Debate split from God is Indescribable

[nebula]

I think we are in agreement, we just haven't realized it. . . . What i mean by this is that if there is a particular emotion that is your aim, be it peace, happiness or meaning, you don't need the universe to tell you that that is what you want, you simply know for yourself.

Wrong - my goal in life is not an emotion. Just because I said I prefer peace over happiness does not mean that is what I seek after above all things.

The greatest of all things is - what?

I'll give you a hint, it is not a thing nor a feeling.

[DozyBen]

DBen,

Some people, no matter how much they hear the Truth and reject the Truth, are in serious danger of never having the Truth. Having longwinded discussions that go nowhere just for the "fun" of it serves NO PURPOSE. I'd rather have a cup of tea and a good lie down. : )

You either hear the Truth and accept it or hear the Truth and reject it.

It's as simple as that.

This is the tricky bit which I've been trying to get past: How does someone identify the Truth? I think it's done by comparing experiences with other people and using reasoning and logic. I don't know why you're not an Islamist or a Buddist.

I called this little discussion fun because I didn't really expect you to change my views. I periodically indulge in forums of most religions and athiests to see if either side has anything more convincing than "I'm right, the others are wrong." However, I was willing to listen and respond to you seriously on the off-chance that I am wrong and that I should change my views. I figured this would be a lot better than getting sacrastic or nasty like some people do. It got fairly long winded because I didn't want to just dismiss anything you or nebula said.

Anyway. That cup of tea is calling. :-)

nebula

If you think that my mind is made up then you are mistaken. Finding that there is a natural explanation for things claimed to be supernatural simply puts doubt on the supernatural explanation. Then, given that no predictions can be made on supernatural knowledge but that they can on natural knowledge, it is reasonable and rational to behave as if there were no supernatural. This is what I do. As we've discussed, I can't say there is no supernatural because that would be inconsistent with my beliefs and logic.

[Guest HIS girl]

If you try to apply Earthly logic to Christianity you will fail. Spiritual logic - yes. And that DBen was the beginning of our never ending discussion......Individual experience..

As Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

John 3 v 12

[DozyBen]

If you try to apply Earthly logic to Christianity you will fail. Spiritual logic - yes. And that DBen was the beginning of our never ending discussion......Individual experience..

As Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

John 3 v 12

There is logic and there is other stuff. There is no such thing as earthly logic or spiritual logic, there is justlogic. The logic page on wikipedia lists 5 types of logic

Syllogistic - The parts of syllogistic, also known by the name term logic, were the analysis of the judgements into propositions consisting of two terms that are related by one of a fixed number of relations, and the expression of inferences by means of syllogisms that consisted of two propositions sharing a common term as premise, and a conclusion which was a proposition involving the two unrelated terms from the premises

Predicate - Logic as it is studied today is a very different subject to that studied before, and the principal difference is the innovation of predicate logic. Whereas Aristotelian syllogistic logic specified the forms that the relevant part of the involved judgements took, predicate logic allows sentences to be analysed into subject and argument in several different ways, thus allowing predicate logic to solve the problem of multiple generality that had perplexed medieval logicians. With predicate logic, for the first time, logicians were able to give an account of quantifiers general enough to express all arguments occurring in natural language.

Modal - In languages, modality deals with the phenomenon that sub-parts of a sentence may have their semantics modified by special verbs or modal particles. For example, "We go to the games" can be modified to give "We should go to the games", and "We can go to the games"" and perhaps "We will go to the games". More abstractly, we might say that modality affects the circumstances in which we take an assertion to be satisfied.

Mathematical - Mathematical logic really refers to two distinct areas of research: the first is the application of the techniques of formal logic to mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and the second, in the other direction, the application of mathematical techniques to the representation and analysis of formal logic.

Philsophical - Philosophical logic deals with formal descriptions of natural language. Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic. Philosophical logic is essentially a continuation of the traditional discipline that was called "Logic" before the invention of mathematical logic. Philosophical logic has a much greater concern with the connection between natural language and logic. As a result, philosophical logicians have contributed a great deal to the development of non-standard logics (e.g., free logics, tense logics) as well as various extensions of classical logic (e.g., modal logics), and non-standard semantics for such logics (e.g., Kripke's technique of supervaluations in the semantics of logic).

It has this interesting point regarding logic and the philsophy of language

Logic and the philosophy of language are closely related. Philosophy of language has to do with the study of how our language engages and interacts with our thinking. Logic has an immediate impact on other areas of study. Studying logic and the relationship between logic and ordinary speech can help a person better structure their own arguments and critique the arguments of others. Many popular arguments are filled with errors because so many people are untrained in logic and unaware of how to correctly formulate an argument.

It is in philosphical logic that religions gain all of their 'arguments'. Words are invented or twisted so that their meaning is distorted far enough for a particular point to appear coherent. An easy example is your creation of spiritual logic. Were this a real form of logic used to provide logical and unassailable arguments in favour of your proposition, we'd have all heard of it before but search for spiritual logic in wikipedia and the first match is spiritual abuse. Not what you'd intended for sure.

The fact that you have accepted your religion and the language you use with those beliefs mean that your logical capacity is impaired. I have taken great care to try to not mix words or use them out of context and have quoted several definitions to help me understand your points. However, you are satisfied that with the point that my search for truth and understanding will fail because I employ logic rather than whatever it is you use and call spiritual logic.

What I'm getting to is this:

We cannot create meaning for our own experiences. The way we understand our experiences is through other people. They provide us with the information to allow us to interpret our experiences. Once we accept a particular explanation it changes not only our memory of the original experience but also our interpretation of future experiences when they occur. This is because our expectations shape our experiences, something that has been evidenced many times. Thus, you've accepted the God did it information and shape future information or experiences to suit.

You won't see that you've been illogical because you've used language which appears consistent with your beliefs. I see it because I'm not using my beliefs, I'm using definitions which are nothing to do with me. You have faith that you cannot be wrong so therefore refuse to see that you're wrong although it may be that you have faith that what your preacher told you is right therefore you cannot be wrong. Either way your overwhelming faith and inability to view things objectively hinder your ability to apply logic in discussions/arguments.

I tell you what sucks the most though. It's damn hard to tell someone they're being illogical or irrational or unreasonable without worrying that you're going to offend them. Most people see those accusations as insults and I'm really not trying to be insulting. However, if you're not following logic then you're being illogical, there's no real way around it. And that sucks, sorry.

[nebula]

And for Christ's sake, nebula, what on earth are you thinking about endorsing the the Christian's Bill of Rights?

Actually, it's all about Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:14-16

14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;

15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

Romans 14:7-9

7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.

8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

You see, each "right" given has a Scriptural basis to it. This is the Scriptural basis for the "first right."

In fact, the author wrote this as a Christian call to the action of humility.

But truly I do not understand why this would anger you so much? You are not a Christian, so why should someone's creative way of reminding Christians of how to walk out their Christian life offend you?

[Kansasdad]

nebula

But you see, if there is no meaning to life, why bother comforting sorrow? After all, what is happiness and what is sadness but wasted emotions. Why have emotions at all, if there is no reason to exist? Why even bother living?

We atheists don't find the lack of inherent purpose in the universe and in our lives depressing because purpose is simply a means to and end. That end is happiness and fulfillment. When people ask what the meaning of life is, I don't think they are literally asking what is the purpose of life (though they probably think they are), they are actually asking what is required in life for happiness. This is a much simpler question and shouldn't be difficult for individuals to answer for themselves.

Why is happiness and fulfillment the end?

I would have thought that was self-evident. Happiness is what everyone desires, and this is mainly due to the fact that that's more or less how we define it. In other words, no matter what you find fun or satisfying, you define happiness as the feeling you get after that fun or satisfying event has occurred. So naturally happiness, by its very nature, is what everyone wants in the end.

How very selfish this concept is. All of life is about "my" happiness, and everything is measured against that one premise. Have you ever given thought to where that concept has led?

God Bless,

K.D.

[Smalcald]

There is a terrible misunderstanding in our culture about the difference between pleasure, happiness, and peace. All three are different concepts.

As far as logic goes, logic is itself of course a human construct, and a western human construct at that. Revelation has been an accepted way of knowing and being for many cultures and people, and it is what religious faith often is all about. Religious faith is

[MorningGlory]

1. Sorry, but the resurrection was not seen by anyone. Therefor no eyewitnesses. There appears to be circumstantial evidence that the body was missing but that is not eyewitness testimony as to a resurrection. Also note that this "evidence" was written down sometime later.

2. Who is/was he? No clue anymore. When, a number of years ago, I started reading and posting on fundamentalist Christian boards I was at least somewhat of a believer. But the nonsense that gets put forth by fundys in an attempt to force the evidence in the real world into Genesis made me question everything. Bottom line---I don't think there ever was a Jesus Christ, I think he was made up by the same type of control freaks as those who run the Islamic madrasas.

You're a sad, angry person, jukia.....I sincerely hope you come to the Truth before it's too late; that will be when you stand before the one you claim never existed.

[nebula]

The greatest of all things is - what?

I'll give you a hint, it is not a thing nor a feeling.

Is it a religious thing?

I hope you have been able to ponder this question over the past couple weeks.

Let me try this: If you lived alone, and if you had no one to spend time your free time with, no one to share your load, no one to play with, no one to talk to - would you ever be able to be happy, even if you had all your other needs met?

[nebula]

Of course not. Loneliness sucks, I've been there.

Yeah, it does.

So, when you are lonely, what is it that your life is without? (And I don't mean "people" - I mean something deeper.)