Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins puts forth the following "belief scale".

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I have stated several times on this thread that I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Dawkins describes himself as an atheist and places himself at 6 on the scale. I describe myself as an agnostic but I also place myself at 6, perhaps at 5.5, on the scale. There is a trend among theists and atheists, Dawkins included, to trivialize the distinction between agnostic and atheists, but I do not believe the distinction is trivial, and I have so stated.

So my answer your question "What evidence have you provided Actor that God does not exist?" is none, for the simple reason that I do not believe that it is possible to prove the issue either way. If anyone wishes to place himself at 2 or 2.5 or whatever on the scale, then fine. But if anyone claims to be a 1 then I want to see her/his proof. Similarly I would challenge anyone who claims to be a 7, but I've never met such a person.

Where on the scale would you place yourself?

If I were to become convinced that God does exist and place myself at 1 or 2 on the scale the question remains as to whether that god is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god or some other deity. If the JCI god then which text, the Talmud, the Bible or the Koran, is the proper holy book. If not the JCI god then which? Zeus, Woden, Shiva, or some unnamed deity who does not care anything about human affairs? On each of these questions I'm back at #6 on the scale.

Would you be so kind as to state your form of Agnosticism for us, since it comes in various flavors?

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Would you be so kind as to state your form of Agnosticism for us, since it comes in various flavors?

Boxcar

It seems to me that the agnostic's position is the most reasonable one.

He shrugs his shoulders...and declares that he can find no evidence to support either the existence or the nonexistence of God.

Who can argue with him?

[hcap]

My agnosticism may not be close to Actor's but I agree with him 100%. Remember you have the burden of proof. You always have, and you always fail. If you had only said "I believe" instead of "I can prove it ", everything would change.

Circular reasoning is not valid in the so-called logical argument you present as logic. BTW, I would give you greater acknowledgement if you said your belief also included some direct religious experiences.

As a restaurant reviewer you seen to write your review without ever taking a bite

Originally Posted by Actor

Speaking of points this is the score so far.

• You have failed to provide any evidence or argument that God exists. In one of your posts you seem to admit that no such evidence or argument exists.
• You have failed to provide any non-circular argument that the Bible is the word of God.
• You refuse to so much as even comment on the possibility that religions other than Calvinism may be valid.
• You fail to comment on the problem of the destiny of the unevangelized.
• You have labeled any part of science that you do not agree with as "junk science" without providing any criteria for what constitutes "non-junk science".

So unbeliever 1, Boxcar 0.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

So what if:
1. the Universe cannot be known perfectly by Man
2. randomness is an integral part of the Universe
3. the Universe as we know it may be on it's way to a heat death
4. neither religion or science can describe the reality

Man's knowledge is limited.
Why would you expect our species to be able to totally explain those things and what message about spirituality are you trying to convey??

If you think about the implications of what you just summed up, and accept those limitations, the spiritual concepts of illusion or Maya or sleep comes to mind

So the practical question is can we become more aware and SOMEHOW learn what to do to perceive and think about things differently. This where I personalty take a leap of faith based on the idea and direct experience of peak moments.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

This where I personalty take a leap of faith based on the idea and direct experience of peak moments.

I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately, peak experiences are exactly that. They are peaks. Fleeting moments of transformation.
They are few and far between in life, and some people have either never had them or never knew that they had them.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by hcap

My agnosticism may not be close to Actor's but I agree with him 100%. Remember you have the burden of proof. You always have, and you always fail. If you had only said "I believe" instead of "I can prove it ", everything would change.

What would you accept as proof that Jesus rose from the dead (which, as Paul noted, is the central claim upon which Christianity stands or falls)? The accounts of eyewitnesses (including Paul, who originally opposed the church) in the New Testament have been characterized in this thread as self-serving documents written long after the fact by third parties, which misrepresented and exaggerated who Jesus was as part of an attempt to obtain the money and possessions of believers, and for which there are no corroborating, contemporary, non-Scriptural sources. Yet, the spread of Christianity from its start as an obscure Jewish sect is well-documented, as is the willingness of the apostles to maintain the truth of what they had seen and heard (including the resurrection) at the cost of their own lives, which were characterized by persecution and rejection rather than material wealth.

I (speaking just for myself) believe the accounts in the New Testament to be true on that basis (the Gospels of Luke and John, and also the Book of Acts, being particularly persuasive to me in that regard, since the authors clearly identified themselves as personally involved in the narrative that they were writing, and also because the events they relate are described as taking place in the context of the functioning and "real-world" political realities of the very secular Roman Empire). I strive to make a point of conveying that belief, and the events upon which I base it, to others -- both because God will hold me accountable for whether I do that or not, and also because, for me, it is truly good news that people would (or should) be glad to hear, since it provides a means for them to live forever in God's presence. What hearers do with that information is ultimately their decision, but my responsibility is to assure that they have heard it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately, peak experiences are exactly that. They are peaks. Fleeting moments of transformation.
They are few and far between in life, and some people have either never had them or never knew that they had them.

Yes that is true, but sometimes they can be a life altering moment and more believable than tons of dogmatic doctrine. Or intellectual exercises counting angels on the head of a pin.

Every time I asked box about religious experiences he has played silly games, and usually adds something about how only authorized Christian prayer will work.


BTW, my late mother gave me some Zen advice early on, without realizing it

Mom would say to me in my late teens...

....Meditation, schmeditation. Get a job already!

Funny, I took some lessons from a Zen Roshi who said similar things, but left out the Meditation rhyme and emphasized getting up at 4 am and doing some hard physical work before extended periods of meditation.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

.........Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over.


http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/

Given all that we know about this world and this universe, I find it odd that a person of reasonable intelligence could not put much stock into the "lucky chance" theory.

it seems certainly reasonable to me...and it really wasn't that lucky, as conditions on this planet are pretty unique from the limited data we've come to understand over the centuries...that's where the luck lies...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It seems to me that the agnostic's position is the most reasonable one.

He shrugs his shoulders...and declares that he can find no evidence to support either the existence or the nonexistence of God.

Who can argue with him?

As soon as Actor tells what brand of Agnosticism he has bought into, I'll give it a whirl.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

My agnosticism may not be close to Actor's but I agree with him 100%. Remember you have the burden of proof. You always have, and you always fail. If you had only said "I believe" instead of "I can prove it ", everything would change.

Circular reasoning is not valid in the so-called logical argument you present as logic. BTW, I would give you greater acknowledgement if you said your belief also included some direct religious experiences.

As a restaurant reviewer you seen to write your review without ever taking a bite

Our first parents took the bite, and look where that got us.

Boxcar

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have answered all your questions.

Really? Refresh my memory, what was your answer to my query of why The Bhagavad Gita (Hindu), The Guru Granth Sahib(Sikh) or the Koran should not be given equal weight with the Bible since they are also holy books and claim to be the word of God. Deflections don't count.

And you have not answered my question about the destiny of the unevangelized.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Even to this moment, you still believe Calvinism is a religion, when it is not. As explained previously it is a system of a branch of theology known as soteriology.

Pure semantics. It depends on your definition of religion. I was raised a Methodist. My dictionary identifies both Calvinism and Methodism as doctrine, without using the word religion. But Methodists refer to their belief as religion. A trivial point really.

Originally Posted by boxcar

No wonder you think the score is what it is. And even then, if I have failed in all those things, would not the score be 5-0 your favor? You're even a lousy scorekeeper!

So you score. Actually I'm a lousy typist. I discovered the typo after PA's edit window had closed. Another trivial point.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you really didn't get my analogy, did you? (Maybe in your case, you drink too much coffee.) But let me connect the dots for you: BO is the head of state of the U.S.A. God is the head of state of the Universe. BO, therefore, is to the U.S. what God is to the entire universe. No go back and re-read that post.

This is just the sort of response I expected. Your so called analogy is vague and can mean whatever you want it to mean ex post facto.

There's a story of a man who wished to put the Buddha to the test. Holding the bird in his hand he asked the Buddha "Is the bird alive or dead?" If the Buddha answered "Alive" then he would crush the bird and throw it to the ground, proving the Buddha wrong. If the Buddha answered "Dead" he would release the bird and let it fly away, again proving the Buddha wrong. But the Buddha's answer was "It's up to you."

Your analogy is your bird and what it means is up to you.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Would you be so kind as to state your form of Agnosticism for us, since it comes in various flavors?

Boxcar

Another deflection. If you could provide a menu perhaps I could choose a flavor. Then again, probably not.

Atheists and agnostics have been compared to a herd of cats. Each thinks independently and does not conform. Your assertion that agnosticism comes in various flavors is meaningless since there would be a different flavor for each agnostic. I've stated before that a statement of my beliefs would be book length.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Another deflection. If you could provide a menu perhaps I could choose a flavor. Then again, probably not.

Atheists and agnostics have been compared to a herd of cats. Each thinks independently and does not conform. Your assertion that agnosticism comes in various flavors is meaningless since there would be a different flavor for each agnostic. I've stated before that a statement of my beliefs would be book length.

Nice deflection. If I have to provide a menu, it means you don't know your own tastes -- which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

And furthermore, if you're incapable of stating your world view in a few succinct sentences or even two or three paragraphs, then surely you haven't figured it out. I have stated on this forum the warp 'n' woof to the gospel in a few short paragraphs. The Church has produced succinct creeds that sum up the fundamentals to the Christian faith. Yet...you need a book? Why? To be able to navigate the endless maze in your mind in which your philosophy is hopelessly trapped?

Finally, I think the better comparison between the two As would be blind sheeple -- being led to the slaughter.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Really? Refresh my memory, what was your answer to my query of why The Bhagavad Gita (Hindu), The Guru Granth Sahib(Sikh) or the Koran should not be given equal weight with the Bible since they are also holy books and claim to be the word of God. Deflections don't count.

Apart from the the bible, can you quote from those other "holy books" where they claim to be the word of God?

And you have not answered my question about the destiny of the unevangelized.

I did. I told you not to worry about others' destiny, but worry about your own instead. All of God's elect will be saved and dwell in heaven with Him for all eternity. You seem to have a really tough time connecting dots. The implication to the predestination of the elect is that the non-elect have also been predestined for their fate. Do you have a problem with that?

Pure semantics. It depends on your definition of religion. I was raised a Methodist. My dictionary identifies both Calvinism and Methodism as doctrine, without using the word religion. But Methodists refer to their belief as religion. A trivial point really.

Every time you screw up, it's "trivial'. I think you would be very hard-pressed to find "Calvinism" on any credible list of major world religions.

The only reason the five Doctrines of Grace have been given his name is because he was the first one to logically systematize those doctrines.

So you score. Actually I'm a lousy typist. I discovered the typo after PA's edit window had closed. Another trivial point.

Actually, your far too modest. You're a lot worse than a "lousy typist".

This is just the sort of response I expected. Your so called analogy is vague and can mean whatever you want it to mean ex post facto.

There was nothing vague about it all. The parallels were very exact. Well...maybe not. Maybe you've become so disgruntled with BO that you no longer consider him to be the head of state of this nation.

There's a story of a man who wished to put the Buddha to the test. Holding the bird in his hand he asked the Buddha "Is the bird alive or dead?" If the Buddha answered "Alive" then he would crush the bird and throw it to the ground, proving the Buddha wrong. If the Buddha answered "Dead" he would release the bird and let it fly away, again proving the Buddha wrong. But the Buddha's answer was "It's up to you."

Your analogy is your bird and what it means is up to you.

But I put you to the test, and that is the best you can answer" Some stupid thing "buddha", who probably never existed, allegedly said? I suspect that my analogy was very much alive which is why you don't want to address it, so you crush it instead.

And furthermore the bird could either be dead or alive in your illustration. But my analogy was one of positive comparisons. Suggestion: Keep your eye on the ball and quit looking up at mythical birds, perhaps you'll get less bird dooky in your eyes, and you'll be able to see better.

Boxcar

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nice deflection.

Thanks. I've been expecting you to accuse me of deflection sooner or later.

Originally Posted by boxcar

If I have to provide a menu, it means you don't know your own tastes -- which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

What to tastes have to do with it? My definition of "tastes" in this context would be a list of my preferences in how to sate my physical desires. Do you have another definition?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And furthermore, if you're incapable of stating your world view in a few succinct sentences or even two or three paragraphs, then surely you haven't figured it out.

Duh! That's what I've been trying to say all along. I don't have it "figured out." And I don't think anyone else has either. And I'm not certain of that. That's agnosticism in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have stated on this forum the warp 'n' woof...

warp 'n' woof?

Originally Posted by boxcar

...to the gospel in a few short paragraphs. The Church has produced succinct creeds that sum up the fundamentals to the Christian faith.

Those "succinct creeds" sound good in church but Christianity is based on a 1500 page book. In the last 2000 years the Christian faith has produced enough books to fill libraries and has split into thousands of denominations through disagreements on theological details. No one has yet summed it up to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yet...you need a book? Why? To be able to navigate the endless maze in your mind in which your philosophy is hopelessly trapped?

A very apt description, and one to which I take no offense. The human mind may very well be likened to an endless maze in which one feels trapped. But I believe that critical thinking is the means of escaping the trap. It would take a book to explain myself in sufficient detail to hope that the reader would at least understand where I'm coming from, whether he agrees with me or not.

And of course there is the possibility of selling the book and making a lot of money.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Finally, I think the better comparison between the two As would be blind sheeple -- being led to the slaughter.

Sheeple?