Does God Exist?

It sounds like you disagreed with yourself right away, saying that you don't think that I analyze the source of our devotion properly by omitting the devotional, but then saying we find good fortune from looking at the question from a biological/chemical root. For me the two are one; devotion as we physical primates understand it is impossible without electrons buzzing around and primates mating.

I am still bugged by your concept of god; it seems to be so nebulous as to constitute anything at all you like or need for the argument at hand, like a wet bar of soap that you cannot catch in order to scrutinize or criticize (or even love or be devoted to?). I will also repeat, very clearly, for you and Asmo and Okiefreak, that I am not concerned with those who are thinking of god in this manner. If you've got a sophisticated concept of god which amounts to another word for Mystery, or Absolute, or Ultimate, or Universal Energy, or anything along these lines, I have no quarrel with you, at most an inclination for linguistic refinement. The people I am passionately against, are those for whom god is not such a flexible and all encompassing concept, god is an invisible super person named yaweh who does not want us to work on sundays or to eat shellfish or to allow our children to speak back to us or out wives and daughters to read and be like men in society. I hear you immediately swell up in order to defend your bretheren by saying that only ignoramuses act and think in such ways, but this conversation cannot continue if you do not all agree that these ignoramuses are at least in a 1:1 ratio of people like you, and in fact, if statistics and experience are to be trusted, actually outnumber you. Even this is beside the point. Even if there was one person in the world who believed it this way, I would be up in arms against them.

Thank you for your sensible reply. I appreciate all your points.

1) I understand that you can quote christian theologians who do not believe in hell. This is fine, as long as you understand that you can also quote ones who disagree with them. I could even quote calvinists, and we could have a discussion about the concept of free will in christianity. I could quote those who believe god pre-ordained sinners and saints alike, and you could quote those who disagreed. This would ultimately be a fruitless conversation, because all of these are merely the opinions of men on matters which they invented, which is my larger point. Really now, where is your god to help clear this up? Look at the concept of Limbo, which was official catholic doctrine for hundreds of years, only to be decided by men, sitting, and just thinking thoughts that it no longer served their purpose and so is no longer official christian doctrine. This is not a serious way to approach knowledge; this is the game of politics and marketing.

2) You are surprised at Harris' metaphysical writings, perhaps you do not know that he has spent years in solitary silent meditation with several of the worlds most famous eastern meditation experts. I like keeping the good of religion and throwing out the bad, I would just argue that there is little good there which cannot be completely reformed de novo from scratch by an application of contemplation, compassion, consistency, honesty, and good old fashioned experiment and observation.

3) I am truly on the fence about whether or not hard atheism requires faith. It depends on how we are defining the word faith; for example, are you a hard atheist about poseidon? Perhaps in order to be philosophically bulletproof, you would say that you are merely a soft poseidon atheist, but in reality, I think we conduct ourselves quite differently.

Here we fundamentally disagree. I think there is no greater kindness than to be shown what is right, or otherwise allowed to perceive it yourself. If that comes with some degree of pain, it may be worth it. Doesn't misinterpret, I'm not saying kidnap someone's family until they swear they are atheist. But in zen stories, a slap across the face, or a paddling with a stick was not out of the question in order to enable a student to experience satori. I would not go so far as to cut off a student's finger, like in one story, though if we take the story literally at face value, that student most likely would have offered up the finger anyways given that he is said to have achieved enlightenment from this. We needn't tiptoe around our delicate sensibilities; far worse men than us are laboring day and night for our physical and spiritual demise, and they will not offer us such terms of engagement. We also must have zip, pep, and moxy in our approach to things that matter.

I understand where he comes from and I also am cognizant that to take this to its logical extreme, we would need to all become essentially jains, and drink our water through sieves so as not to ingest microorganisms, and not travel during rain, so as not to kill worms. The full blinding orgiastic dance of life is repleat with invisible and visible massacres and orgies; when you swallow, you have been landscape to untold destruction, and when you blink, you risk a hurricane.

 

Hating the activity gives you the experience of being hateful.

In this sense the phrase we know them by their fruit has relevance for the non-judgmental, that the fruit we taste is that of our own determinations. The phrase just becomes license to pronounce verdicts against others to those who think condemnation of the outside world is just. Phenomena aren't for condemning but for apprehending.

 

But he did make points. he had an overall argument, bolstered by three areas of evidence. When presented with the outline of his argument, you replied to it. Are we having a linguistic difficulty here because you do not understand what an argument is? He made one because you retorted it. You are really starting to become offensive to the entire project of having a discussion here, and I'm going to stop paying attention to you for my own health and sanity, and recommend that others here also do not bother including you in this discussion if you cannot comport yourself in a way befitting of your age and present company.

There's an expression about never arguing with fools because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

If you do, I suggest implying critical thinking both to the beliefs in which you do hold which may be challenged, as well as in regards to specific arguments Harris makes.

 

Have you bothered to consider that there really is no argument there to be recognized as an argument?

Uneducatcated? Are you educated enough to know what an ad hominem attack is and what it says about those who use it?

 

I said you were full of it and posted your flat out contradictory statements and lie right underneath it to support the statement.

 

It doesn't let any thing off the hook, quite frankly that implies my assertions need to be let off the hook and they just don't need it.

Yeah so?

 

It seeems that he is just answering the OP, what are you talking about?

 

Kind of like calling in to question good ole atheistic morality, as if there is such a thing.

 

That's your response to making false assertions? Look, If you don't care to discuss this topic rationally and feel beyond reproach, I don't care to continue further discussion with you on this topic either.

 

Then you might be a atheist.

 

What was that about ad hominems a minute ago?

 

Interesting concept

 

It may sound like I disagreed with myself because you didn't quote me accurately. I see devotion as a natural proprietary extension of matter. You seem to suggest that matter makes devotion possible and I suggest that the creation of matter demands it. In our own material terms we matter to ourselves and each other. I regard ourselves as a micro cosmic reflection of the macrocosm and that sensation is a psychic analogue of the tensions/intensities that exist in non-sensational terms, (inanimate matter.) That we are devoted is not a choice, the model of rightness we devote ourselves to is.

I wasn't knocking your presentation to those whom you have a disagreement with but challenging your own extent of analysis of the issue. Is the concept of being devoted to authority a functionary in our lives, yes. This is the side of the god phenomena that can be observed. Man has a relationship to his idea of authority.

Why are you bugged by my concept of god? Handling soap is a way to get clean.

 

It is a waste of 10 min but if you want to know what is being talked about and you got an extra 10 min you want to throw away go ahead.

 

I didn't, why did you say something important?

 

I'm comparing the idea of God to reality as it is, which is in constant motion with no absolutes. Where the very lack of absolutes is a positive attribute to existence which allows man to create. God doesn't exist in any shape or form, nor concretely, nor abstractly.

 

You need to be able to hold the soap firmly and stop it from flying out between your fingers.

I agree that our conflicts are reflections of non-innate conflicts in matter, i wouldn't even say reflections, that implies even some degree of separation; they both are. Both doing the same doing.

Now I feel like you don't disagree that your concept is hyperfluid lol, you feel it's a good thing. i'm not disagreeing that it's a good concept to have yourself, but i think it makes dialogue with most people difficult on this topic if your idea of god is "that to which substance moves" . . . because we can say very little on this.

Of course many spiritual teachings will say exactly.

/thread

/forum

/website

Exeunt

 

Maybe in another video he actually developed this "argument" but in this video this is all he did and it died of arrested development.

[SIZE=12pt]I already told you I only answer posts and so I replied to your post. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I am not going to sit for a half hour trying to transcribe some video drivel that I found derivative in the first place. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Do atheists have some website they go to so they can repeat the same tired arguments over and over again?[/SIZE]

Honestly, if you call this video an argument, then yes, I have no idea what an argument is.

Retorted? Okay I retorted it, because you calling this a "argument" is just a sad commentary on the state of argumentation.

lol

Are you saying I shouldn't discuss this with you? Perhaps so.

 

He picks up on the same thing i've talked to you about before. It's not meant to be an attack but is a recognition. You have trouble with reading comprehension so you respond like an illiterate who when asked to read aloud a paper simply says I can read yet we don't hear any proof that you can. Harris speaks of things and concepts beyond your personal frame of reference and therefor it appears to you he makes no points. It is the same kind of effect we see when you say i ramble on without providing any specific rebuttal to what i said. It just means you didn't understand what you read or hear because you can't be specific on a subject you don't comprehend. To get over this knee jerk hostility you should be asking more questions about what you are reading and dissing peoples positions off hand less.

You are good at making metaphorical examples of your own positions but not good at understanding the metaphorical examples of others. If that is not correct you can improve on the impression by actually speaking substantively to the issues presented.