From your interactions with theists, what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?




For myself, it is only after interacting with theists that I seriously began to consider that God may be evil, or that He doesn't exist.

god's not evil. he's just not going to coddle you, or buy any of your bullshit. until you're willing to be humble and sincere, like a child, god won't have anything to do with you.

is this an addition to the list of reasons why you don't want to know god? there's really no need to continue to rationalize it in public. i'm not sure who you're trying to convince. perhaps blame. but really signal, if you don't want to know god, then don't know god. it's your call, and it's your decision, and it's no one else's fault.

stop trying to blame other people for your own desire. some other people might buy your excuse, but god sure as hell won't.

god's not evil. he's just not going to coddle you, or buy any of your bullshit. until you're willing to be humble and sincere, like a child, god won't have anything to do with you.

is this an addition to the list of reasons why you don't want to know god? there's really no need to continue to rationalize it in public. i'm not sure who you're trying to convince. perhaps blame. but really signal, if you don't want to know god, then don't know god. it's your call, and it's your decision, and it's no one else's fault.

stop trying to blame other people for your own desire. some other people might buy your excuse, but god sure as hell won't.

And God has made you His official representative, with full authority to act on His behalf?

And God has made you His official representative, with full authority to act on His behalf?

yes, it's called witnessing and discernment. i'm telling you what i know about god and what i observe about you. would you rather i lie?

yes, it's called witnessing and discernment. i'm telling you what i know about god and what i observe about you. would you rather i lie?

So you are hereby declaring your divinity?

So you are hereby declaring your divinity?

you don't have to be god to be a witness signal.

see, this is what i mean by "bullshit". i find it really hard to believe that you're really lacking this much common sense.

you don't have to be god to be a witness signal.

see, this is what i mean by "bullshit". i find it really hard to believe that you're really lacking this much common sense.

Interestingly, even though you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism, as understood by the disciplic succession in the Catholic Church or in some Hindu schools.

However, since you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism against individual persons, as one person against another, with claiming, directly or indirectly, that God is on your side but not on the other person's side.

You are the Church, the Holy Inquisition, the Clergy, the Scholars - all in one person! How economical!

Interestingly, even though you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism, as understood by the disciplic succession in the Catholic Church or in some Hindu schools.

However, since you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism against individual persons, as one person against another, with claiming, directly or indirectly, that God is on your side but not on the other person's side.

You are the Church, the Holy Inquisition, the Clergy, the Scholars - all in one person! How economical!

why in the hell do you feel the need to slap all of these labels on people? i am lori, and i have been made aware of god's existence, come to know god, and have been transformed by the holy spirit. and you are some whiney bitch who wants to hate me because of that. who wants to accuse me.

you come out here and lie, pretending to be desperate for answers, desperate for god. you're a liar. and until you get real, you'll never know god. now you can call me what you want, but that won't change the truth about you. :shrug:

From your interactions with theists, what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?

Well, I don't believe in God, so the answer would have to be 'nothing'. I don't believe that the word 'God' has any reference, so I don't think that there's anything in existence to learn about.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the word 'theist'. It's an awfully broad and rather artificial analytical category, seemingly derived in large part from the special monotheistic concerns of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religions.

When it comes to interactions with theists and studying theistic traditions, I've learned quite a bit about how these people conceive of 'God'. (That's rather different than learning about God.)

I'm not sure if I can summarize it, since ostensibly theistic conceptions of God seem to be all over the map. Some say God has these qualities, some say those qualities, and others question whether God has qualities at all (and perhaps go with a theory of analogical language or something).


For myself, it is only after interacting with theists that I seriously began to consider that God may be evil, or that He doesn't exist.

I've never thought that God existed, even as a small child. Talking to theists hasn't done much to move me towards thinking that 'he' does.

As for God being being evil, I'm with you. That idea never crossed my mind until after too many religious nuts had preached turn-or-burn hell-fire in my direction.

It suddenly occurred to me that the image of a God that would torture people unspeakably for eternity with no possibility of escape... ever... merely for the crime of not groveling properly, was an image that's morally indistinguishable from Satan.

In fact Satan emerges as the more sympathetic and far more heroic character, since he's the one willing to say 'No!' to God's face, in full knowledge that God will eventually tear him to pieces for his disobedience. Satan becomes the model of one who's willing to stand up for principle, even in the face of impossible odds.

I think the problem many atheists have is they fixate on a narrow perception of God and religion that helps them justify their biased position. The extreme southern bible toker or muslim suicide soilder, becomes the expert witness aginst whom they can confidently disagree and prove their thesis. This is not even rational, since real science would challenge using the best data, not the worse. Atheist science is spin.

For example, if I irrationally hated grapes because they are the most yucking fruit in the world, and I wanted to prove that to myself, I would not at anything that would create doubt in my mind. Rather I would look just at a narrow data set that makes me feel my irrational position is rational. I was right grapes are the youckiest; QED.

For example, the God you refer to is from the Old Testament. That God changed his approach beginning in the new testament. God=Christ=love. Up the the New testament Satan is in heaven as the left hand man of God, with influence. Satan may be better model for an atheist, since he is historically a master of illusions. He is one of the first liberal politicians getting Eve to buy into a power illusion.

After God hand authority to his son=love, the son went even one step further. Religion was to change from an outward herd movement into inward individual religion, since this is how you access the spirit of truth. This is not much different than atheist self reliance on their own minds. ALl it added was extra mainframe support to the ego.

Maybe he changed his approach again with the Book of Mormon?

From your interactions with theists, what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?
i have found that otherwise intelligent people believe in god.
some of the nicest people go to church.
some of the ugliest i have ever met also go to church.

For myself, it is only after interacting with theists that I seriously began to consider that God may be evil, or that He doesn't exist.
on a personal note my mind will not allow me to accept a "supernatural being" or "ghosts".

I think the problem many atheists have is they fixate on a narrow perception of God and religion that helps them justify their biased position. The extreme southern bible toker or muslim suicide soilder, becomes the expert witness aginst whom they can confidently disagree and prove their thesis. This is not even rational, since real science would challenge using the best data, not the worse. Atheist science is spin.

For example, if I irrationally hated grapes because they are the most yucking fruit in the world, and I wanted to prove that to myself, I would not at anything that would create doubt in my mind. Rather I would look just at a narrow data set that makes me feel my irrational position is rational. I was right grapes are the youckiest; QED.

For example, the God you refer to is from the Old Testament. That God changed his approach beginning in the new testament. God=Christ=love. Up the the New testament Satan is in heaven as the left hand man of God, with influence. Satan may be better model for an atheist, since he is historically a master of illusions. He is one of the first liberal politicians getting Eve to buy into a power illusion.

After God hand authority to his son=love, the son went even one step further. Religion was to change from an outward herd movement into inward individual religion, since this is how you access the spirit of truth. This is not much different than atheist self reliance on their own minds. ALl it added was extra mainframe support to the ego.

That's a beautiful theory wellwisher. The irony is exquiste.

I for one don't look at "southern bible toker or muslim suicide soilder" to formulate mine though. I just think anyone that believes all that is bat shit crazy. Not very scientific I know, but it cuts out the middleman.

i want so bad to join Lori in her rant against signal, but since others have posted on topic, i think i will keep shut about it.

that said..
Other theists are not the reason i believe, other theists have increased what i know about God, but they are not the foundation of my belief, God is.
IOW i don't need other ppl to validate my belief in God, that belief exists by itself.

When it comes to interactions with theists and studying theistic traditions, I've learned quite a bit about how these people conceive of 'God'. (That's rather different than learning about God.)

Sure, this is why I phrased the OP "what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?".



I've never thought that God existed, even as a small child.

As far as I can remember, I didn't take issue with God's existence one way or the other. It was all mysterious and too incomprehensible to me. I think though that I was somehow open to it, and had my own ideas about what "Creator of the Universe" means, and those ideas didn't fill me with discomfort either.

But I gathered from the heated exchanges between other people that God's existence is apparently something to be angry and defensive about.

This caused me an internal conflict - since the same people from whom I have heard about God and based on whose words I had my not uncomfortable ideas about God, were the people who were angry and defensive about God.
We obviously experienced ideas about God very differently, and I didn't understand why. But since I have heard about God from them, and felt that I must give credit where credit is due, I imagined that they were more right about God than I was - and that their feelings about God were thus the correct ones.

i want so bad to join Lori in her rant against signal, but since others have posted on topic, i think i will keep shut about it.

that said..
Other theists are not the reason i believe, other theists have increased what i know about God, but they are not the foundation of my belief, God is.
IOW i don't need other ppl to validate my belief in God, that belief exists by itself.

signal would call that solipsism (as a criticism), and then while speaking out of the other side of his/her mouth would demand that you use this solipsism as a basis for claiming your divinity, and then become his/her guru and hence responsible for his/her salvation.

and then signal would want to talk about logic of all things.

and become offended at accusations of insincerity.

go figure.

and then signal would want to talk about logic of all things.

and become offended at accusations of insincerity.

go figure.

Signal used to irritate me and as such we've had our fair share of run-ins. But after several engagements (including a couple of PMs) I've come to understand that he's not trying to be irritating. It's just that he's stuck (for what seems like it might be an eternity sometimes) between wanting to find truth and trying to avoid being shipwrecked with regard to it. In other words, he's attempting to tackle the most fundamental religious question of all: which one represents the truth (if any) and how can one be certain of that.

Most religious people have moved past this dilemma simply by embracing one particular religion (or belief system) and discovering that it produces results.
But as all of us should know (either from personal experience or interacting with others), "results" are possible no matter what religion we're talking about. This means that not only can one not trust the testimony of others, one can not even necessarily trust one's own experiences, since we humans are all too ready to embrace the first thing that comes our way as long as it "feels" right. But all you need to do is look at how much tragedy is born of people doing what "felt" right to them to realize that it's an absurd and decidedly unenlightened way to try to divine some kind of ultimate truth and purpose.

The way I see it, Signal is like the embodiment of agnosticism itself. He engages theists and atheists alike with equal degrees of tenacity, and has frequently demonstrated a willingness to tentatively position himself on either side of the fence when it comes creating and participating in discussion. His threads while sometimes invoking a desire to scratch one's head (or possibly even bash it against the wall) almost invariably give birth to interesting discussion. He's one of the people who keep this subforum moving, and I'm much more likely to read his posts than I am those of many other people who post in here.

Conversely, let's look at you Lori. As far as I can see, the only thing you've been bringing to this forum for quite a while now is fantastic claims (that God speaks to you directly, that there's an entire book in the Bible that's about you, that you've been anointed by God to "birth a kingdom" on earth [whatever the fuck that means]) , a lot of hostility, and the message (which you never seem to get tired of preaching) that the entire world is fundamentally and eternally fucked and that you can't wait for it to end. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe of course, but right now I can't think of another person that ruins this forum more than you do (nor can I think of another person who is less effective at witnessing than you, due to the above).

Signal used to irritate me and as such we've had our fair share of run-ins. But after several engagements (including a couple of PMs) I've come to understand that he's not trying to be irritating. It's just that he's stuck (for what seems like it might be an eternity sometimes) between wanting to find truth and trying to avoid being shipwrecked with regard to it. In other words, he's attempting to tackle the most fundamental religious question of all: which one represents the truth (if any) and how can one be certain of that.

Most religious people have moved past this dilemma simply by embracing one particular religion (or belief system) and discovering that it produces results.
But as all of us should know (either from personal experience or interacting with others), "results" are possible no matter what religion we're talking about. This means that not only can one not trust the testimony of others, one can not even necessarily trust one's own experiences, since we humans are all too ready to embrace the first thing that comes our way as long as it "feels" right. But all you need to do is look at how much tragedy is born of people doing what "felt" right to them to realize that it's an absurd and decidedly unenlightened way to try to divine some kind of ultimate truth and purpose.

The way I see it, Signal is like the embodiment of agnosticism itself. He engages theists and atheists alike with equal degrees of tenacity, and has frequently demonstrated a willingness to tentatively position himself on either side of the fence when it comes creating and participating in discussion. His threads while sometimes invoking a desire to scratch one's head (or possibly even bash it against the wall) almost invariably give birth to interesting discussion. He's one of the people who keep this subforum moving, and I'm much more likely to read his posts than I am those of many other people who post in here.

Conversely, let's look at you Lori. As far as I can see, the only thing you've been bringing to this forum for quite a while now is fantastic claims (that God speaks to you directly, that there's an entire book in the Bible that's about you, that you've been anointed by God to "birth a kingdom" on earth [whatever the fuck that means]) , a lot of hostility, and the message (which you never seem to get tired of preaching) that the entire world is fundamentally and eternally fucked and that you can't wait for it to end. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe of course, but right now I can't think of another person that ruins this forum more than you do (nor can I think of another person who is less effective at witnessing than you, due to the above).

wow; you've actually listened to what i've said. :)

but to be fair, i don't think my claims are that fantastic. my claims are actually in line with exactly what it says in the bible...what the whole book is about; personal revelation from god via the spirit. imo, christianity can't be as widespread and as accepted as it is, and my claims be called fantastic at the same time.

also, the bible's a big book. amongst all of the characters and all of the scripture, i would say that relatively 2nd john, rev ch 12, and the blurp about the tree of life at the very end is a drop in the bucket compared to the meaning to be found in it entirely. i also don't think that my identification with those particular scriptures is the only interpretation or meaning to be found in them. i think the bible is a tool more than a book, to be used by the holy spirit, and that it's layered with a variety of meanings, all of which are true, depending on what it's being used for.

i'm not surprised that you don't appreciate my contribution here, but as far as my witnessing is concerned, i'm not here to intellectually masturbate. i'm here to tell people the truth. :shrug:

i'm here to tell people the truth. :shrug:

About?
You?
You don't seem to know a whole lot about God for someone that claims to know him personally.

Rav said:
(Of Signal)
His threads while sometimes invoking a desire to scratch one's head (or possibly even bash it against the wall) almost invariably give birth to interesting discussion.

S/he can make you think...but we've managed to hurt each other's feelings enough.
No mas habla.
Kind of makes some of the threads a bit disjointed.

god's not evil. he's just not going to coddle you, or buy any of your bullshit. until you're willing to be humble and sincere, like a child, god won't have anything to do with you.

is this an addition to the list of reasons why you don't want to know god? there's really no need to continue to rationalize it in public. i'm not sure who you're trying to convince. perhaps blame. but really signal, if you don't want to know god, then don't know god. it's your call, and it's your decision, and it's no one else's fault.

stop trying to blame other people for your own desire. some other people might buy your excuse, but god sure as hell won't.

this is funny. how do you know what god is and isn't? you don't.

what you are describing is what you feel or think god is or basically it's like describing a certain type of mentality or feeling such as a positive feeling, state or image.

that is real in itself as a concept or state of personal being but to attribute that is god is a personal interpretation or belief. everyone has a different idea of what god or spirit is. even if one thought a god existed which was evil, that still doesn't stop them from focusing on or appreciating what is good, positive or beneficial either mentally, emotionally, spiritually or physically.

there is also evil as well, so this is a very large conundrum that we all wonder about and there are only speculations at a certain point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbvrRct-TXc

this is funny. how do you know what god is and isn't? you don't.

what you are describing is what you feel or think god is or basically it's like describing a certain type of mentality or feeling such as a positive feeling, state or image.



most of what lori believes,i believe also, and what i believe is independent of what lori believes, this goes for the testimonies of other believers as well, it is through that common denominator that validates the existence of God,it is akin to science, a result is not fact unless it can be verified by other independent sources.(it is not like science in the sense that the word 'reproducible' doesn't apply in this context)

i do not always agree with how she communicates such,but the core of her beliefs line up with my own.

it is through that common denominator that validates the existence of God

Then I'd imagine that you believe that the commonalities that exist in the many accounts of supposed alien abductions validate the existence of a race of extra-terrestrials who like to abduct and study human beings, and that they look like this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z35QpbFYIN4/TbEsU-KqP9I/AAAAAAAAALw/7Sw3qJzjYoM/s1600/alien.jpg

i don't think my claims are that fantastic.

There are almost 7 billion people in the world , and only 66 books in the Bible. You don't think the claim that one of the books (letters) of the New Testament was addressed to you specifically is a fantastic claim?


i'm not surprised that you don't appreciate my contribution here, but as far as my witnessing is concerned, i'm not here to intellectually masturbate. i'm here to tell people the truth. :shrug:

Don't misunderstand my reasons. Your witnessing doesn't threaten me (as you believe it does many contributors here), it's just an irritating disruption to what could otherwise be more interesting discussion. But more than that, it's a violation of the forum rules, as are the insults you've been obsessively leveling at Signal for a while now.

Anyway, it's convenient that you've summed up your own motivations here, in your own words. You're not here for intellectual discussion, you're here to preach. Should come in handy for the purposes of characterizing your true intentions next time you derail a thread in the manner in which you so often do.

I think the problem many atheists have is they fixate on a narrow perception of God and religion that helps them justify their biased position.

I was just talking about the images and concepts of this 'God' character that interactions with theists create in my mind. I also wrote that it's hard for me to generalize about that, since theists say so many different, and sometimes inconsistent, things about their 'God'.

That was my response to Signal's question. It's hard for me to identify any single concrete meaning when I hear the word 'God'. It basically seems to mean a generic conception of something ultimate, cosmic and perhaps felt as 'holy' in some emotional sense, at which ideas like 'Bible', 'person', 'power', 'Yahweh', 'first-cause', 'Vishnu', 'Koran', 'devotion', 'Vedas', 'law', 'sacrifice', 'final-cause', 'commandment', 'incarnation', 'love', 'wrath', 'creator', 'designer', 'judgement', 'prayer' and 'beatific vision'... are thrown, in hopes that something might stick.

That's my general impression of theistic claims, I guess. I perceive those making them as taking different collections of ideas from out of their own particular religious traditions and then throwing them at the sky, so to speak.


For example, the God you refer to is from the Old Testament. That God changed his approach beginning in the new testament. God=Christ=love. Up the the New testament Satan is in heaven as the left hand man of God, with influence. Satan may be better model for an atheist, since he is historically a master of illusions. He is one of the first liberal politicians getting Eve to buy into a power illusion.

What I said was that the idea that religion's 'God' character might be described as evil didn't enter my head until after self-appointed evangelists had preached hell-fire and damnation at me a few times. I was suggesting that some forms of evangelism might be seriously counter-productive and disfunctional when it comes to influencing non-theists like myself.

The way that some religious evangelists present their deity to other people does make 'God' morally indistinguishable from the mythical 'Satan' character. When things are presented that way, I frankly prefer Satan since he comes across as the more sympathetic, principled and heroic of the two.

Obviously not all religious people behave like those hell-fire evangelists. Not all of them transmit the same kind of message. I can truthfully say that many of the most compassionate, moral and arguably spiritual people that I've ever met have been Christians. Those are people that have influenced me tremendously. People that I love deeply.

Like I said, theists are all over the map and it's hard for me to form a single impression that applies to all of them at once or to the God that they say that they worship.

Then I'd imagine that you believe that the commonalities that exist in the many accounts of supposed alien abductions validate the existence of a race of extra-terrestrials who like to abduct and study human beings, and that they look like this:


i would not dismiss those accounts just because i do not believe in aliens.
(btw is that an Asguard?)

Off-topic -

S/he can make you think...but we've managed to hurt each other's feelings enough.

That's not exactly true. I never said my feelings were hurt, and they were not. I only expressed some concerns about your behavior and how I might respond to it. I have offered you opportunities to talk things over, and you refused.


/Resume On topic

i would not dismiss those accounts just because i do not believe in aliens.

I don't completely dismiss them either. It's certainly not beyond the realm of all possibility that aliens do exist, that they are indeed abducting some of us occasionally, and that the photo above is a reasonable likeness of them. But my point was that the existence of commonality between accounts of certain phenomena doesn't validate the actual existence of said phenomena as an ontological entity existing independently of our own imaginations. It is after all only natural for ideas to crystallize into something more consistent and universal after being processed by the collaborative and corroborative collective that is the human race. We can see evidence of this everywhere. Mythical creatures are a perfect example. Consider the unicorn, or the dragon, or the fairy, or the elf, or the vampire. Although there is occasionally a little debate about some of the more specific characteristics, for the most part we are all in agreement about what these things are, yet they are not widely believed to exist at all.


(btw is that an Asguard?)

Not specifically, but it looks like one, sure.

There are almost 7 billion people in the world , and only 66 books in the Bible. You don't think the claim that one of the books (letters) of the New Testament was addressed to you specifically is a fantastic claim?

no. i think that every one of those 7 billion people could very well identify with a book, or several books in the bible, for a wide variety of reasons, and all of those reasons be legit.




Don't misunderstand my reasons. Your witnessing doesn't threaten me (as you believe it does many contributors here), it's just an irritating disruption to what could otherwise be more interesting discussion. But more than that, it's a violation of the forum rules, as are the insults you've been obsessively leveling at Signal for a while now.

i didn't suggest or assume that my witnessing threatened you. my point is that, i really don't think signal is interested at all in answers. after all, as you've pointed out, he refutes every single one given, repeatedly. i think signal is quite content just asking rhetorical (insincere) questions ad infinitum, which is exactly what i've called him out on, no more obsessively than he has perpetuated these behaviors.


Anyway, it's convenient that you've summed up your own motivations here, in your own words. You're not here for intellectual discussion, you're here to preach. Should come in handy for the purposes of characterizing your true intentions next time you derail a thread in the manner in which you so often do.

i don't preach. i do however answer direct questions that are asked of me within these threads. and much to the dismay of some, finding god is not an intellectual endeavor really. finding god is much more a matter of the heart. it takes honesty and humility and some basic common sense. the common sense may not even be required, but the sincerity definitely is. the reason signal doesn't have his answer is because signal is not sincere. it doesn't take 1000 questions on a forum to get to god; it takes one sincere plea to god himself. i know that from experience. i'm tempted to think that perhaps signal is hoping that all of this questioning here on the forum will cover his ass in the end when it comes to god, and i know it won't.

this is funny. how do you know what god is and isn't? you don't.

what you are describing is what you feel or think god is or basically it's like describing a certain type of mentality or feeling such as a positive feeling, state or image.

that is real in itself as a concept or state of personal being but to attribute that is god is a personal interpretation or belief. everyone has a different idea of what god or spirit is. even if one thought a god existed which was evil, that still doesn't stop them from focusing on or appreciating what is good, positive or beneficial either mentally, emotionally, spiritually or physically.

there is also evil as well, so this is a very large conundrum that we all wonder about and there are only speculations at a certain point.

god isn't an idea; god is an entity that actually interacts with people, and through this interaction can be observed. now of course when different people observe or interact with anything, different experiences will be had and different perceptions will be formed depending on the circumstances. but the entity itself is the same.

About?
You?
You don't seem to know a whole lot about God for someone that claims to know him personally.

whatever someone is asking about. i mean, there's usually a question presented in the op.

people don't ask me about god really. i guess most either don't believe god exists in the first place, or don't want to know what he's like if he does. :shrug:

what do you want to know?

Signal used to irritate me and as such we've had our fair share of run-ins.

I didn't know what to make of Signal when I first arrived. I even sort of suspected that he was a rather sophisticated Christian evangelical posing as a non-theist so that atheist knees wouldn't jerk, and so that he could present theistic arguments from the perspective of 'they say...'.

But I soon realized that I was mistaken.


But after several engagements (including a couple of PMs) I've come to understand that he's not trying to be irritating. It's just that he's stuck (for what seems like it might be an eternity sometimes) between wanting to find truth and trying to avoid being shipwrecked with regard to it.

Signal continues to think in what sometimes look to me like theistic ways. Perhaps he's somebody who lost his childhood faith and wants desperately to find some credible and convincing way to get something like it back.


In other words, he's attempting to tackle the most fundamental religious question of all: which one represents the truth (if any) and how can one be certain of that.

Maybe he's seeking something that mortal human beings like ourselves can never attain. But I respect Signal, I have great interest in his quest and where it leads, I've come to consider him a friend and I wish him well.

I kind of imagine Signal as Sciforums' Grail-Knight, bravely and honorably embarked on what may well turn out to be an impossible quest.

In the meantime, he's definitely interesting and thought provoking here on Sciforums, that's for sure. I enjoy his posts.


Conversely, let's look at you Lori.

Lori likes being the center of everyone's attention.

Thank you! :o

I'm a she, actually. Except for Gustav, nobody asked me, but instead just assumed that I am male. I never took issue with it, because I think that it generally doesn't and shouldn't matter in most discussions.
It's been interesting to observe how people can jump to conclusions.
Most importantly, it has been a very liberating experience to post in what I experienced as a gender-neutral style, as I have not been constrained by typical gender expectations.

That said, I continue to be determined to find (out about) The Absolute Truth!
If my pace and methods bother some people, then I am reminding them that Rome wasn't built in one day, and that anger and contempt are neither the way to make friends nor to help people.

nobody asked me, but instead just assumed that I am male. I


without a clue as to gender it is usually acceptable to defer to a generic 'he' just as it is acceptable to call our collective race 'Man',

it should not be used as a point of contention unless one knows that it is a 'she' and specifically states 'he' to get a rise out of said 'she'.

no. i think that every one of those 7 billion people could very well identify with a book, or several books in the bible, for a wide variety of reasons, and all of those reasons be legit.

You are disingenuously playing it down now. What you're describing is a far cry from the claim that one of the books of the NT was addressed to you specifically.


i didn't suggest or assume that my witnessing threatened you. my point is that, i really don't think signal is interested at all in answers. after all, as you've pointed out, he refutes every single one given, repeatedly. i think signal is quite content just asking rhetorical (insincere) questions ad infinitum, which is exactly what i've called him out on, no more obsessively than he has perpetuated these behaviors.

Signal isn't doing anything wrong with regard to the intended purpose of this forum. You are.


the reason signal doesn't have his answer is because signal is not sincere.

Prove it. So far you've accused him of trolling, lying and now again of being insincere. It might not offend him that much, and indeed he has typically tried to maintain the initial tone of the discussion in spite of your attacks, but it actually offends me on his behalf.


it doesn't take 1000 questions on a forum to get to god; it takes one sincere plea to god himself. i know that from experience.

In spite of whatever I may think with regard to what may or may not exist outside of your own head, I'm obliged to respect the fact that you have indeed had the experiences you've had, because I'm that kind of person. However you have to understand that your own personal testimony is all but completely useless when it comes to trying to establish the truth of something to another rational human being. What you know from experience is knowledge to you, but to you only. To many other people, the idea that it only takes a sincere plea to God to find him is interpreted as it only takes a desire to believe what you want to believe to believe it. I mean seriously, even if one does hear voices, and even if those voices seem to contain knowledge and wisdom that one can't believe could be attributable to the information processing that occurs in one's own subconscious mind (which can indeed operate in such a way) doesn't mean that those voices are actually coming from somewhere else instead. It shouldn't even convince you, and it certainly wont convince anyone else.


i'm tempted to think that perhaps signal is hoping that all of this questioning here on the forum will cover his ass in the end when it comes to god, and i know it won't.

I think it's more likely that Signal, while having the soul of a theist in the sense that he believes there must be some ultimate and bigger truth beyond everything we see, is unwittingly modulated by his own rational "god given" mind. It's not that he denies the existence of God (in fact he very often argues for such) it's just that he has trouble getting from A (God possibly exists) to B (exactly what God wants). The is the same problem the entire fucking world seems to have had since the beginning of recorded history (at least). What you want Signal to do is to solve it simply by shutting the fuck up and opening his heart to God.

But what if God requires more than that? What if you're supposed to abstain from certain things? What if you need to be baptized in a particular way? What if you're supposed to be attached to a fellowship? What if you can't really come to know the fullness of God (and therefore can't ultimately escape this mundane existence) without proper discipleship? Different religions teach different things, and many of them require what are considered to be essential and specific things from their adherents lest they be in danger of not being "right" with God. But you don't give a fuck about all that, because you have your voices and your emotions. To you, if it feels right, if you experience it, it's gotta be true. But how the fuck do you really genuinely know? And assuming that God is indeed real, what right do you have to demand that Signal should just dive head first into whatever feels right to him when it may, in fact, be an eternally fatal mistake, as many religions do indeed teach that such things can be? I mean honestly Lori, many Christian fundamentalists would condemn you to hell. They'd call you one of the lukewarm that Jesus wants to spit out of his mouth, or one of the people who will grovel at God's feet on the day of judgment and insist that they were doing the right thing by him.

Of course to me, it seems far more likely that absolutely everyone has got it wrong, and that the "ultimate truth" (if there is such a thing) is probably something completely different to any of the ridiculously anthropomorphic human conceptions that have been floating around. But my arguments above have been made from within someone else's shoes.

I never took issue with it, because I think that it generally doesn't and shouldn't matter in most discussions.

You'll have to forgive me if I can't even be bothered editing my most recent post to fix the pronoun situation. I'm tired :/

Lori likes being the center of everyone's attention.

i don't think that anyone who knows me would say that. since you don't know me, how in the world would you know what i like?

You are disingenuously playing it down now. What you're describing is a far cry from the claim that one of the books of the NT was addressed to you specifically.

what happened to me (particularly the circumstance) was indeed weird. enough to cause me a lot of distress actually. but that book is addressed to somebody. why is it so fantastic that it's me? particularly, as i've stated before, when you consider that the entire book is filled with accounts of the holy spirit speaking to everyday people, and calling them to do unusual things.




Signal isn't doing anything wrong with regard to the intended purpose of this forum. You are.

trolling is against the forum rules, and signal is absolutely trolling.




Prove it. So far you've accused him of trolling, lying and now again of being insincere. It might not offend him that much, and indeed he has typically tried to maintain the initial tone of the discussion in spite of your attacks, but it actually offends me on his behalf.

it's written down in black and white rav; what more do you want? all you have to do is read more than one of her posts, or her posts in more than one thread. the initial tone of the discussion is entirely insincere and she is evasive if questioned.




In spite of whatever I may think with regard to what may or may not exist outside of your own head, I'm obliged to respect the fact that you have indeed had the experiences you've had, because I'm that kind of person. However you have to understand that your own personal testimony is all but completely useless when it comes to trying to establish the truth of something to another rational human being. What you know from experience is knowledge to you, but to you only. To many other people, the idea that it only takes a sincere plea to God to find him is interpreted as it only takes a desire to believe what you want to believe to believe it. I mean seriously, even if one does hear voices, and even if those voices seem to contain knowledge and wisdom that one can't believe could be attributable to the information processing that occurs in one's own subconscious mind (which can indeed operate in such a way) doesn't mean that those voices are actually coming from somewhere else instead. It shouldn't even convince you, and it certainly wont convince anyone else.

common sense and basic logic should tell you and anyone else that god (being what it is) shouldn't have any problem convincing anyone who sincerely wants to know. think about it...it's god. my opinion always has been that if god can't or won't do that for someone who sincerely wants to know, then he's not worth knowing or worrying about. what's the point?




I think it's more likely that Signal, while having the soul of a theist in the sense that he believes there must be some ultimate and bigger truth beyond everything we see, is unwittingly modulated by his own rational "god given" mind. It's not that he denies the existence of God (in fact he very often argues for such) it's just that he has trouble getting from A (God possibly exists) to B (exactly what God wants). The is the same problem the entire fucking world seems to have had since the beginning of recorded history (at least). What you want Signal to do is to solve it simply by shutting the fuck up and opening his heart to God.

what do you think might be the best way to find out what god really wants? from you in particular? and considering the problem the entire fucking world has had, since you mentioned it?


But what if God requires more than that? What if you're supposed to abstain from certain things? What if you need to be baptized in a particular way? What if you're supposed to be attached to a fellowship? What if you can't really come to know the fullness of God (and therefore can't ultimately escape this mundane existence) without proper discipleship? Different religions teach different things, and many of them require what are considered to be essential and specific things from their adherents lest they be in danger of not being "right" with God. But you don't give a fuck about all that, because you have your voices and your emotions. To you, if it feels right, if you experience it, it's gotta be true. But how the fuck do you really genuinely know? And assuming that God is indeed real, what right do you have to demand that Signal should just dive head first into whatever feels right to him when it may, in fact, be an eternally fatal mistake, as many religions do indeed teach that such things can be? I mean honestly Lori, many Christian fundamentalists would condemn you to hell. They'd call you one of the lukewarm that Jesus wants to spit out of his mouth, or one of the people who will grovel at God's feet on the day of judgment and insist that they were doing the right thing by him.

yes, some would call me "lukewarm" because i'm not just like them, and some would say i'm possessed by demons because i'm not just like them, when you know as well as i do that most of them are obnoxious liars who are putting on a horrible show. the bottom line is that i didn't seek god to appease other people, and my relationship with god isn't about them. it's not being submitted for their approval; that's not what it's for. my relationship with god is for accomplishing a work in me, and if it accomplishes more than that it's because people have been witnesses to it, and because it means something.

what you've said gives me the impression that you think this counsel from and interaction with the spirit has been some big warm fuzzy peace, love, and light thing, and wow, that couldn't be more wrong. while i'm certainly not emotionally disconnected from the experience, it has never been about making me feel good.


Of course to me, it seems far more likely that absolutely everyone has got it wrong, and that the "ultimate truth" (if there is such a thing) is probably something completely different to any of the ridiculously anthropomorphic human conceptions that have been floating around. But my arguments above have been made from within someone else's shoes.

based on my experience, i would agree with you.

whatever someone is asking about. i mean, there's usually a question presented in the op.

people don't ask me about god really. i guess most either don't believe god exists in the first place, or don't want to know what he's like if he does. :shrug:

what do you want to know?

Everything you know.

i don't think that anyone who knows me would say that. since you don't know me, how in the world would you know what i like?

actually..i would agree with that Lori..you do like to be the center of attention..

but that book is addressed to somebody. why is it so fantastic that it's me? particularly, as i've stated before, when you consider that the entire book is filled with accounts of the holy spirit speaking to everyday people, and calling them to do unusual things.

Most of the books of the New Testament are letters, and it is almost universally believed that they were letters that were addressed (and delivered) to people who were alive at the time that they were written. So aside from everything else I've said, your claim flies in the face of what is generally accepted by scholars and the vast majority of the learned Christian world.

Try as you might Lori, but you're not going to be able to legitimately play this down.

As for your continued character assassination of Signal, there's a report button. Try it. See what the moderators have to say. I doubt that they'll agree with you. Occasionally evasive, sure, but I don't agree with the remainder of your assessment as it's inaccurate. I think you have a little bit too much confidence in your own ability to divine the true intentions of others and not enough wisdom to recognize that it's your own personal bias that is responsible for the errors.

As for your faith, I have no doubt that it has been challenging, but it undoubtedly provides you with a sense of purpose. Since that's something we're all looking for, I think it's fair to call it a pretty big pay-off. So when you imply that it's harder to have faith than it is not to have it, I don't buy it for a second. It's not as if you're in danger of being stoned to death like a first century Christian now is it?

Lori. Hears the voice of God in her head. Has a New Testament letter addressed to her. Has been tasked by God to birth a kingdom on Earth. Is fond of telling tales of her emotional struggle with faith. How romantic. What a heroine you are.

It just doesn't jive with your self-professed humility Lori. It's absurdly inconsistent.

Most of the books of the New Testament are letters, and it is almost universally believed that they were letters that were addressed (and delivered) to people who were alive at the time that they were written. So aside from everything else I've said, your claim flies in the face of what is generally accepted by scholars and the vast majority of the learned Christian world.


the letters were to churches and their purpose was to educate the churches about what jesus was all about, it is my understanding that the churches were not lining up with what jesus was teaching and that the churches were in error on several issues and the letters were intended to 'straighten' them out...(which brings up the question of 'Did jesus really change anything?')

Thank you! :o

I'm a she, actually.

Damn, wrong again. I apologise for making even more false assumptions about you. Sorry.

Doesn't change my liking you, though.


That said, I continue to be determined to find (out about) The Absolute Truth!

You could have worse goals in life.

My goal's the same, I guess. Except that I only expect to make a little progress penetrating the cosmic mysteries, and then only if I'm very lucky. I don't have any big expectations any longer. In my own case, I'm probably more concerned with the path than in whatever transcendent reward is supposed to lie at the end of it. Maybe the path is its own reward.


If my pace and methods bother some people, then I am reminding them that Rome wasn't built in one day, and that anger and contempt are neither the way to make friends nor to help people.

Doesn't bother me the least bit. You ask interesting questions and raise what I believe are important issues. It's a lot more useful to somebody like me than strangers' 'witnessing' about their own private experiences.

My father, a man with a IQ of over 160 and one of the most open minded people I've ever meet, came back from from the States today, (where he now lives), came to my house for a coffee and proceded to attack evolution and argue against the withholding of grants in science to IDers. He is, and has openly said so, that he now believes that ID is the only possible explanation to the existence of life on Earth.

I'm fucking gobsmacked. I tried to argue with him but ended up sitting there with my mouth open in complete disbelief in the transformation as much as anything else. I don't know how to deal with this.

Is there fucking something in the water over there?

Oh, and facts aren't real, apparently. :shrug:

Except that I only expect to make a little progress penetrating the cosmic mysteries, and then only if I'm very lucky.

I can't say for sure if the following quote has been paraphrased or not since I can't locate the original source right now, but:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."

To reference another recent discussion in which you eloquently detailed your respect and admiration for Aristotle, my favourite philosopher (or perhaps more correctly 'philosopher/scientist') is Einstein. His deep reverence for the mystery of nature moves me almost as much as my own.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that although I am rather firmly atheistic with regard to the Abrahamic (and similar) conceptions of God, I'm almost theistic when it comes to the broader unknown. To me God is both what is known and what is unknown, with the latter destined to be at least as incredible as the former, and likely more so. The only real difference between myself and your typical theist is that I don't believe that God is a person. Funny how such a detail all by itself can make someone an atheist.

Is there fucking something in the water over there?

sorry..i didn't know where else to put the holy water,so i flushed it..

My father, a man with a IQ of over 160 and one of the most open minded people I've ever meet, came back from from the States today, (where he now lives), came to my house for a coffee and proceded to attack evolution and argue against the withholding of grants in science to IDers. He is, and has openly said so, that he now believes that ID is the only possible explanation to the existence of life on Earth.

I'm fucking gobsmacked. I tried to argue with him but ended up sitting there with my mouth open in complete disbelief in the transformation as much as anything else. I don't know how to deal with this.

Is there fucking something in the water over there?

Oh, and facts aren't real, apparently. :shrug:

The main problem with the ID/evolution debate is that it's really easy for the ID camp to level what seems like a compelling attack against evolution in the eyes of anyone who isn't an evolutionary scientist, but very time consuming to demonstrate how it's wrong. This is because in order to be able to properly recognize ID bullshit for what it is, one typically has to learn quite a bit more about evolution. I guess the best you can do is challenge him to read a few books. I'd recommend "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and of course "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins. Another useful book that I read a long time ago is called "Telling Lies For God" by Ian Plimer, which rather than focusing on the evidence for evolution like the above two books simply did a fantastic job of exposing the dishonest and pseudo-scientific bullshit that typically goes on in the ID camp.

most of what lori believes,i believe also, and what i believe is independent of what lori believes, this goes for the testimonies of other believers as well, it is through that common denominator that validates the existence of God,it is akin to science, a result is not fact unless it can be verified by other independent sources.(it is not like science in the sense that the word 'reproducible' doesn't apply in this context)

i do not always agree with how she communicates such,but the core of her beliefs line up with my own.

people, look at this exhibit A of a post.

nmsquirrel, i don't care how she communicates because that is superficial in comparison to the arrogance and presumption that one knows what god is, not what one thinks or believes god is but that belief is not even tempered with the sanity that it is still a personal revelation and it is not a fact.

other people can believe other things about the concept of god and have it confirmed by those who feel or think likewise, should they tell you and lori that you are emphatically wrong and they know what 'god' is and you don't?

this is another example why religionists or theists really should not have any power. if they ever gain a lot of power, they will be prejudiced against any experiences or interpretations besides their own.

god, you people are really stupid. it's just true.

Thank you! :o

I'm a she, actually. Except for Gustav, nobody asked me, but instead just assumed that I am male. I never took issue with it, because I think that it generally doesn't and shouldn't matter in most discussions.
It's been interesting to observe how people can jump to conclusions.
Most importantly, it has been a very liberating experience to post in what I experienced as a gender-neutral style, as I have not been constrained by typical gender expectations.

That said, I continue to be determined to find (out about) The Absolute Truth!
If my pace and methods bother some people, then I am reminding them that Rome wasn't built in one day, and that anger and contempt are neither the way to make friends nor to help people.

there is some slight danger here. your desperation or need for an ultimate truth can lead you to false conclusions. this is because there is no way to know the ultimate truth. you can only grapple with what is known and also what you personally feel which may not be what another thinks or feels but may or may not be as valid as the next. after that, it's all speculation but speculation is good as it continues to expand awareness and consider possiblities.

The main problem with the ID/evolution debate is that it's really easy for the ID camp to level what seems like a compelling attack against evolution in the eyes of anyone who isn't an evolutionary scientist, but very time consuming to demonstrate how it's wrong. This is because in order to be able to properly recognize ID bullshit for what it is, one typically has to learn quite a bit more about evolution. I guess the best you can do is challenge him to read a few books. I'd recommend "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and of course "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins. Another useful book that I read a long time ago is called "Telling Lies For God" by Ian Plimer, which rather than focusing on the evidence for evolution like the above two books simply did a fantastic job of exposing the dishonest and pseudo-scientific bullshit that typically goes on in the ID camp.



Cheers for the response Rav. I'm still a little shaken by the whole thing to be honest. I've never meet a IDer in the flesh, (unless Jehovah's Witnesses count- I don't pay much attention to them), but now that I have I'm shocked it's my own father. I had a hint from him a few months back when he said that when he arrived on his trip we'd have to discuss the "Big Questions". When I asked him what that meant he just replied "Life". I feel he's been bulding up to this and is calling me out or something. The discussion will continue tomorrow apparently and I'm not sure how to handle it. Forums are fine because of the anonymity, but this is new to me.

I've read a bit on evolution, (Darwin, Dawkins, Schermer (sp?) and Dennett), but today the arguments just wouldn't come. He tried to point out that anthropology was all guess work and that there were too many assumptions made, too many gaps. That life had many beginnings, and this meant we didn't evolve from monkeys, (I nearly screamed at this point) There'll be a refresher course tonight, to get the arguments in point form and clear in my head, that's for certain! Once I understood it, (the second time I read On the Origin of Species), really understood it, it was like an epihany to me, so I'm not exactly new to the subject but not a expert either. I'll have to look up the other suggestions, so thanks for them.

He challenged me on two things before leaving:

1. Because I believe in "science" :shrug: I should be able to "prove" to him that the universe isn't infinite and therefore "prove" that all things are not possible. If I can't do that then I must be open to the possibility that a creator can exist. It's madness!! I tried explaining the whole "burden of proof" position with him, but he was having none of it. (I'll point out here that the God he believes in isn't the standard Abrahamic version, as he is anti-conformity and that wouldn't suit his preconceptions on how things work, but more of an "intelligent energy" prevalent throughout the universe).

2. That facts are indeed facts. That just because we know something now, doesn't mean it will always be true and therefore can't be termed fact! He used the boiling point of water here to demonstrate his point(?). That in the future the boiling point might change and that just because it has been the case up until now doesn't mean it will always be so. I can't really get my head around that one tbh.

Question to anyone: Should I be worried? This seems so out of character for him. He was always a non-conformist and believed in spirituality to a degree, (His recently deceased brother helped him choose a golf club today. Not literally, but he felt the presence in a magpie on the course :bugeye:). But, this is a big jump and he seems to want to...I don't know...make me believe it.

nmsquirrel, i don't care how she communicates because that is superficial in comparison to the arrogance and presumption that one knows what god is, not what one thinks or believes god is but that belief is not even tempered with the sanity that it is still a personal revelation and it is not a fact.

other people can believe other things about the concept of god and have it confirmed by those who feel or think likewise, should they tell you and lori that you are emphatically wrong and they know what 'god' is and you don't?

this is another example why religionists or theists really should not have any power. if they ever gain a lot of power, they will be prejudiced against any experiences or interpretations besides their own.
I can't argue with that..alot of good points..


god, you people are really stupid. it's just true.
but this is just uncalled for..

=RedRabbit;2795718]1. Because I believe in "science" :shrug: I should be able to "prove" to him that the universe isn't infinite and therefore "prove" that all things are not possible. If I can't do that then I must be open to the possibility that a creator can exist. It's madness!! I tried explaining the whole "burden of proof" position with him, but he was having none of it. (I'll point out here that the God he believes in isn't the standard Abrahamic version, as he is anti-conformity and that wouldn't suit his preconceptions on how things work, but more of an "intelligent energy" prevalent throughout the universe).

he is right about this as you can't disprove a possibility. but what he and you should know already is that neither of you can prove either side. a possiblity doesn't mean it's true.



2. That facts are indeed facts. That just because we know something now, doesn't mean it will always be true and therefore can't be termed fact! He used the boiling point of water here to demonstrate his point(?). That in the future the boiling point might change and that just because it has been the case up until now doesn't mean it will always be so. I can't really get my head around that one tbh.

i think he's being nitpicky. facts are dependent on the stability and consistency of what they are built on. he means that can change theoretically.




Question to anyone: Should I be worried? This seems so out of character for him. He was always a non-conformist and believed in spirituality to a degree, (His recently deceased brother helped him choose a golf club today. Not literally, but he felt the presence in a magpie on the course :bugeye:). But, this is a big jump and he seems to want to...I don't know...make me believe it.

there is more to life than just cold hard immediate facts. sometimes when people have been living there life just focused on these, they may neglect the more imaginative or creative as well as emotional side of themselves. maybe he is just trying to feed, release or nurture that now. remember, being able to create, even on a personal level is just as real as acknowledging what already is. the creative drive in all of us to feel and express emotions and concepts is legitimate but as long as we are also aware that there is a limit to it's relation to outside objects. our 'aliveness' may be indicative of some deeper truth way out there somewhere and it may not.

He used the boiling point of water here to demonstrate his point(?).

what is the boiling point of water and doesn't altitude and pressure affect the boiling point of water?

he is right about this as you can't disprove a possibility. but what he and you should know already is that neither of you can prove either side. a possiblity doesn't mean it's true.
...
i think he's being nitpicky. facts are dependent on the stability and consistency of what they are built on. he means that can change theoretically.
...
there is more to life than just cold hard immediate facts. sometimes when people have been living there life just focused on these, they may neglect the more imaginative or creative as well as emotional side of themselves. maybe he is just trying to feed, release or nurture that now.

Interesting points birch. The last one occured to me and I'm hoping it's true. But man, there are easier ways to do that. Buy me a Deepak Chopra book or something. :)

what is the boiling point of water and doesn't altitude and pressure affect the boiling point of water?


100 degress centigrade at sea-level and normal atmospheric conditions isn't it?

His argument was that that could change, the possibilities are infinite apparently, and that would make what we currently know to be a fact not actually a fact. Thinking about it now he might be trying to equate the word fact with something akin to universal and unchanging truth.:shrug:

actually..i would agree with that Lori..you do like to be the center of attention..

well, let's put it this way...i am typically not the center of attention unless there's a good reason for it.

i've known people who have to be the center of attention all the time, and i find that irritating after a while. it might be fun or tolerable in small doses, but over time i've found it becomes rude and embarrassing. it's usually an obvious show of insecurity and it's kind of pathetic.

relatively, i'm pretty secure. i'm ok with myself, and while i don't try to be offensive, i really don't give a shit about what most people think of me, because ultimately i'm the one who has to live with myself 24/7.

i'm definitely not shy, and i'm not overly modest, but that's because i just don't give a fuck, not because i do. does that make sense?

typically in a social setting i am not the center of the conversation or attention. i typically will direct conversation and attention to others, because i'm interested in others, and because it's polite. i can carry on and enjoy a dialog just fine, but do not have some insatiable desire to be heard over anyone else. here on the forum, there's no competition to be heard like in a typical social setting. no one else has to stop expressing their ideas in order for me to express mine and i like that. i'm not a fan of competition at all.

what my friends would say about me is that i'm laid back, and a lot of fun, as long as nobody pisses me off. they would also say that i'm the one who will say what everybody else is thinking, but doesn't have the balls to say.

i think that's a fair assessment of my social skills, as if that needed to be brought up.

Everything you know.

well, i certainly hope that someday you do, and more.

My father, a man with a IQ of over 160 and one of the most open minded people I've ever meet, came back from from the States today, (where he now lives), came to my house for a coffee and proceded to attack evolution and argue against the withholding of grants in science to IDers. He is, and has openly said so, that he now believes that ID is the only possible explanation to the existence of life on Earth.

I'm fucking gobsmacked. I tried to argue with him but ended up sitting there with my mouth open in complete disbelief in the transformation as much as anything else. I don't know how to deal with this.

Is there fucking something in the water over there?

Oh, and facts aren't real, apparently. :shrug:
My question(s) would be: What constitutes "design"? And how do you know it when you see it?

Most of the books of the New Testament are letters, and it is almost universally believed that they were letters that were addressed (and delivered) to people who were alive at the time that they were written. So aside from everything else I've said, your claim flies in the face of what is generally accepted by scholars and the vast majority of the learned Christian world.

to my knowledge, scholars and the vast majority of the learned christian world have no idea who the lady in 2nd john was.

have you read rev ch 12? it's very poetic and metaphorical sounding, not as if it's describing any historical figure. and then there's the "tree". you know, scholars are not typically the ones who receive revelation, but the ones who study the revelation of others.

the scholars and learned christians would also tell you that the bible is filled with prophecy.


Try as you might Lori, but you're not going to be able to legitimately play this down.

rav, i'm not trying to play anything down. i'm honestly describing what i was told and what happened to me, and giving an opinion about it. it's not a game, and if you understand what i'm saying you'll realize that there's no debate to be had. it happened. whether you think it's fantastic or not, or whether i do, is completely irrelevant really. it was traumatic at first, but over time it's become the way it is.


As for your continued character assassination of Signal, there's a report button. Try it. See what the moderators have to say. I doubt that they'll agree with you. Occasionally evasive, sure, but I don't agree with the remainder of your assessment as it's inaccurate. I think you have a little bit too much confidence in your own ability to divine the true intentions of others and not enough wisdom to recognize that it's your own personal bias that is responsible for the errors.

the report button is for pussies, unless something is just grotesque, and then someone else usually beats me to it.

we can agree to disagree in our assessments then.


As for your faith, I have no doubt that it has been challenging, but it undoubtedly provides you with a sense of purpose. Since that's something we're all looking for, I think it's fair to call it a pretty big pay-off. So when you imply that it's harder to have faith than it is not to have it, I don't buy it for a second. It's not as if you're in danger of being stoned to death like a first century Christian now is it?

i didn't imply that it's harder to have faith than it is not to have it. what i said is that my faith is not based on some warm fuzzy emotional state as you implied. i also would not deny my faith in the face of death.


Lori. Hears the voice of God in her head. Has a New Testament letter addressed to her. Has been tasked by God to birth a kingdom on Earth. Is fond of telling tales of her emotional struggle with faith. How romantic. What a heroine you are.

what is this supposed to mean? is it a criticism? are you calling me a liar? are you this patronizing and insensitive to everyone who has had emotional struggles? i'm sure as hell not asking for sympathy; i'm glad i went through what i did. i'm just not going to allow you to lie about about my experience, and imply that it was some feel good walk in the park. it wasn't. what an ass you're being.


It just doesn't jive with your self-professed humility Lori. It's absurdly inconsistent.

you think i'm taking credit for it? you think i've contrived this? honey, i don't have the imagination if it's made up, nor the power if it's not. it blew me the fuck out of the water. i thought my head was going to fucking explode trying to keep up. and all i did was offer to help somebody. that's it.

it's common sense rav; you HAVE to be humbled to reach out to god. otherwise, i just can't fathom anybody wanting to. i'm not the only one in the world who's been humbled, and when you have been, you fucking know it, and it's usually a turning point in people's lives. it's usually a time when people learn something.

knowing god is humbling and empowering at the same time. those things seem contradictory, but they're not.

My question(s) would be: What constitutes "design"? And how do you know it when you see it?

I like it. :)

Kind of like the "Blind Watchmaker" argument, yes?

it's common sense rav; you HAVE to be humbled to reach out to god. otherwise, i just can't fathom anybody wanting to. i'm not the only one in the world who's been humbled, and when you have been, you fucking know it, and it's usually a turning point in people's lives. it's usually a time when people learn something.

knowing god is humbling and empowering at the same time. those things seem contradictory, but they're not.

your interpretation is through traditional religious terms but i don't get why you think this is unusual or even contradictory as far as humble/empowered, especially since you are using a god concept.

explained another way would mean that the humility is the acknowledgement that we don't know everything nor does what we do know is not the foundation of all there is, there could be even more we don't know on a deeper as well as higher level (which is true even literally). this is what you mean by humility.

as for humbing and empowering, if god is more powerful and all knowing as well as the creator of the universe which is a prevalent belief among theists, then of course you would be humbled as well as receiving divine revelation from god would be empowering as well.

didn't i just explain what you said essentially in a more understandable way?? lol

From my conversations with Theists ....

The only view that counts is a subjective one ... objective views must be interpreted in light of subjection to the Gods.

The theme; Man must submit to God as the absolute authority; the commands and actions of God are beyond any scrutiny. While the adherents of this interpretation may not understand God’s commands, they agree that they should be obeyed regardless.

Mutawintji

you know when even scientists or astronomers besides regular folk look out into space, they are awestruck by it. the sheer vastness for one and all they don't know. they wonder at all the possiblities. they even wonder about other universes that may be unlike this one.

you don't have to have a fixed defined concept of god or religion to experience life or to have a sense of wonder about what life is, means or what else could possibly be out there. good, bad or indifferent.

your interpretation is through traditional religious terms but i don't get why you think this is unusual or even contradictory as far as humble/empowered, especially since you are using a god concept.

explained another way would mean that the humility is the acknowledgement that we don't know everything nor does what we do know is not the foundation of all there is, there could be even more we don't know on a deeper as well as higher level (which is true even literally). this is what you mean by humility.

as for humbing and empowering, if god is more powerful and all knowing as well as the creator of the universe which is a prevalent belief among theists, then of course you would be humbled as well as receiving divine revelation from god would be empowering as well.

didn't i just explain what you said essentially in a more understandable way?? lol

yes thank you. you'll never hear me claiming to be eloquent.

I like it. :)

Kind of like the "Blind Watchmaker" argument, yes?
Sort of... It's a valid question. If anyone wants to make design anything other than a philosophical question, then they need to define how you know design when you see it. Otherwise, it's not a testable hypothesis.

to my knowledge, scholars and the vast majority of the learned christian world have no idea who the lady in 2nd john was.

Whether or not they know exactly who she is not the point. The fact that she is believed to have been the recipient of the letter at the time, which would be consistent in that regard with the rest of the NT letters, is. I made that pretty clear.


rav, i'm not trying to play anything down. i'm honestly describing what i was told and what happened to me, and giving an opinion about it. it's not a game, and if you understand what i'm saying you'll realize that there's no debate to be had.

We're having this debate because you're insisting that your claim that one of the letters of the NT is addressed to you specifically is not an extraordinary claim.


what is this supposed to mean? is it a criticism? are you calling me a liar? are you this patronizing and insensitive to everyone who has had emotional struggles?

Everything you say at the moment is contextualized by your extraordinary claims and the manner in which you've chosen to engage other members recently. If you want diplomacy and sensitivity then try conducting yourself in a manner that invites it.


i'm just not going to allow you to lie about about my experience, and imply that it was some feel good walk in the park. it wasn't. what an ass you're being.

My comments about emotions and what "feels" right weren't designed to characterize warm and fuzzy feelings. They were designed to highlight the subjectivity of your experiences and the fact that as such they are not a reliable indicator that you've found any sort of objective truth.


you think i'm taking credit for it? you think i've contrived this? honey, i don't have the imagination if it's made up, nor the power if it's not. it blew me the fuck out of the water. i thought my head was going to fucking explode trying to keep up. and all i did was offer to help somebody. that's it.

I don't necessarily think that you've purposefully and/or consciously contrived anything, but I think there's a very good chance that you've endeavored to make sense of your experiences in a way that makes you feel unique and special, and then multiplied it by 10.

Again:


It just doesn't jive with your self-professed humility Lori. It's absurdly inconsistent.

Subjective claims cannot be shown, no matter where and when whatever person claims to have talked to a God, felt a God, or sensed a God. These often finely-crafted fairy tales down through the ages and now have no value that can be shown to anyone.

... As far as I can see, the only thing you've been bringing to this forum for quite a while now is fantastic claims (that God speaks to you directly, that there's an entire book in the Bible that's about you, that you've been anointed by God to "birth a kingdom" on earth [whatever the fuck that means]) , a lot of hostility, and the message (which you never seem to get tired of preaching) that the entire world is fundamentally and eternally fucked and that you can't wait for it to end.



rotflmao ....... Sounds like an Angel thats been set a task by God but would prefer a career change ..... lololol :):)


Mutawintji

Subjective claims cannot be shown ... These often finely-crafted fairy tales down through the ages and now have no value that can be shown to anyone.


Hello SciWriter ...... Have we met before .......

:cheers::cheers:


Mutawintji

Hello SciWriter ...... Have we met before .......

:cheers::cheers:


Mutawintji

Perhaps in Australia or on some forum under another name but I don't think so. Thanks for the beer and good to meet you. Are you from Brisbane?

rotflmao ....... Sounds like an Angel thats been set a task by God but would prefer a career change ..... lololol :):)

As you can see, Rav is one cool guy. Be sure to drop in on him in Melbourne next time you go out for a 5000 mile drive.

well, i certainly hope that someday you do, and more.

:shrug:

I thought you were here to spread the truth.
One would think you'd put some effort into it.
I mean, considering the importance and all..

In fact, Lori, I think you have an obligation to tell us everything you know in as much detail as humanly possible.

In fact, Lori, I think you have an obligation to tell us everything you know in as much detail as humanly possible.

Oh, but then that would mean we wouldn't be taking responsibility for our beliefs about God! That can't be!

*gasp*

Signal isn't doing anything wrong with regard to the intended purpose of this forum.

Indeed. This is a discussion forum, not a private setting for friends to meet.
Many problems in online communication arise because people have very different ideas of what the context of these discussions is.



However you have to understand that your own personal testimony is all but completely useless when it comes to trying to establish the truth of something to another rational human being. What you know from experience is knowledge to you, but to you only.

I think this is where the Protestant doctrine or one with Protestant leanings comes in, though.
A Protestant in effect considers themselves authoritative in matters of God, and thus maintains that they can unilaterally obligate others in matters of God.
This is something a Catholic or a traditional Hindu, or even a Mormon, would not likely do.



To many other people, the idea that it only takes a sincere plea to God to find him is interpreted as it only takes a desire to believe what you want to believe to believe it.

This is how I interpret that as well. I have tried to talk about this with many theists who propose that "we just need to be sincere", and those attempts all proved futile.



I mean seriously, even if one does hear voices, and even if those voices seem to contain knowledge and wisdom that one can't believe could be attributable to the information processing that occurs in one's own subconscious mind (which can indeed operate in such a way) doesn't mean that those voices are actually coming from somewhere else instead. It shouldn't even convince you, and it certainly wont convince anyone else.

Yes. In religions such as Catholicism or some traditional Hindu schools, there is the institute of checks to verify a claim about God. According to them, if one is to make a certain claim about God, then this claim needs to be in line with 3 sources: scriptures, one's teacher and saints. If it is not, it cannot be promulgated as a claim about God.



I think it's more likely that Signal, while having the soul of a theist in the sense that he believes there must be some ultimate and bigger truth beyond everything we see, is unwittingly modulated by his own rational "god given" mind.

Yes ...



It's not that he denies the existence of God (in fact he very often argues for such) it's just that he has trouble getting from A (God possibly exists) to B (exactly what God wants). The is the same problem the entire fucking world seems to have had since the beginning of recorded history (at least). What you want Signal to do is to solve it simply by shutting the fuck up and opening his heart to God.

But what if God requires more than that? What if you're supposed to abstain from certain things? What if you need to be baptized in a particular way? What if you're supposed to be attached to a fellowship? What if you can't really come to know the fullness of God (and therefore can't ultimately escape this mundane existence) without proper discipleship? Different religions teach different things, and many of them require what are considered to be essential and specific things from their adherents lest they be in danger of not being "right" with God. But you don't give a fuck about all that, because you have your voices and your emotions. To you, if it feels right, if you experience it, it's gotta be true. But how the fuck do you really genuinely know?

About six months ago, we were in a short private exchange. She amply expressed how she supports my search.

Over time, her attitude toward me deteriorated.

This change from supportive to hostile suggests that she has been operating with a set of parameters for what is an acceptable time-frame and content-scope in the "search for God", and what is not. She was basically giving me an ultimatum - but she has not informed me of that. Nor was there any other discussion about the terms of our relationship and no conclusion or agreement. When I failed to live up to her expectations (of which I knew nothing), she rejected me, and now apparently considers it open season to publicly criticize me, and in that includes all of my past behavior, even the one from the times when she was supportive.

Such a change from supportive to hostile, without there being any clarification of the terms of the relationship between us, suggests control issus on her part.

It appears that her formerly expressed support was actually another attempt to control me. Many people, when they are frustrated with someone, resort to offers or declarations of support, love or friendship, saying "I love you / I want to be friends with you / I support you in your efforts" when what they actually mean is "This is my last attempt to get you to get straight." Their words speak "acceptance", but what their speaker means with them is "impending rejection."

The result proves the actual initial intention, regardless of the words that were spoken.

Cheers for the response Rav. I'm still a little shaken by the whole thing to be honest. I've never meet a IDer in the flesh, (unless Jehovah's Witnesses count- I don't pay much attention to them), but now that I have I'm shocked it's my own father. I had a hint from him a few months back when he said that when he arrived on his trip we'd have to discuss the "Big Questions". When I asked him what that meant he just replied "Life". I feel he's been bulding up to this and is calling me out or something. The discussion will continue tomorrow apparently and I'm not sure how to handle it. Forums are fine because of the anonymity, but this is new to me.
/.../
Question to anyone: Should I be worried? This seems so out of character for him. He was always a non-conformist and believed in spirituality to a degree, (His recently deceased brother helped him choose a golf club today. Not literally, but he felt the presence in a magpie on the course). But, this is a big jump and he seems to want to...I don't know...make me believe it.

With a family member, coworker, boss, close friend or other important person in your life, I think it is prudent to be very careful about such topics, and focus primarily on the relationship.

I think that it really does pay off to work on one's communication skills. (Which have nothing to do with ID and such.) There are textbooks and courses for that. I can suggest some if you'd like.

Sometimes, people bring up scientific or philosophical topics with their family members etc. not because they are interested in the topic, but because they wish to reassess the relationship they have with the other person.
Perhaps they want to cool it. Perhaps they are want to set an ultimatum - "If about topic X you don't believe such and such, then we cannot be friends." Perhaps they have felt neglected and are now trying to rouse one's interest or retaliate for the neglect.

If a conversation gets heated (as seems to be the case with your father), it might be more than ID that is on his mind.

it's common sense rav; you HAVE to be humbled to reach out to god. otherwise, i just can't fathom anybody wanting to.


BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

:shrug:

I thought you were here to spread the truth.
One would think you'd put some effort into it.
I mean, considering the importance and all..

In fact, Lori, I think you have an obligation to tell us everything you know in as much detail as humanly possible.

Enmos I have over 10,000 posts. I am quite certain I have told you everything, especially about god.

This really makes me mad and hurts me and I am crying right now. I have poured my heart out on this forum in detail and in painful truth for over a decade now, because I do feel an obligation. As far as I can tell everything I've said has been dismissed, discounted, contended with, or attacked.

After everything I've shared on this forum over the years, why in the world would you say something like this to me?

Rav's most recent response, every response signal has ever made, every response you have ever made enmos, are some of the most polite and benign examples of every response I've ever received out here. In over a decade I can count on one hand the positive or even neutral responses I've been given. I have shared everything. An abortion, a divorce, a mental and emotional breakdown trying to deal with what happened to me, my own disgust with religion, things about my family and my personal struggles that most people would not share. I have been absolutely honest with you people.

And now I'm being absolutely honest when I say "fuck you". I'm gone.

Wahhh, wahh, :bawl: I don't belive in you, you do not exist until you prove to ME that you exist. :bugeye: :shrug: I don't know who some of you people think you are. I'll be quite happy when some of you are dead.

What about space itself? I'm not writing about the common misconception of the darkness that exists outside the planet, but SPACE itself. Without space we would not be able to move. God made this for us, can't you at least be grateful for that??

signal, why does religion bother you much? why are you restless being an agnostic?

all other athiests/agnostics here are happy being so and only discuss religions as external subjects, you seem personally interested, and you've been intensely interested for a loooong time, you didn't give up yet?

Enmos I have over 10,000 posts. I am quite certain I have told you everything, especially about god.

This really makes me mad and hurts me and I am crying right now. I have poured my heart out on this forum in detail and in painful truth for over a decade now, because I do feel an obligation. As far as I can tell everything I've said has been dismissed, discounted, contended with, or attacked.

After everything I've shared on this forum over the years, why in the world would you say something like this to me?

Because you really didn't tell us a lot about God.

signal, why does religion bother you much? why are you restless being an agnostic?

all other athiests/agnostics here are happy being so and only discuss religions as external subjects, you seem personally interested, and you've been intensely interested for a loooong time, you didn't give up yet?

it's as if he/she wants to believe in a god but doesn't know how to get there because there is no objective proof.

it's rather easy though. you can take it from the point of belief or faith with the understanding that there is no proof or disproof.

then there is the choices of different gods, religions or philosophies. that would just be up to personal taste and values. you can even form your own ideas or concepts of what a creator is or might be. you don't even have to rely on what someone else thinks god is which is what already formed religion really is.

signal, why does religion bother you much? why are you restless being an agnostic?

Apparently, it is in my nature.

At this forum, there have been several discussions that agnosticism is an inherently stressful state to be.

There are even biographical books written on this topic:
Spiritual Envy: Michael Krasny’s Agnostic Quest (http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/3833/spiritual_envy%3A_michael_krasny%E2%80%99s_agnosti c_quest),
another source (http://copperhillmedia.com/2011/03/spiritual-envy-an-agnostic%E2%80%99s-quest-by-michael-krasny/) on this book.



all other athiests/agnostics here are happy being so and only discuss religions as external subjects,

I wouldn't be so sure about that.



you seem personally interested, and you've been intensely interested for a loooong time, you didn't give up yet?

For example, Michael Krasny hasn't given up either.

it's as if he/she wants to believe in a god but doesn't know how to get there because there is no objective proof.

it's rather easy though. you can take it from the point of belief or faith with the understanding that there is no proof or disproof.

then there is the choices of different gods, religions or philosophies. that would just be up to personal taste and values. you can even form your own ideas or concepts of what a creator is or might be. you don't even have to rely on what someone else thinks god is which is what already formed religion really is.

In my experience, it doesn't work that way.
Matters of God are on principle too important and too all-encompassing to be approached in a manner that may be suitable for choosing a spouse or a job offer.

Enmos I have over 10,000 posts. I am quite certain I have told you everything, especially about god.

This really makes me mad and hurts me and I am crying right now. I have poured my heart out on this forum in detail and in painful truth for over a decade now, because I do feel an obligation. As far as I can tell everything I've said has been dismissed, discounted, contended with, or attacked.

After everything I've shared on this forum over the years, why in the world would you say something like this to me?

This is a science-oriented discussion forum.

Your stating that you are an authoritative representative of God does not count for much in a science-oriented discussion forum.

In a science-oriented discussion forum, people ask questions and give replies. The norm is to probe the replies in numerous ways. The norm is not to just accept as final any reply anyone makes.

This is a science-oriented discussion forum. It's not CARM. It's not some other religion forum. It's not a private meeting place for friends. It's not a church, not a temple, not a synagogue, not an ashram, nor the private office of one's spiritual teacher.

The rules of engagement in a science-oriented discussion forum are different than in those places.

What about space itself? I'm not writing about the common misconception of the darkness that exists outside the planet, but SPACE itself. Without space we would not be able to move. God made this for us, can't you at least be grateful for that??

He doesn't seem to be responsible for that. The only evidence for God is within the heads of religious people, and that applies to all conceptions of supernatural beings, so they can't all be true.

Rav's most recent response, every response signal has ever made, every response you have ever made enmos, are some of the most polite and benign examples of every response I've ever received out here. In over a decade I can count on one hand the positive or even neutral responses I've been given. I have shared everything. An abortion, a divorce, a mental and emotional breakdown trying to deal with what happened to me, my own disgust with religion, things about my family and my personal struggles that most people would not share. I have been absolutely honest with you people.

And now I'm being absolutely honest when I say "fuck you". I'm gone.

Come on now.

I think it would be useful if you took a course in assertiveness (http://www.livestrong.com/article/14699-improving-assertive-behavior/).

Your communication style, especially in regards to theistic discussion, has often been of the aggressive kind. Aggressive is not assertive.

There's a difference between saying - or thinking -
You're an idiot and a liar
and
When you question my experiences with God, I feel hurt.

Subjective claims cannot be shown, no matter where and when whatever person claims to have talked to a God, felt a God, or sensed a God. These often finely-crafted fairy tales down through the ages and now have no value that can be shown to anyone.

Except the possessor of said feeling, talk, or experience.

Which is what I've said about spirituality, it really is personal.

Except the possessor of said feeling, talk, or experience.

Which is what I've said about spirituality, it really is personal.

Which makes it uninformed by anything external.

It also occurs on and as the "second story", above the first floor of neurology, so it is really twice removed.

Sensation, sensation, sensation.

birch, signal, if that's the case, then you're going around in circles here, take a one year sabbatical from work, rent a cottage in greenland or even the arctic, and take a ton of books with you about every religion, wasting your time here with us and wikipedia and websites isn't gonna get you anywhere.

Rav's most recent response, every response signal has ever made, every response you have ever made enmos, are some of the most polite and benign examples of every response I've ever received out here. In over a decade I can count on one hand the positive or even neutral responses I've been given. I have shared everything. An abortion, a divorce, a mental and emotional breakdown trying to deal with what happened to me, my own disgust with religion, things about my family and my personal struggles that most people would not share. I have been absolutely honest with you people.

And now I'm being absolutely honest when I say "fuck you". I'm gone.
Yes, you've told us all that. Nothing in there about God really.
And.. sorry you feel that way..

birch, signal, if that's the case, then you're going around in circles here, take a one year sabbatical from work, rent a cottage in greenland or even the arctic, and take a ton of books with you about every religion, wasting your time here with us and wikipedia and websites isn't gonna get you anywhere.

If what you are actually trying to communicate something like

"I am really uncomfortable seeing Signal (and others) posting about religious/spiritual problems. I don't like that they do that. It gets me to question my own spiritual/religious stances and I don't like that."
or
"I am concerned about Signal's (and others') spiritual/religious wellbeing."

then you should say so straightforwardly.
The we could talk.


But if you set yourself up as the judge of what "gets people somewhere" in terms of spirituality/religion and what doesn't, and expect us to abide by your judgment - then you should also expect at least an absence of compliance.

If spirituality/religion really would be as simple as you describe, don't you think more people would do it, and have success with the process you describe?
And do you think that the only reason why people don't "take a one year sabbatical from work, rent a cottage in greenland or even the arctic, and take a ton of books with them about every religion" is because they are evil, or trolls, or lazy or somesuch?


You could simply first ask me what I get from posting here, how my life has been going, what my aims are and so on.
Then we could talk.

If you simply want the upper hand: then we cannot talk.

Lori_7,


And now I'm being absolutely honest when I say "fuck you". I'm gone.

This is the reaction they want.
It justifies their denial.

Don't give them the satisfaction. Stick around.
Talk about God more. ;)


jan.

This is the reaction they want.

What do you base this statement on?



It justifies their denial.

Are you an official representative of God who can unilaterally obligate other people, in matters of God?

signal, why does religion bother you much? why are you restless being an agnostic?

I'm not Signal and can't answer for her. But it is an interesting question.

Comparing me and Signal, I think that we are both alike in being agnostics. Where we seem to differ is that I'm an atheist as well as an agnostic, while I don't think that Signal is.

In other words, both Signal and I seem to share the epistemological view that we don't currently have knowledge of God. But I go further than Signal in being reasonably confident in the view that nothing exists in reality that clearly corresponds to the word 'God'.

Signal, on the other hand, seems to think that God does exist, or at least thinks that there's a very good likelihood that God might.

(I might be mistaken about that, and if so, Signal can correct me.)

Epistemological-agnostics/ontological-atheists probably can find rest a lot more easily than epistemological-agnostics/ontological-theists.

But maybe not always.

We have the spectacle right here on Sciforums of atheists who just viscerally hate what they call "religion". They aren't in a state of rest at all, they are in a state of great agitation. I'm still not sure what accounts for that.

Of course, some of our atheists are epistemological-gnostics/ontological-atheists. They think that they actually do know that God doesn't exist. Some think that they can even prove it. It isn't just that they lack concrete belief in things that they have no way of knowing.

And there's me. I'm very much a seeker and have been all my life. But if I'm reasonably confident that God doesn't exist, then what in the world am I seeking? I think that the answer to that one is fairly similar to the answer that Rav might give. While I'm an atheist with regards to the 'God(s)' of the various human religions, I do feel the reality of some kind of transcendence. It's just that I don't personalize it and tend to think of it more as 'the unknown'.

I think that kind of feeling is common among scientists, even those who are ostensibly atheists, and it's often one of the things that attracted them to science in the first place. (Think of Carl Sagan reverently intoning "Billions and Billions..." on his old 'Cosmos' TV series almost as if it was his astronomical prayer...)

Assuming god does not exist... Interactions with theists only gives you information about the theist.

the bottomline is we all need a sense of meaning in our lives or to our lives. some people may find it in religion, some in their particular hobbies, some in career, some in research, some in family/children/relationships, some in artistic endeavors etc. whatever floats your boat.

that said, it doesn't mean though that discussions about the 'actual' existence of a god is going to just by accepted as a fact. it's one of those things that is a faith and some religious texts are just plain nuts to take literally but not all of them.

Comparing me and Signal, I think that we are both alike in being agnostics. Where we seem to differ is that I'm an atheist as well as an agnostic, while I don't think that Signal is.

In other words, both Signal and I seem to share the epistemological view that we don't currently have knowledge of God. But I go further than Signal in being reasonably confident in the view that nothing exists in reality that clearly corresponds to the word 'God'.

Signal, on the other hand, seems to think that God does exist, or at least thinks that there's a very good likelihood that God might.

(I might be mistaken about that, and if so, Signal can correct me.)

Epistemological-agnostics/ontological-atheists probably can find rest a lot more easily than epistemological-agnostics/ontological-theists.

I am sure that God exists - I just don't know who or what God is, what exactly God's existence is about or how it can be known.

I believe that everything people have words for (including God) exists; but it's not clear to me how these things exist, and how they can be known.
This is my version of agnosticism: I allow for all kinds of things.



We have the spectacle right here on Sciforums of atheists who just viscerally hate what they call "religion". They aren't in a state of rest at all, they are in a state of great agitation. I'm still not sure what accounts for that.

Perhaps some of those atheists are merely being defensive to the contempt they get from theists.

Signal,


What do you base this statement on?

Years of communication.



Are you an official representative of God who can unilaterally obligate other people, in matters of God?


Erm! I don't know, I haven't given it much thought.

Are you a policeman?


jan.

Years of communication.

You said, in reply to Lori:



And now I'm being absolutely honest when I say "fuck you". I'm gone.

This is the reaction they want.

You did not actually ask anyone whether they want that Lori leaves.

You simply attributed intentions to people.

Do you think this is fair?

Do you think that "years of communication" justify you making claims about other people's intentions in any situation, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions?




Erm! I don't know, I haven't given it much thought.

I think you should give it thought - a lot of thought.

If you want to go around making claims about other people's intentions, without asking those people anything, but nonetheless expecting that your claims about their intentions be taken seriously -
then
Are you an official representative of God who can unilaterally obligate other people, in matters of God?
certainly needs to be settled first, in the affirmative.

Otherwise, you are just another controlling, aggressive busybody abusing his spiritual/religious credentials.

Signal,



You said, in reply to Lori:
You did not actually ask anyone whether they want that Lori leaves.

Lori was being human, I responded to that.
Maybe you should listen from time to time.



You simply attributed intentions to people.
Do you think this is fair?

Under the circumstances, yes.



Do you think that "years of communication" justify you making claims about other people's intentions in any situation, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions?

The question is inappropriate.



I think you should give it thought - a lot of thought.


I'll put it on my 'to do' list.
How's that?



If you want to go around making claims about other people's intentions, without asking those people anything, but nonetheless expecting that your claims about their intentions be taken seriously -
then


You're serious aren't you? :D


Are you an official representative of God who can unilaterally obligate other people, in matters of God?
certainly needs to be settled first, in the affirmative.


Yes. I AM the second coming.
But I don't do requests.



Otherwise, you are just another controlling, aggressive busybody abusing his spiritual/religious credentials.

That, I AM also.

Now, are you or are you not a policeman?


jan.

Now, are you or are you not a policeman?

In the name of God, anything is permissible, eh?

And you wonder why some of us end up wondering whether theists are perhaps indeed free to rape, kill and pillage with impunity.

In the name of God, anything is permissible, eh?

And you wonder why some of us end up wondering whether theists are perhaps indeed free to rape, kill and pillage with impunity.


Actually, I don't.

jan.

Then why do you think why some of us end up wondering whether theists are perhaps indeed free to rape, kill and pillage with impunity?

Then why do you think why some of us end up wondering whether theists are perhaps indeed free to rape, kill and pillage with impunity?


Because you're free to think what you want?


jan.

From my own experience (not on SciForum), most religious have nothing do with morals give by their own religion.
They are religious only declarative, and they don't understand the principles of their own religion.

But I have met what I call "true believers", who are wonderful people, always ready to listen you, always ready to help you.
Unfortunately most people (religious or not) take advantage of them and then mock of them.

My conclusion is that you can be evil, and if you are religious and if not.
And you can be a good (wise) man, and if you are religious and if not .

From my own experience (not on SciForum), most religious have nothing do with morals give by their own religion.
They are religious only declarative, and they don't understand the principles of their own religion.

But I have met what I call "true believers", who are wonderful people, always ready to listen you, always ready to help you.
Unfortunately most people (religious or not) take advantage of them and then mock of them.

My conclusion is that you can be evil, and if you are religious and if not.
And you can be a good (wise) man, and if you are religious and if not .

bravo. you got it.

good or bad people has nothing to do with religion nor does sincerity.

yes, even religious people will mock those who are sincere because religion is not all about sincerity. that's a level of true wisdom and honesty that is not mainstream and religion is of mainstream values. that requires one to be real, genuine and to have a genuine sense of conscience not just be 'religious'. it is an active and natural thing that comes from sincerity where one does not need to constantly go check what a book says or told you to do. that is not true wisdom or even sincerity. what's ironic is jesus was an example of the persecution, dismissal or mockery but so many religious don't even understand it. they just see him as a way for them to get into heaven. basically, they just see him as something to use and ride the forgiveness angle for all it's worth.

unfortunately, the biggest drawback to a religion that offers forgiveness for anything is that it will attract those who are only really in it for that. they are not attracted out of sincerity but as a way for people to tell themselves and eachother that they are fine, not because they are not smart enough or talented enough etc but because they want their character flaws excused because they don't really care to change them. they sin, god washes away their sin etc. this is one of the major reasons it attracts some of the scummiest and morally irresponsible people which is ironic because religion is supposed to be the epitomy of morality. their deceit is that they believe they are special or have a sense of entitlement because of their love for 'god'. religious people, especially of fundamental religions tend to be the most heirarchal and powermongers in thinking which is ironic. basically, they think they should be on top bossing around everyone else as they believe they are right and the right hand of god with all others the 'lesser' people, the 'sinners', the 'lost' etc. when in reality, it's not that they are trying to gain members as much as their attraction to the religion is very primal and they know that others who are attracted to the religion are the same as them. everyone else deserves to go to hell basically or is worthless is what they really think or believe.

good or bad people has nothing to do with religion nor does sincerity.

How come people who are into religion, or spirituality, or who are theists, tend to think that those of us who are not, are not sincere (and are bad) ...

Do you think that "years of communication" justify you making claims about other people's intentions in any situation, and conversely, obligate others to believe your claims about their intentions?

The question is inappropriate.

Not at all.

How come people who are into religion, or spirituality, or who are theists, tend to think that those of us who are not, are not sincere (and are bad) ...

i already explained it. they are not really enlightened. they think only those who are in the correct 'club' or religion or literal 'theists' are those who are sincere or good. not all of them but most of them. this is because they think in very superficial and conventional terms. theist equals god equals good, nontheist must equal bad etc. ironicly, they are the most conventional minded of all and even less insightful.

that said, i don't think people who respect spirituality or the concept tend to be this way. i think people who consider themselves spiritual but not religious or traditional theists are more open-minded and leave things more open-ended. they are understanding that it's a process of experience and discovery where they may or may not get all the answers.

also, traditional theists tend to think that lack of belief in god or not being a part of a religion means that one is immoral or does not respect morality. this again is because of their black/white thinking. they think religion has a monopoly in that department. when it's pointed out that it's not necessarily true, they often come back with the excuse that being moral or good is not what's important but belief in god or salvation is. this really hints to why they are attracted to this religion for two-fold reasons. one is ego and they don't want anyone else to be deemed more moral than they so everyone is equalized by this belief system no matter what they actually do. the second is they are trying to cover or excuse their own shortcomings. but ironicly, these types tend to be best at following the letter of the law without understanding or respecting the spirit of the law, so to speak as well. it's really often intentional self-delusion, therefore deceit.

Not at all.

Signal, explain your question.


jan.

Signal, explain your question.

I find it hard to believe that you are not aware that you are attributing intentions to other people without asking them anything.
But perhaps you really are not aware you are doing that, being trapped in an aggressive/controlling communication style.
Or perhaps it is part or your (theological) position to make claims about other people's privacy without asking them anything.




The aggressive communicator will say, believe, or behave like:

- “I’m superior and right and you’re inferior and wrong.”
- “I’m loud, bossy and pushy.”
- “I can dominate and intimidate you.”
- “I can violate your rights.”
- “I’ll get my way no matter what.”
- “You’re not worth anything.”
- “It’s all your fault.”
- “I react instantly.”
- “I’m entitled.”
- “You owe me.”
- “I own you.”

http://serenityonlinetherapy.com/assertiveness.htm


Constructing I-Statements (http://www.traumacentral.net/i-statements.htm)

HOW TO HAVE FRUITFUIL DIALOGUES AND AVOID ARGUMENTS. (http://www.ribessj.org/DIALOGUE_VS_ARGUMENTS.pdf)

You came into this thread making a you-statement (in plural: they-statement):


This is the reaction they want.
It justifies their denial.

Lori tends to make you-statements as well:


prove it. i have never known signal to present any logic, good or bad. signal is an evasive, dishonest troll who talks out both sides of his/her mouth. the only emotion signal ever incites is frustration because he/she never makes any sense. and speaking of emotion, the very reason signal is a troll is because he/she is jaded and having some martyr's pity party about the sad results of their own desires and actions. signal does nothing but look for someone to blame. signal is pathetic.

When I asked her, Lori replied that she considers herself an authoritative representative of God.
I asked you the same question.

Signa,



I ind it hard to believe that you are not aware that you are attributing intentions to other people without asking them anything.


Why would I need to ask you and co,
if Lori's reaction is what you want?



But perhaps you really are not aware you are doing that, being trapped in an aggressive/controlling communication style.


You're the one that's trapped Signal.
You can't even commit to anything.
Show some balls, commit to something, then get back to me.



Or perhaps it is part or your (theological) position to make claims about other people's privacy without asking them anything.


What is my ''theological position'', and where is the list of rulings that
correspond to it's various levels. Oh! and please show the actual various levels and how you've come to access them???




You came into this thread making a you-statement (in plural: they-statement):


This is the reaction they want.
It justifies their denial.


So what?
If the cap fits.

Have you clocked some of the statements you and other 2D psuedo-philoheads make about theists, despite having had things explained to
you over the years.

It wouldn't be so bad if you had the gonads to make some conclusion
about yourself.
Tell us your position Signal, don't be shy, we won't bite.

We're waiting!
Put us out of our misery? ;)




Lori tends to make you-statements as well:



prove it. i have never known signal to present any logic, good or bad. signal is an evasive, dishonest troll who talks out both sides of his/her mouth. the only emotion signal ever incites is frustration because he/she never makes any sense. and speaking of emotion, the very reason signal is a troll is because he/she is jaded and having some martyr's pity party about the sad results of their own desires and actions. signal does nothing but look for someone to blame. signal is pathetic.


Can you prove her wrong?
I'll tell you what, tell us about yourself, what you actually believe.
Commit to something, Singal.
Stick to something, Signal.
Signal, I implore you. :)



When I asked her, Lori replied that she considers herself an authoritative representative of God.
I asked you the same question.


Apart from the fact that I've answered this question in more thanb
one of you sciforums personalities, the question is irrelevant to the present discussion.
I am sure that when you are ready to commit to being one person on these forums, the reasoning behing this persistantly adament line of questioning will
become clear. Or maybe it will fade away as you become accustomed to reality. Only time will tell.

jan.

From your interactions with theists, what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?




For myself, it is only after interacting with theists that I seriously began to consider that God may be evil, or that He doesn't exist.

nothing. they believe in a fairy tale. yet if i believe in a bigfoot im crazy... there is more evidence of bigfoot than god

i already explained it. they are not really enlightened. they think only those who are in the correct 'club' or religion or literal 'theists' are those who are sincere or good. not all of them but most of them. this is because they think in very superficial and conventional terms. theist equals god equals good, nontheist must equal bad etc. ironicly, they are the most conventional minded of all and even less insightful.

that said, i don't think people who respect spirituality or the concept tend to be this way. i think people who consider themselves spiritual but not religious or traditional theists are more open-minded and leave things more open-ended. they are understanding that it's a process of experience and discovery where they may or may not get all the answers.

also, traditional theists tend to think that lack of belief in god or not being a part of a religion means that one is immoral or does not respect morality. this again is because of their black/white thinking. they think religion has a monopoly in that department. when it's pointed out that it's not necessarily true, they often come back with the excuse that being moral or good is not what's important but belief in god or salvation is. this really hints to why they are attracted to this religion for two-fold reasons. one is ego and they don't want anyone else to be deemed more moral than they so everyone is equalized by this belief system no matter what they actually do. the second is they are trying to cover or excuse their own shortcomings. but ironicly, these types tend to be best at following the letter of the law without understanding or respecting the spirit of the law, so to speak as well. it's really often intentional self-delusion, therefore deceit.

There are a couple of bible quotes that lead them to believe that stuff . Like-mind quotes . You here it in every day type stereotyping too . Here is a common quote in the modern world " tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are ' No this is not necessarily true . but people except it as a kind of fact as they pigeon hole others. Here would be one example " If you got a beer in your hand and you hang out with dunks you must be a dunk and we will treat you like you are a drunk . So here is the million dollar question of the day " Was Jesus a drunk " ??

O.K. there are many bible quotes that say the exact opposite of this implication . These is the ones that cause the Christian to go out and convert peoples . So on one hand you are ostracized and on the other hand you are brought into the fold . The biggest of all mystery which runs its course threw the old testament and the new that most reject or ignore is forgiveness and mercy . Once a scape goat is made then the grudge continues for ever more . I am sure know people like that . Hating other people is the easy thing to do . The hard work is to forgive . It is understandable as you leave your self open for perps to repeat behavior. Not if you give em the killer eye when you forgive em . Not to many people want to die . They would rather change and adapt . Humans are like that . Hells Bells I do believe that is why we as a species are still here.

O.K. I stopped giving the evil eye many years ago , so get off the gate keepers butt. I only give love glances now . Kissy Kissy . Love can be tough sometimes . Tough Love eye is still in the mix .
I had the strangest day yesterday. If you were Me you would have freaked . I did . Life is so so strange

to be honest, i've never known a christian who actually forgives or really lives the way the bible says. i'm sure they exist but the ones i've known are like anyone else and hold grudges as well as believe in revenge, though they seem to be even worse. the way they justify this is through their religion as well because the bible also shows god punishing. but they do expect forgiveness for their wrongs though.

let's put it this way. it's one thing to nod and tell yourself that you would forgive and another to actually have something happen to make you extremely angry or hurt or ego bruised especially or motivated by jealousy, envy, prejudice, pride etc. the christians i've known, the bible verses have no place or is totally irrevelant when 'real' life occurs. so i don't respect them very much as i think they are full of it as well as more deceitful.

it's good that you mentioned scapegoat because that's what most do so they can continue to pretend that they are forgiving but in reality, they have their victims while they pretend they are not hateful. why would they be? since they are the ones who are perpetrating. but you really get to see just how deceitful they are when the tables turn on them, they can get very vicious. it's really weird how they expect people to forgive them and others to forgive others but when something happens to them, it's somehow different and they get pissed, indignant and demand "justice" etc. while all the while they tell others to stop being that way and just forgive. these types of christians make me sick. it's just disgusting how unfair, hypocritical and biased they are.

nothing. they believe in a fairy tale. yet if i believe in a bigfoot im crazy... there is more evidence of bigfoot than god

That is me handle Brother . Big Foot. Me code name . My family gave it to me .
Hunting handle . I kind of like the name . I didn't at first but it grew on me as the years went by . Now it is the strangest thing when I found out Haiti had another name by the original tribes . Yeah " Foot " it interpreted to foot .
Kind of freaked me with the way I feel about the holy shoe in the movie " Life of Brian "
Won't be long and the wood shipments will be going there . Looks like we got wood . Meeting in about 30 minutes with a sawyer that thinks he can help .

Rock on

I like it. :)

Kind of like the "Blind Watchmaker" argument, yes?

RedRabbit -

How did it go with your father. Very interested in hearing about the debate.