on discussing god and religion

The problem with this however is that, in one way or another, all of this would seem to be intertwined in the explanation – the explanation – for why something exist rather than nothing at all. And why this something and not another something instead.

To imagine that somehow we can extricate “practical truth” from “ontological truth” seems absurd to me.

And, when God and religion become intertwined in speculations of this sort, that brings us to the possibility of a “teleological truth” in turn.

In fact it might be reasonably argued that the invention of religion itself revolves in large part around a “self-conscious” species of animal able to wonder how day to day existence is intertwined in existence itself is intertwined in the meaning of it all.

But: what are the odds that what you or I think we know about all of this here and now, can in fact be demonstrated to reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to think in turn?

And then the part where some argue that morality is sync with rationality.

Again: What on earth does this pertain to? How on earth would you go about demonstrating that this is a legitimate view of God? Why on earth would those who insist that they are rational accept it as true?

Until you can reconfigure this into something substantive, something that goes beyond a “frame of mind”, you are asking others to simply believe that it is true because “in your head” here and now you believe that it is.

I merely suggest that you believe that this is true because in part it comforts and consoles you [psychologically] to believe that it is true.

In other words, religion as a defense mechanism.

But, admittedly, I am not myself able to demonstrate that this is the case. Then it all comes down to the part where it is incumbent upon those who believe in God to bring this God down to earth such that all reasonable men and women are in fact obligated to believe in a God, the God, my God in turn.

Really, what else is there but faith?

What else is there but faith? There is direct experience.

That’s a problem for him since he seems to be so invested in words.

He hasn’t had a direct experience and nobody can adequately convert their own direct experiences into words that he could consume.

So he has a dilemma.

Is he trying to solve it by asking for more inadequate words?

Does he see the futility of that effort and is he only talking about the dilemma to pass the time?

Or is he an evangelist for dasein and nihilism? Is he Illuminating the reality of our existence?

And Logic.

I would not lie concerning my having had direct God experiences. So the problem is not with the words I use to talk about them; it is a problem with anyone believing what I’m saying. We’re back to God is a verb, not a noun. Unless I prefer solipsism, I need to believe some of the things people tell me about what they experience.

Define direct experience as you mean it, Ierrellus?

Why should I waste my time redefining what I have stated over and over? A direct experience is one that is not preceded by its own descriptions. The event happens; the descriptions follow.

Some would say that the only direct experience of God is when God becomes visible in human form or speaks in human language. Anything less does not count.

I think that’s what she’s asking.

Well, like you, atheists had a particular set of personal experiences pertaining to God and religion. But, unlike you, they were not propelled by these experiences to believe in the existence of a God, the God, my God.

Or, like me, they once had a set of experiences that propelled them to believe in God and religion. But then tumbled into another set of experiences that yanked God and religion out of their life.

And the aim of this thread revolves around individuals, one by one, examining [and then describing] the manner in which they connect the dots between the behaviors that they choose “here and now” on this side of the grave in order to attain that which they would want their fate to be “there and then” on the other side of the grave.

And, for overwhelming preponderance of religious folks, that involves one or another rendition of Judgment Day.

I challenge you to note something [anything] that I have posted on this thread suggesting that you are not entitled to a set of personal beliefs with respect to God and religion.

That is the straw man here in my opinion.

And you are either able to reconfigure your own personal experiences and faith and belief into an argument that nudges atheists in the direction of God and religion or you are not.

But, ultimately, in my own opinion, the bottom line in a philosophy venue has to revolve around the extent to which you are able to demonstrate that what you believe “in your head” about these things is that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Nope, for me it still revolves more around this…

Figuring out the extent to which any particular investigation is or is not an actual autonomous undertaking. Until we can know for certain that this very exchange that we are having is not only as it ever could have been, it might just be.

Then what?

Yes, but how is that limitation embodied in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein pertinent to conflicting goods/value judgments? How do we ascertain when the data that we accumulate encompasses all of the data that would need to be accumlated in order to transend the existential parameters of “I” out in the is/ought world? The world that generates the overwhelming preponderance of human conflicts.

Here we have the historical data, the cultural data and the experiential data that any particular individuals back then accumulted in the course of living his or her personal life. How then is this integrated into the most reasonable point of view? Either with respect to a God or a No God world?

Imagine for example the “struggle” being endured right now by Christians in Puerto Rico. They may read the Bible from cover to cover, but who among them are saved and who among them will perish. Or, perhaps, wish that they had. To actual flesh and blood human beings this sort of “general description” of “projection” only takes them so far. But most Scriptures won’t really take them much further. So they take their own particular “leap of faith” to a narrative most likely to comfort and console them. While at the same time convincing themselves that their faith is not just about comfort and consolation.

My aim on this thread is to reconfigure “general description” conjectures of this sort into accounts of particular behaviors chosen in particular contexts in which God and religion figured into the calculations.

In other words, to what extent can we grapple with these individual experiences so as to intertwine them into a more measured, a more sophisticated conjecture regarding “what really happens”.

And [in my way of thinking] this always revolves around knowledge/beliefs that we either are or are not able to take “out of our heads” and convince others to share in turn. And then the extent to which together we can demonstrate substantively to more still that it is a reasonable way in which to assess “reality”.

After all, what else is there with respect to these particular relationships?

Again, back to the obvious:

1] there is a God or there is not a God
2] if there is a God, He either judges our behaviors on this side of the grave or He does not
3] if He does judge our behaviors on this side of the grave, we either take that into account in choosing our behaviors or we do not

All this thread does is to allow those who do believe in God to describe the manner in which their faith and/or understanding of Him can possibly be translated into descriptive words that encompass the existential parameters of these relationships.

As they go about the business of living their lives from day to day in a world in which they are likely to bump or thump into others who embody conflicting religious convictions.

And the only way in which I could construe this as futile is to insist that anyone who does factor God and religion into their value judgments and behaviors on this side of the grave are necessarily wrong because my own assessment here is necessarily right.

And not, in other words, just another existential contraption like theirs.

Sure, you can define the Real God into existence and insist that all logical discourse must then revolve around the assumption that logical discourse revolves around your definition of the Real God.

The tautological God? [-o<

That would be true if you did not pass judgement on their posts. Once that happens, then it’s no longer “all this thread does”.

In fact, you cut and paste posts from other threads and put them here specifically in order to comment on them. :open_mouth:

And you can continue to babble ignorance and stupidity, but look where it is getting you.

Biggie doesn’t care that it gets him nowhere, playing his game in nowheresville has always been his goal.

And to think I once actually took satisfaction in reducing folks down to this sort of, uh, retort. :laughing:

Again, with respect to what really motivates me here [subjunctively], I’m still convinced it more or less revolves around whatever this means:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
John Fowles

Human psychology [I suspect] will always be more than I can handle. And not just my own.

On the other hand, I have engaged in discussions with folks like Bob here, in which the “judgements” are kept to a minimum.

All it really takes is a respect for each other’s intelligence. And a willingness [on my part] to forgo polemics.

Unless of course by “judgement” you mean something else? :wink:

Where is there to go? There is no ‘there’ other than an imaginary place in a deluded mind.
I’d contend that this is the game we’re playing here; pretending there’s somewhere to go, some place to get to.

There’s that “deluded” word again. :evilfun:

For me the direct experience was like an electric shock in one instance and like a calm ripple of a stream in another. God does not come to me and speak to me in English, yet I’m aware of God’s presence when he does make it known. I know all this seems rather vague to a diehard nonbeliever such as Iamb. He still wants to be persuaded by those who believe that this life merits an afterlife of reward or punishment. For me, that’s infantile religiosity. Buddhism has moved far beyond that in basic religious psychology. For me a combination of Christianity and Buddhism is the best possible religion for the 21st century.