« Open Thread 43 (free speech for comments) | Main | A compassionate perspective on Sant Mat and the spiritual pursuit »

July 04, 2022

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good ones.

I realize this is just light-hearted stuff, but still, my favorites, and/or those that made me think:


(1) If someone says, I have complete faith in life after death being better than this life, reply: Then why haven't you committed suicide yet?

..........Some weirdos do that, actually! Those are outliers, though, even in the weirdo universe of theistic believers, so that's a good thing. But still.


(2) Anyone who rejects God is doomed to hell, reply: I'm sorry to hear of your impending horrific afterlife. Since there are thousands of different gods, you've rejected all but your single chosen god

..........Good one. Not a new one, obviously, but a great answer, and actually a deep answer for such theists as have not actually thought about this answer seriously.


(3) If someone says, Words are powerless to describe the Almighty Lord, reply: Then why don't you shut the fuck up.

..........Why don't they, indeed!


(4) If someone says, Atheism is a belief system just as much as religions are ...

..........That's one piece of silliness that one often comes across. I'm not sure the quick onliner of yours really deals with this. Probably a long-winded explanation about how that's a fallacious observation is the only way to go. On the other hand, the inveterate theist will only ignore what you've said, or word-salad their way to obfuscating their way out of the issue, and go back to doing their thing, so I'm not sure either approach actually works IRL. Still, maybe there's 1 in dozen theists that might, eventually, be able to respond to reason, and realize the utter irrationality of their beliefs.

And if some writes endless blogs about how God does not exist, then recommend reading about projection

How on earth does any of that amount to "projection", Felipe? Care to explain?

As for the "endless blog (posts)", I think Brian's doing a great job of it, both in terms of sussing things out for himself, as well as providing a truly invaluable resource for people to refer to and engage with.

But again, and regardless of whether you appreciate his blog or not, I'm curious how on earth you equate what he's doing with what psychology refers to as projection. Do please explain.

@ AR

As words like "projection" get an different connotation outside the study of an psychologist, I prefer to leave it for what it is.

That said its for sure that many if not all things people do are and "means to an end" and that end needs not to be related to the means at all.

So there can be many reasons for reading specific books that have nothing to do with the content of a book similarly, writting and reading here can be an means to an end that is not at all related to the content of the sissue discussed.

Hi, um.

Actually psychological projection is a fairly straightforward term. While it may take a psychologist to correctly diagnose projection, but roughly understanding what it might be in practice, is something anyone with a broad understanding of projection can do.

Ha ha, I do agree with you, when you suggest that "... many if not all things people do are and "means to an end" and that end needs not to be related to the means at all." If I understand you correctly, I think you're suggesting that Felipe finds Brian's blog disagreeable for some other reason, but rather than discussing those reasons --- which one suspects wouldn't stand up to scrutiny --- he resorts to throwing around this pseudo-psychological criticism instead.

But let's see if he responds, and clarifies to us himself what he meant to say.

If not, sure, like you suggest I'll "leave it for what it is", and let it go, absolutely.

@ AR

Hahaha ... Felipe is not the only one writing and reading here .... me too ... hahaha ... and you and, ... all the others .

@AR

And ...

>> Actually psychological projection is a fairly straightforward term. While it may take a psychologist to correctly diagnose projection, but roughly understanding what it might be in practice, is something anyone with a broad understanding of projection can do.<<

Most if not all of these words when they are used outside the study of an psychotherapist or counselor, by non professional, get and "emotional, judgmental" load. and can create in the "hand" of an skilled debater and negative double bind for the one at the "receiving" end.

Bur I am drifting away from the content at hand here ... hahaha ... back to the coffee.


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, keep in mind that these remarks come from a non-credible witness.

1) He owns that he's spent the better part of his life believing in God, and yet says that anyone who believes in God is "crazy." Ergo, he disqualifies himself as a credible witness to the matter of God's existence.
2) He not only admits that believed in God for decades but took initiation from a Guru and even traveled to India to get closer to God.
3) He's been asked repeatedly to explain where the universe and where life came from. Given that he never replies to these questions one can only conclude that he's wholly at a loss for answers. Yet he charges that the possibility of a Creator is "crazy."
4) He uses the familiar atheist trope of defining God as a person.
5) He still ardently searches for spiritual belief systems in books about Buddhism and Taoism. This clearly indicates he has a strong hunger to find a concept of God that won't offend him, and he has faith that he'll find this concept of God someday.

In summation, I ask you to take this hostile witness's testimony with a grain of salt, and moreover, I suggest you demand he provide answers as to the universe's origin and the start of life before you make the mistake of believing people of faith are crazy.

Generation77, I should have added a crazy thing about evolution, because you obviously don't believe in it. Species evolve. So do people. For 35 years I did embrace some crazy religious ideas. For the past 17 years I've been steadily evolving toward a saner perception of reality, with most of that progress occurring early on in my evolution from religious believer to open-minded atheist.

Also, did you even read this blog post? Doesn't seem like it, since if you had, you would have read:

"If someone says, God must exist eternally, because the cosmos couldn't create itself, reply: If nothing created an eternal God, then nothing could have created an eternal cosmos, the difference being that the cosmos clearly is real, and there's no demonstrable evidence of God."

A creator of the universe must have existed eternally, or the creator would need a creator. So obviously a simpler explanation of why the universe exists is that it has always existed in one form or another, being eternal. Science doesn't know for sure how this has taken place, but reasonable theories exist that are much more believable than the simplistic "God created the universe."

He's been asked repeatedly to explain where the universe and where life came from. Given that he never replies to these questions one can only conclude that he's wholly at a loss for answers. Yet he charges that the possibility of a Creator is "crazy." (...) I suggest you demand he provide answers as to the universe's origin and the start of life before you make the mistake of believing people of faith are crazy.

----------


G77, that's something you'd asked me. And I think I presented to you a fairly complete answer --- if one lacking in detailed fleshing out, because I didn't take the time and trouble to reference anything beyond my own less than perfect recall.

Let's take the former question, that I did answer in some detail at least, about how the universe was formed. You never did follow on about why you'd asked me this in the first place, or your further arguments about it, beyond merely echoing back to me the gaps that I'd myself clearly explained in our knowledge base so far.

It's clear you're going for a God of the Gaps gambit here. That's an elementary fallacy, and very easily shown up as fallacious. But I notice that you don't actually make your argument, and I'm suspecting you don't do that because you know well enough how lacking in substance is your implied argument.

Go on then, tell us this:

(1) Why do you claim Brian is "wholly at a loss for anwers", as far as the how the universe came to be question for instance, when anyone with an elementary knowledge of physics (or biology, as far as your latter question) will know enough to provide at least a broad answer, as I myself already have?

(2) IN ANY CASE, WHAT HAS THAT TO DO WITH THE GOD QUESTION AT ALL, OR WITH THE CRAZINESS OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THEISTS BELIEVE? In what way do any gaps in the knowledge that science uncovers for us --- an ever shrinking gap, mind (athough, to be fair, in a sense an ever widening gap, in as much as we start to realize that there are more things that need knowing and that we do not yet know) --- in what way exactly do you think these gaps translate into any greater credibility for the imbecilities that theists swallow whole?

Go on then, stop this hinting and implying game, and squarely lay out your argument here, so we can see if it does actually amount to anything,

@Gen...77 [ In summation, I ask you to take this hostile witness's testimony with a grain of salt, and moreover, I suggest you demand he provide answers as to the universe's origin and the start of life before you make the mistake of believing people of faith are crazy.]

No, the charging doc is wrong. IMO, he attacks ideas -rather than people-
as "crazy". Mainly so but in spirited debates he may let the odd colourful
phrase fly now and again. Surely the Court will grant a bit of indulgence
for such small peccadilloes.

The defendant argues a lack of "demonstrable evidence" for a given
belief and yet blindly continuing to do so is patently "crazy". The Court
concurs. However this in itself doesn't invalidate the so-called mystic
claim that compelling evidence may be advanced through a discipline
of mindfulness and inner devotion. The Court has no opinion on such
esoterica and renders no decision. The defendant is free to go.

However, the Court reminds both parties this is a courtroom. Watch
your language! Listen to the evidence. All of it!

"..there's no demonstrable evidence of God."

Posted by: Brian Hines | July 06, 2022 at 08:52 PM

This thread reminded me of when someone once asked me:

"Does God exist? And why doesn't He hear me!?"

And I said something like,
"..in my faith. There IS a God, and He's with you. And with me. And from what I've been reading in the Koran, is that the more you increase your faith, the more nearer He will be.."

Even better. My Sat Guru, Baba Ji once said something similar during a Q&A session which now to me sounds just like the same thing. He said,

"Love, is a two-way street."

Here's a nice quote (on faith) from the Koran:

"Say, ‘Nothing will befall us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our master, and in Allah let all the faithful put their trust.’" -Koran (Qarai) 9/51

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.