skills, now do you?

I never commented on his being right or wrong, meerly the fact that he defends himself well and argues with intelligence.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. Additionally, our acquired grasp of physical sciences aren't even scratching the surface of spirituality, if they even can.

They can't. Physical science does not address the metaphysical. Since there is no good evidence for anything metaphysical, I don't see this as a serious drawback.

I'm not so ready to reject that possibility, either. Like you arguing from the possibility of JFK being resurrected, I don't know what the future holds.

But today? It's a matter of faith or doubt.

Originally Posted by Huntster
By studying the works of those who study spirituality. I include the sages of all religions. I happen to be Roman Catholic, and so the bulk of my interest has been along those lines, but I've also studied some Taoism, Native American religions, and have some basic understanding (of course) of the religions closely related to Christianity (Judaism and Islam).

I'm not saying you can't learn more about religion, just that there is no new knowledge of God being added to help you move forward.

There is plenty of old knowledge to reflect upon as I stumble through life. The wonderful thing about spirituality is that, if open to revelation, it comes and brings new light to the revelations of others from the past or from different perspectives.

Of course, there are people who claim that God has given them direct instructions.

I haven't gotten "direct instructions", but I've gotten a direct "Finally, you got it! Blessed are you!"

Which to believe? How do you tell the real prophets from the charlatans? I'm guessing you believe the ones who align most closely with what you already believe.

Not necessarily. After learning how other religions accept things differently than I have, and why, I am hesitant to reject them out of hand.

Why do so, then criticize others here for rejecting my beliefs and how I came about them out of hand?

I pray and reflect, holding things in memory or reflection until they become clearer (if ever).

Originally Posted by Huntster
As many as I can. I've only got so much time.

So, like the Yahwist you cite, you cobble together stories from a variety of places, "reorienting" them, adapting them, including the bits you like and discarding the bits you don't.

Nope. I'm not here building a new religion to unify mankind, or to create a following.

I'm marvelling at the diversity of humankind throughout history, who have accepted God in so many different ways, and who have evolved spiritually throughout this timeframe.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, you're speaking along the lines of Christ's famous statement:

Originally Posted by Jesus
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar, and unto God that which is God's.

Which would seem to say that we should let science answer scientific questions and not try to force-fit them into ancient mythology.

Correct.

And, along the way, argue with great glee with those who use science to attack religion, or who have turned science itself into a religion.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I have only so much need to mesh the physical with the spiritual, but there is some need. I have been taught that the three main enemies of the spirit are 1) The World, 2) The Flesh, and 3) The Evil One. So, obviously, the physical is part of the whole. Other religions recognize that as well.

Some say similar things, some don't. Many religions aren't that big on The Flesh being such an enemy, and indeed, even parts of the Bible seem to be a celebration of The Flesh (Songs of Solomon in particular). So once again, you are "cherry-picking" the parts that agree with what you already believed.

Still trying to turn my faith against me somehow? Hate religion so much you just can't stand the idea of someone who is enjoying it?

I'm not "cherry-picking" anything. I'm picking fruit from all over the garden. They all taste great!

'The Flesh" as an enemy of the spirit is a concept which is hundreds of years old within Catholicism. I learned of it first in "Unseen Warfare: The Spiritual Combat and Path to Paradise of Lorenzo Scupoli", a 500 year old book written by a monk named Lorenzo Scupoli, resurrected and revised several times since. It is a masterpiece. More recent readings have referred to this concept. I accept it, because I can see it in my life, and in society around me.

Originally Posted by Huntster
It is a huge region. With only so much road map, it's easy to find oneself "wandering." As long as I don't get "lost", I'm happy.

I'm dubious. You certainly sound angry a lot.

Eager confrontation and self-confidence aren't necessarily anger. And even if they were, so what? I'm as human as the next guy.

At any rate, what does that have to do with seeking spiritual truth, or rejecting the possibility that it even exists?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Of course, I could just stay home, watch TV, and repeat the worldly mantra regarding "sky fairies", "sky chieftains", etc.

I'm guessing this is supposed to be a straw man of skeptics.

I have no idea what they are. You tell me. I sure get it a lot from people who proudly proclaim to be "skeptics."

People compare your God to those things because He seems to share lots of characteristics with them, primarily that their existence is based on faith rather than evidence.

I have no idea what "sky-fairies" or "sky-chieftains" are. Never heard of them before arriving at this forum.

For the record, I haven't said any of those things to you. I even capitalize God as a mark of respect for your beliefs.

I agree that's so, and I appreciate your respect. Further, I appreciate your frankness and humor. You can be fun to exchange posts with.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Have you "knocked"?

Often. I was confirmed into the Episcopal church. I still would welcome evidence of a loving God.

You may never get evidence to your satisfaction. I wish you would, but it appears not to work that way.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Just more difference in human interpretations, in my opinion. I don't know anything about "Scientology", and have no inclination to check it out, either. I'll stick with the eons-old basic faiths, and try to get as much as I can from them.

Well, so much for including the sages of all religions.

Yeah, okay. Maybe not all.

By a "sage" of Scientology, would you be referring to L. Ron Hubbard?:

The word Scientology literally means "the study of truth." It comes from the Latin word "scio" meaning "knowing in the fullest sense of the word" and the Greek word "logos" meaning "study of."

Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. The Scientology religion comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by personally applying its principles and observing or experiencing results.

Through Scientology, people all over the world are achieving the long-sought goal of true spiritual release and freedom.

Could be interesting. I can already see things I can't agree with fully, as well as some I can.

Back in the late 70's sometime, while going to college in California, I somehow ended up in an office nearly registering with the Church of Scientology. The discussions I had with the lady who was their rep gave me a bad feeling. I left in peace without giving her my name. I guess that may have tainted my opinion of them. I've also heard some negative stuff about them. But having not studied it in depth, I can't judge well, even for myself. At any rate, there's no need. I've got plenty of study on my nightstand already.

Originally Posted by Huntster
As far as modernity is concerned, the physical sciences appear to be progressing well. I'll rely on "science" for them, thanks.

I see you do, as regards computers and the like. But when the physical science conflict with your mythology, you abandon your reliance on them.

Not at all. And besides, computers don't interfere with my spirituality at all. In fact, it has become a boon for it.

The physical is just another part of my own "trinity". There is good and bad with it, just like everything else.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Learning from the past is the foundation of learning.

Yes, but a building must have more than a foundation. You must build on top of it.

Yup.

I've got a great foundation. I'm still acquiring building materials for the framework.

Some have rejected the foundation itself.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Obviously, we don't know the names of the authors.

Well, then what was the source of their information prior to Genesis 1:27?

I don't know.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Like Canadian Malcontent has pointed out, for a document finally "published" some 2,600 years ago, it meshes remarkably well with what has been learned since.

Meshes well with what new learning? Science? Geography? Astronomy? Archeology? Can you give an example of something we learned recently that was disclosed in the bible? 400 years ago, Galileo discovered many things that don't mesh well with what the bible tells us.

Evolution, for one. The chronology of the Genesis story shows a series of "days" in which the world and biological life as we know it forming.

The more we learn, the more errors we find in the bible. These are clearly because of ignorance on the part of all of humanity at the time, and become apparent because of our continual pursuit of knowledge since then. If these writings were divinely inspired or the words of god, one would assume he would understand the orbital relationship of the sun and its planets.

So, God should have given early man a complete, accurate, documented, and signed blueprint at the beginning? No evolution? No learning? No trial and error?

No, thanks.

Back to the Harry Potter example. 2600 years from now, one could learn a great deal about our culture from reading those books. King's Cross Station is a real place. If archeologists 2600 years in the future dig up the ruins of King's Cross Station, would that be grounds to assume the Potter books are factual accounts of the lives of wizards and witches?

That might be their deductions.

They'd be wrong, wouldn't they? But isn't that happening today in some fields of science?

 

[Freethinker]

Evolution, for one. The chronology of the Genesis story shows a series of "days" in which the world and biological life as we know it forming.

So the bible is allegorical?

So, God should have given early man a complete, accurate, documented, and signed blueprint at the beginning? No evolution? No learning? No trial and error?

No, thanks.

As opposed to an error filled substitute? No information would be far preferable to false information.

 

[I less than three logic]

They'd be wrong, wouldn't they? But isn't that happening today in some fields of science?

Biblical archeology?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Reconstructing him makes him alive again. Today he is dead. The evidence is overwhelming. It cannot be denied by any sane individual.

The evidence is overwhelming. Only an insane person would deny that he is dead (like a religious person who claimed he was "alive in heaven").

I believe he is still spiritually alive. That's why I specifically stated that a biological entity is alive or dead.

But it is still overwhelming evidence, not proof, in the scientific sense.

Overwhelming evidence is proof. In the case of a biological entity being dead or alive, especially years after death, it is biological proof. It is scientific proof.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Proof. It exists in some cases. To deny it is a faith; a religion; a dogma.

Ah, Huntster, I had hope that you wouldn't be reduced to this type of defense.

I am not defending anything. It is offense.

You never met Jedi Knight who made similar arguments.

I've never met a Jedi Knight, period. In fact, I never saw the movie, either.

When backed into a corner, he finally was reduced to claiming that anything a person believed in, like personal hygene or changing your oil regularly, was a religion.

Religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

The denial of the existence of "proof" on conceptual grounds is "a specific fundamental" belief, especially when it is clearly false.

Are you gonna go down that long dark path?

Apparently we're going together.

You don't want Sceptic Realist to be disappointed in your arguing skills, now do you?

I wouldn't much give a damn what Sceptic Realist or anybody else thinks of me in any regard. I thought you knew that by now.

Originally Posted by Huntster
To say that science rejects the principle of "proof" is dogma. Religion. Doctrine. A settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

So belief that nothing is settled is an settled belief?

Yup. Sure is.

Well, oh master of conundrums, try this one one:

This statement is a lie.

So unless you can show me what's wrong with that statement, you will excuse me if I fail to be impressed with your circular logic.

I find nothing wrong with the statement at all. I cannot confirm it, deny it, understand it, have no use for it, and find no meaning in it, but it is in proper sentence form.

And I find nothing unusual seeing such a statement coming from you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Did you read the.............................?

(Any more stupid/ignorant/arrogant/whatever-you-want-to-call-it questions?)

Did I read the what?

The...........................?

Again, any more stupid/ignorant/arrogant/whatever-you-want-to-call-it questions?

Did I read Tricky’s post? Yes. Did I read your reply to that post? Yes. It appears I even went a step further and actually understood Tricky’s post as well, because after reading his post and your reply, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it.

Apparently so. That must be why you asked me the stupid (or sarcastic, or insulting, or fill-in-your-poison) question.

So why don't you just continue drawing your conclusions, and continue asking me stupid, insulting, sarcastic, or fill-in-the-blank questions, and I'll continue to ignore you, or return the insult.

Deal?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Evolution, for one. The chronology of the Genesis story shows a series of "days" in which the world and biological life as we know it forming.

So the bible is allegorical?

The first part of Genesis certainly appears to be. Indeed, how can people at such a time reflect with authority upon things that occurred before the dawn of humanity?

In fact, how can they reflect on the creation of the Heavens and Earth at all, unless they just guessed, reasoned very well, were subject to divine revelation, or a mixture of the above?

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, God should have given early man a complete, accurate, documented, and signed blueprint at the beginning? No evolution? No learning? No trial and error?

No, thanks.

As opposed to an error filled substitute? No information would be far preferable to false information.

So humanity, from before the dawn of sentient man to the advent of modern science, should have been prohibited from reflecting on their creation because they weren't technolgically achieved enough to draw up that error-free blueprint?

Man must be perfect, or don't show up?

I'm sure glad you aren't God. You're a lot more cruel than even people around here claim God is.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
They'd be wrong, wouldn't they? But isn't that happening today in some fields of science?

Biblical archeology?

Human evolution?

 

[Tricky]

I'm not so ready to reject that possibility, either. Like you arguing from the possibility of JFK being resurrected, I don't know what the future holds.

And I agree that it is possible that the future could possibly validate metaphysics. Based on what I’ve seen though, I find it unlikely.

But today? It's a matter of faith or doubt.

I disagree. It is a matter of relying on faith, or a matter of relying on evidence. I find faith to be unreliable. Lots of people have faith in lots of things, many of which are nonsensical. Don’t you agree?

There is plenty of old knowledge to reflect upon as I stumble through life. The wonderful thing about spirituality is that, if open to revelation, it comes and brings new light to the revelations of others from the past or from different perspectives.

There is a lot of old knowledge, but it is a pittance compared to new knowledge. All of the holy books of the major religions could be held within a single room. All of the knowledge of the last century could not be held in the Smithsonian Institute.

I haven't gotten "direct instructions", but I've gotten a direct "Finally, you got it! Blessed are you!"

God spoke to you? Personally? Do you have it on your answering machine, or is it the sort of communication which only you can hear? In short, how can an independent observer tell the difference between your communication with God, and simple imagination? Let me guess. Faith?

Not necessarily. After learning how other religions accept things differently than I have, and why, I am hesitant to reject them out of hand.

Since you call atheism a religion, are you hesitant to reject it out of hand? Are you open to the possibility that there is no God?

Why do so, then criticize others here for rejecting my beliefs and how I came about them out of hand?

I have criticized them. I have said that even atheists should not say something is impossible (in contrast to what some atheists say). I say that they should call your beliefs “extremely unlikely”. But since you insist…

This is Tricky talking to all you atheists out there? Shut the f*** up about this “impossible” stuff. Nothing is impossible. Some things are so unlikely that only insane people would believe them, as Huntster has agreed. That should be enough for you.

I pray and reflect, holding things in memory or reflection until they become clearer (if ever).

But how do you know if you’re right? Does it just “feel right” or do you actually do double-blind tests?

Nope. I'm not here building a new religion to unify mankind, or to create a following.

Well, from what I observe, your beliefs are different from those of most Christians. You may not be trying to create a following, but you are doing the same things they do. How do you know that the Yahwist wasn’t doing exactly the same thing you are doing, but it caught on?

I'm marveling at the diversity of humankind throughout history, who have accepted God in so many different ways, and who have evolved spiritually throughout this timeframe.

And I’m marveling that some humans throughout history have managed to escape religious indoctrination and religious thought to actually question the beliefs they were fed to evolve intellectually. It is a hard thing to do. It is also so very unpopular that no admitted atheist could ever hold a high-level public office. Do you deny this is true?

And, along the way, argue with great glee with those who use science to attack religion, or who have turned science itself into a religion.

Again, I warn you against the taking the “science is a religion” tack. You will be cornered by your own definitions and humiliated. Yeah, I know. You ain’t losin’ no sleep over it. But you will weaken your position. Not all atheists will be as gentle with you as I.

Still trying to turn my faith against me somehow? Hate religion so much you just can't stand the idea of someone who is enjoying it?

I see you have ignored my very legitimate example and turned it into a personal attack. No, I want you to be happy. I want all people to be happy, provided they don’t do so at the expense of the happiness of other people. I think my point about the Bible sometimes supporting the joys of The Flesh is legitimate. Do you disagree with the specific example of the Songs of Solomon? If so, why?

I’m not trying to “turn your faith against you” Huntster. I’m trying to show you that a person can have faith in the Bible, and yet still have any moral beliefs they choose.

I'm not "cherry-picking" anything. I'm picking fruit from all over the garden. They all taste great!

But you only pick the fruit which appeals to you. You don’t sample everything. You don’t sample “atheistfruit”. You don’t sample “scientologyfruit”. I admit that I don’t sample every religion either, though, like you, I am somewhat familiar with most of the major ones. Buddhism and neopaganism in particular hold some appeal to me. But I always run up against the same wall: Why should I believe them? What evidence do they have? Always the only answer I find is “None. Only faith.” Same as Christianity.

'The Flesh" as an enemy of the spirit is a concept which is hundreds of years old within Catholicism. I learned of it first in "Unseen Warfare: The Spiritual Combat and Path to Paradise of Lorenzo Scupoli", a 500 year old book written by a monk named Lorenzo Scupoli, resurrected and revised several times since. It is a masterpiece. More recent readings have referred to this concept. I accept it, because I can see it in my life, and in society around me.

Yet, humanity would not have propagated were it not for this enemy of the spirit which you call “The Flesh”.

Don’t get me wrong. I am well aware of what hormonal crimes is a part of our society. Rape is a horrible thing, as is pedophilia. But it is part of the package. We must try to discourage sex crimes while not saying “sex is evil”, or else we would cease to exist as a species. Religion is one way that has been tried for doing this. I would even agree that it hasn’t done a terrible job, although it goes overboard some times.

But I digress. This is a topic for another thread.

Eager confrontation and self-confidence aren't necessarily anger. And even if they were, so what? I'm as human as the next guy.

Okay, I will surrender this point, lest I be hoist by my own petard. Willingness to argue is not an indication of unhappiness. I was wrong to imply that. I love arguing. I am very happy.

At any rate, what does that have to do with seeking spiritual truth, or rejecting the possibility that it even exists?

Nothing. I was in error. Mia culpa.

I have no idea what they are. You tell me. I sure get it a lot from people who proudly proclaim to be "skeptics."

I have no idea what "sky-fairies" or "sky-chieftains" are. Never heard of them before arriving at this forum.

They are simplistic parodies of your God. Yet their parodies are based on obvious traits, or they would not be recognizable as such. I suspect that you know this, but are feigning innocence.

I agree that's so, and I appreciate your respect. Further, I appreciate your frankness and humor. You can be fun to exchange posts with.

Thank you sir, and I return the compliment. No one could ever accuse you of being less than forthright. Though I disagree with you on practically everything, I do not consider that a bar to respectful debate. But I will use sarcasm and parody, just as you do. I consider them valid tools of debate.

You may never get evidence to your satisfaction. I wish you would, but it appears not to work that way.

I may not. The fact that an all-powerful God won’t provide such evidence to those that seek it seems to me to be evidence against an all-powerful God. I cannot see a valid reason why He wouldn’t provide such evidence to sincere seekers.

Yeah, okay. Maybe not all.

By a "sage" of Scientology, would you be referring to L. Ron Hubbard?:

That’s the guy. Oh, their religion is total BS if you ask me, so I don’t blame you for not seeking too deeply. But maybe you shouldn’t ask me, because I think all religion is total BS. Except science, personal hygiene and changing your oil regularly. I believe in those religions. (I said I consider sarcasm a valid debating tool, did I not?)

Could be interesting. I can already see things I can't agree with fully, as well as some I can.

Back in the late 70's sometime, while going to college in California, I somehow ended up in an office nearly registering with the Church of Scientology. The discussions I had with the lady who was their rep gave me a bad feeling. I left in peace without giving her my name. I guess that may have tainted my opinion of them. I've also heard some negative stuff about them. But having not studied it in depth, I can't judge well, even for myself. At any rate, there's no need. I've got plenty of study on my nightstand already.

I was exposed to scientology by a beautiful young lady who knocked on my door. We talked about it at some length, and it sounded pretty cool, so I bought her book and read it. After doing so, I realized that no pretty face (or potential sex) was worth forsaking rational belief. But I still wanted to hump her. Damn hormones.

Not at all. And besides, computers don't interfere with my spirituality at all. In fact, it has become a boon for it.

But if you found that computers relied on evolution to operate, would you feel the same way? They are both based on scientific theories. You reject one because it “interferes with your spirituality”, yet the principle of using evidence to advance science is the same. You have a spiritual prejudice which I don’t consider admirable.

The physical is just another part of my own "trinity". There is good and bad with it, just like everything else.

Okay, just like everything else, what do you consider bad about your God? How would you improve Him?

I don’t expect you to give me a rational answer to this question. Your God, by definition, cannot be questioned or improved. Your religion exists apart from all worldly things and is not subject to the same rules or the same scrutiny. Such is the nature of religion. I don’t agree with it, but I know the rules of the game. I used to play it myself.

Some have rejected the foundation itself.

I’m not one of those. I fully recognize our religious history. I know that many of our moral codes come from religion. Such recognition does not require that I believe in God or accept religious tenets. It just means that I have studied history and learned from it. I don’t have to repeat it.

 

[I less than three logic]

Human evolution?

Just humans?

 

[PDX.MN]

Of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but why so many people choose to live in ignorance. . .

Because ignorances is...bliss?

There are so many issues and topics that are hard for people to face the reality of because of religion, superstition, cultural conformity, or personal guilt. Better to live in denial than to reconsider; change is uncomfortable. People love their comfort zones!

Jen

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Human evolution?

Just humans?

Just some interpretations of what was human during the evolution of hominids.

 

[Foster Zygote]

In fact, how can they reflect on the creation of the Heavens and Earth at all, unless they just guessed, reasoned very well, were subject to divine revelation, or a mixture of the above?

There's nothing wrong with speculation per se, but do you have any evidence that they were subject to divine revelation? I'm sure in their minds they were reasoning it out to the best of their abilities but the same can be said of physicians who bled people. There are many creation myths throughout human history. How are we to determine which were inspired by gods and which were just mythology?

So humanity, from before the dawn of sentient man to the advent of modern science, should have been prohibited from reflecting on their creation because they weren't technolgically achieved enough to draw up that error-free blueprint?

First of all, no honest scientist would claim to have an error-free blueprint for anything. All scientific knowledge is open to revision in the light of new evidence. I must confess that I actually agree with you on this one small point: We cannot have expected to learn what we know without making a lot of mistakes in the past. In the future we will no doubt have current mistakes uncovered. But the fact that we longed to know our origins and the workings of the universe at all eventually led to the discovery of the investigative methodology we call "science". We shouldn't begrudge our ancestors their superstitions any more than we should begrudge astronomers who believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. But those who still cling to superstition in the face of contrary evidence are little different from an astronomer who still clings to Geocentricism.

Or as Issac Asimove put it:

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Steven

 

[The Atheist]

Or as Issac Asimove put it:


Steven

I don't know that that's a great one to use - I've always felt Asimov was a bit too smart for his own good with that quote.

Given the bounds of science and human knowledge at the time the Earth was indisputably flat, I don't think "wrong" is right. Ignorant, certainly. Taking those conditions into account, it could be that thinking the Earth is spherical was actually "wronger" than earlier people thinking it was flat, even though less "ignorant".

I agree entirely with your thinking, I just don't think that's the best one around.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm not so ready to reject that possibility, either. Like you arguing from the possibility of JFK being resurrected, I don't know what the future holds.

And I agree that it is possible that the future could possibly validate metaphysics. Based on what I’ve seen though, I find it unlikely.

Me, too, at least in the near future. But science is moving quickly, and accelerating. Who knows.........................................?

Originally Posted by Huntster
But today? It's a matter of faith or doubt.

I disagree. It is a matter of relying on faith, or a matter of relying on evidence. I find faith to be unreliable. Lots of people have faith in lots of things, many of which are nonsensical. Don’t you agree?

Of course I agree.

And I don't need to rely on faith in many respects, but spirituality and God require either faith or doubt. I have chosen faith.

Originally Posted by Huntster
There is plenty of old knowledge to reflect upon as I stumble through life. The wonderful thing about spirituality is that, if open to revelation, it comes and brings new light to the revelations of others from the past or from different perspectives.

There is a lot of old knowledge, but it is a pittance compared to new knowledge.

Correct, but the old knowledge is already here, packaged, catalogued, and available. All one has to do is consume it, remember it, and reflect on it.

New knowledge requires discovery. That can be difficult and expensive stuff.

I'll leave that to the discoverers.

All of the holy books of the major religions could be held within a single room. All of the knowledge of the last century could not be held in the Smithsonian Institute.

All of the knowledge of the last century doesn't interest me.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I haven't gotten "direct instructions", but I've gotten a direct "Finally, you got it! Blessed are you!"

God spoke to you?

It wasn't "speech."

Personally?

Yup.

Do you have it on your answering machine, or is it the sort of communication which only you can hear?

No answering machine. I hate those things, anyway.

And it wasn't "speech" that is "heard."

In short, how can an independent observer tell the difference between your communication with God, and simple imagination?

An independent observer? He/she couldn't possibly participate, at least I can't imagine how.

Let me guess. Faith?

Well, not really. The revelation came at a certain, significant point in prayer, and was directly related to the focus of that prayer. It was too powerful to require faith. There was an aura of certainty, both in my prayer, and in the revelation. And my life changed significantly afterwards. The matter of faith regarding that incident wasn't necessary. The power of the event combined with the change afterward negated the need for belief.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not necessarily. After learning how other religions accept things differently than I have, and why, I am hesitant to reject them out of hand.

Since you call atheism a religion, are you hesitant to reject it out of hand? Are you open to the possibility that there is no God?

Actually, I'm not sure whether atheism is a religion or an anti-religion. At any rate, yes; I reject it out of hand for me. I'm not open to the possibility that there is no God. Others are free to choose as they wish.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Why do so, then criticize others here for rejecting my beliefs and how I came about them out of hand?

I have criticized them. I have said that even atheists should not say something is impossible (in contrast to what some atheists say). I say that they should call your beliefs “extremely unlikely”. But since you insist…

This is Tricky talking to all you atheists out there? Shut the f*** up about this “impossible” stuff. Nothing is impossible. Some things are so unlikely that only insane people would believe them, as Huntster has agreed. That should be enough for you.

I don't insist you do anything, although I hope the atheists honor your order to shut the **** up (at least those who like to belittle my faith).

But that would be impossible, even though nothing is impossible, right?

Therefore, **** 'em; feed 'em cake.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I pray and reflect, holding things in memory or reflection until they become clearer (if ever).

But how do you know if you’re right? Does it just “feel right” or do you actually do double-blind tests?

I don't "know." Why is that so difficult for so many to understand? To "know" is to establish as fact. It's like the difference between "evidence" and "proof" (which you actually deny even exists).

I cannot know a matter which requires faith. And double-blind tests simply won't work. This is a field which, by definition, is super-natural, because it is not of the physical world.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope. I'm not here building a new religion to unify mankind, or to create a following.

Well, from what I observe, your beliefs are different from those of most Christians.

They're not so much different as they are not as limited as the beliefs of many Christians.

You may not be trying to create a following, but you are doing the same things they do. How do you know that the Yahwist wasn’t doing exactly the same thing you are doing, but it caught on?

I don't. Nor do I care. Nor do I know or care if the Yahwist tried or not to create a following.

What I care about is my faith, my spiritual growth, my relationship with the Almighty God, and I don't have to worry about anything else. It's all taken care of.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm marveling at the diversity of humankind throughout history, who have accepted God in so many different ways, and who have evolved spiritually throughout this timeframe.

And I’m marveling that some humans throughout history have managed to escape religious indoctrination and religious thought to actually question the beliefs they were fed to evolve intellectually. It is a hard thing to do. It is also so very unpopular that no admitted atheist could ever hold a high-level public office. Do you deny this is true?

Nope. Not only do I not deny it, I'll openly state that I won't knowingly vote for an atheist for any public office.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And, along the way, argue with great glee with those who use science to attack religion, or who have turned science itself into a religion.

Again, I warn you against the taking the “science is a religion” tack. You will be cornered by your own definitions and humiliated. Yeah, I know. You ain’t losin’ no sleep over it. But you will weaken your position. Not all atheists will be as gentle with you as I.

Oh, please; you know: (1) That the "science is a religion" tack isn't universal, and I don't imply that all atheists treat it as such, and (2) your warnings, any weakness others perceive in my "position", and "gentle" atheists aren't considerations to me. I'll write what I see, know, and/or believe. I don't give much of a damn what others think of me or anything else.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Still trying to turn my faith against me somehow? Hate religion so much you just can't stand the idea of someone who is enjoying it?

I see you have ignored my very legitimate example and turned it into a personal attack.

Personal attack? Those are a couple of frikken questions!!

No, I want you to be happy. I want all people to be happy, provided they don’t do so at the expense of the happiness of other people. I think my point about the Bible sometimes supporting the joys of The Flesh is legitimate. Do you disagree with the specific example of the Songs of Solomon? If so, why?

I have no problem with the joys and pleasures of the flesh, and nor does the RCC doctrine. There is a big difference between the joys of the flesh, the sins of the flesh, and the flesh as an enemy of the spirit.

The Song of Songs? Why do you think it was included in the Bible? It is a beautiful celebration of love. There is no prohibition of lovers' joy in Catholicism. It is encouraged.

I’m not trying to “turn your faith against you” Huntster. I’m trying to show you that a person can have faith in the Bible, and yet still have any moral beliefs they choose.

I don't see how, if they differ from those set forth by Christ.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm not "cherry-picking" anything. I'm picking fruit from all over the garden. They all taste great!

But you only pick the fruit which appeals to you. You don’t sample everything. You don’t sample “atheistfruit”. You don’t sample “scientologyfruit”.

When I'm hunting or fishing in the woods, I don't eat amanita mushrooms, either.

I'm not stupid.

I admit that I don’t sample every religion either, though, like you, I am somewhat familiar with most of the major ones. Buddhism and neopaganism in particular hold some appeal to me. But I always run up against the same wall: Why should I believe them? What evidence do they have? Always the only answer I find is “None. Only faith.” Same as Christianity.

Well, imagine that.................................!

Originally Posted by Huntster
'The Flesh" as an enemy of the spirit is a concept which is hundreds of years old within Catholicism. I learned of it first in "Unseen Warfare: The Spiritual Combat and Path to Paradise of Lorenzo Scupoli", a 500 year old book written by a monk named Lorenzo Scupoli, resurrected and revised several times since. It is a masterpiece. More recent readings have referred to this concept. I accept it, because I can see it in my life, and in society around me.

Yet, humanity would not have propagated were it not for this enemy of the spirit which you call “The Flesh”.

We're not going to the obscene point of "all sex is a sin of the flesh", are we?

Don’t get me wrong. I am well aware of what hormonal crimes is a part of our society. Rape is a horrible thing, as is pedophilia. But it is part of the package. We must try to discourage sex crimes while not saying “sex is evil”, or else we would cease to exist as a species. Religion is one way that has been tried for doing this. I would even agree that it hasn’t done a terrible job, although it goes overboard some times.

But I digress. This is a topic for another thread.

Ban sex because of the rapists? Like gun control? Hell, that Huntster guy doesn't need to go hunting, anyway. Let him eat our Wyoming beef.

Not you, Tricky! Say it ain't so.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Eager confrontation and self-confidence aren't necessarily anger. And even if they were, so what? I'm as human as the next guy.

Okay, I will surrender this point, lest I be hoist by my own petard. Willingness to argue is not an indication of unhappiness. I was wrong to imply that. I love arguing. I am very happy.

I can tell. I can see it as clear as day in your verbs.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I have no idea what they are. You tell me. I sure get it a lot from people who proudly proclaim to be "skeptics."

I have no idea what "sky-fairies" or "sky-chieftains" are. Never heard of them before arriving at this forum.

They are simplistic parodies of your God. Yet their parodies are based on obvious traits, or they would not be recognizable as such. I suspect that you know this, but are feigning innocence.

Not really. Like I've repeatedly written, I don't watch much TV. Who knows? These idiots might be parroting some silly TV thing.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I agree that's so, and I appreciate your respect. Further, I appreciate your frankness and humor. You can be fun to exchange posts with.

Thank you sir, and I return the compliment. No one could ever accuse you of being less than forthright. Though I disagree with you on practically everything, I do not consider that a bar to respectful debate. But I will use sarcasm and parody, just as you do. I consider them valid tools of debate.

Great tools, too. And fun!

Originally Posted by Huntster
You may never get evidence to your satisfaction. I wish you would, but it appears not to work that way.

I may not. The fact that an all-powerful God won’t provide such evidence to those that seek it seems to me to be evidence against an all-powerful God. I cannot see a valid reason why He wouldn’t provide such evidence to sincere seekers.

Because He absolutely requires faith. Christ stressed it repeatedly, past the point of obviousness.

Evidence destroys faith, and enables knowledge.

I wonder if, in the next life, obviously not physical, if knowledge has no utility, and faith is absolutely essential, and that's why it's important to instill and grow here?

Originally Posted by Huntster
By a "sage" of Scientology, would you be referring to L. Ron Hubbard?:

That’s the guy. Oh, their religion is total BS if you ask me, so I don’t blame you for not seeking too deeply. But maybe you shouldn’t ask me, because I think all religion is total BS. Except science, personal hygiene and changing your oil regularly. I believe in those religions. (I said I consider sarcasm a valid debating tool, did I not?)

How many miles do you allow before religiously changing oil and filter?

(This is a test of faith. The number of miles will reveal your faith).

Originally Posted by Huntster
Could be interesting. I can already see things I can't agree with fully, as well as some I can.

Back in the late 70's sometime, while going to college in California, I somehow ended up in an office nearly registering with the Church of Scientology. The discussions I had with the lady who was their rep gave me a bad feeling. I left in peace without giving her my name. I guess that may have tainted my opinion of them. I've also heard some negative stuff about them. But having not studied it in depth, I can't judge well, even for myself. At any rate, there's no need. I've got plenty of study on my nightstand already.

I was exposed to scientology by a beautiful young lady who knocked on my door. We talked about it at some length, and it sounded pretty cool, so I bought her book and read it. After doing so, I realized that no pretty face (or potential sex) was worth forsaking rational belief. But I still wanted to hump her. Damn hormones.

The lady I talked to was a looker, too. I didn't think much of sex. I know what Mrs. Huntster would think of that, and this woman had a real way-out look in her eyes. Kinda scary.

No, thanks.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not at all. And besides, computers don't interfere with my spirituality at all. In fact, it has become a boon for it.

But if you found that computers relied on evolution to operate, would you feel the same way?

Computers have come about through evolution.

They are both based on scientific theories. You reject one because it “interferes with your spirituality”, yet the principle of using evidence to advance science is the same. You have a spiritual prejudice which I don’t consider admirable.

I don't reject evolution at all. I accept it, including human evolution.

I just don't accept it as it is widely recognized. In fact, I find the "Scopes" culture war foolish, and hold science and pseudo-scientists to blame for that along with fundamental Christians. Many of the Christians have a decent excuse for their foolishness (a lack of education), but science (holding itself as so intelligent in it's "evidence" and even "proof") isn't so easy to excuse, especially when the pseudo-scientists try to use it to attack my religious faith.

Originally Posted by Huntster
The physical is just another part of my own "trinity". There is good and bad with it, just like everything else.

Okay, just like everything else, what do you consider bad about your God?

Absolutely nothing.

How would you improve Him?

I couldn't if I tried.

I don’t expect you to give me a rational answer to this question. Your God, by definition, cannot be questioned or improved.

Not by me.

Your religion exists apart from all worldly things and is not subject to the same rules or the same scrutiny.

It transcends the physical universe, and is not subject to physical law.

Such is the nature of religion. I don’t agree with it, but I know the rules of the game. I used to play it myself.

You still do, whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Some have rejected the foundation itself.

I’m not one of those. I fully recognize our religious history. I know that many of our moral codes come from religion. Such recognition does not require that I believe in God or accept religious tenets. It just means that I have studied history and learned from it. I don’t have to repeat it.

You may not have control.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

Thank you sir, and I return the compliment. No one could ever accuse you of being less than forthright. Though I disagree with you on practically everything, I do not consider that a bar to respectful debate.

That is what I meant. It is quite refreshing that we have a religous person on this forum that argues both respectfully and with some thought put into his words, rather than meaningless bible - spouting (a la KK).