If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

I am speaking accurately when I say faith is necessary for the formation of perception that is all.

I did not ignore your statement and perhaps you don't remember the conclusions brought up in the discussion at large. There are no dictionary entries for secular faith as secular faith is a relational concept and such relational concepts do not define faith at large. In other words it is a false distinction. Faith is trust in not exclusive of what in. If you use a term such as blind faith you are talking about a refusal to look or consider and this has nothing to do with faith but is obstinate simply.

And just so you know give unto ceasar what is ceasar's and give unto god what is god's, is statement suggesting the separation of church and state.

 

False.

Secular faith is a real thing. It makes its distinction not in the word faith itself so much as it does through its usage as a confidence.

A confidence is built through trust. It can be trusted that the sun will rise every day. Therefore, for an atheist to state I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow is a confidence built upon trust due to the fact that the sun does rise every day.

Religious faith is not built upon any such confidence or trust.

 

I'm sure it has been pointed out to you before, but, you are basing your argument on a fallacy: fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium (an argument of ignorance. This fallacy has two part: 1.) to argue that something does not exist, or is not true, because no one has proved it; and, 2.) to argue that something does exist, or is true, because no one has disproved it.

To doggedly reduce this argument to one side or the other is dogmatic and reductionist. You are no better than the fundamentalist Christian who relies entirely on a leap of faith.

However there is an exception to that, in another recent thread on this same subject, I said that proof is subjective. I cannot speak for someone else (because I can only experience them on an objective level), but it is very possible that there are those Christians who have experienced their own proof of God, which means that they may not be able to argue the point in an objective manner---but they have observed something that only they can understand at a subjective level.

You dismiss this as illusion and lies. But it was not your experience. You too can only pass an objective judgement on it. You can only answer the argument based on the same fallacy.

I was very skeptical of the religious, and the spiritual--though I never made the fallacy you do. I just needed proof to accept it. I traveled the world looking for it. My first clue came in an unexpected place, after It had pretty much given up the search and focused on making money. I twicked my interest again, and as I tried to make logical sense out of it things started happening---but I could explain each thing away as a synchronicity, but the more I saw, the more I questioned---and experimented. The odd results of my experiments I attributed to the expression of Jungian archetypes within my own subconscious. Until, as I've said elsewhere, something happened that no matter how hard I tried to dismiss it, discredit it, and explain it away, there was no way.

Now I hang with people who experience such things on a regular basis. They don't have a God who's existence is based on contradictions and hypocrisy. They don't have a question of whether God exists or not. They all have experienced their subjective proof, but what is more amazing is that they experience shared objective proofs.

That famous beacon of objectivist thought, Ayn Rand, claimed that the, "...validity of the senses is an axiom." She said that the organs of sense do not choose what they experience. They do not distort or deceive. They only respond to existential objects that act upon them.

She wrote, "The task of man's senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his sense tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind."

That is all fine and dandy if you are a skeptic or an atheist, until something comes along that you just simply cannot explain from a physical standpoint, especially when it leaves physical evidence that cannot be denied. But no matter what that entails, in the Modern World of empirical proof, unless it has been experienced by a group of similar minded 'Modern' people who are able to also verify it----it can only be a subjective experience.

 

What did i just say?
"secular faith is a relational concept and such relational concepts do not define faith at large."

.
Again religious faith is a false distinction regarding the definition of faith. You need to be more specific as to the specific documents of faith.

 

False.

Most atheist were once real Christians. Real theists. Very few atheists are actually born into the environment of immediately not accepting their environment's or family's religious views.

I know precisely what it means to experience god, and I can state with certainty now that I have removed myself from the experience that it is nothing except a delusion. Considering that the only thing any theist has to rely upon is his "personal experience" proves that that it is not a collective or universal truth to believe in the existence of god. A community can be formed on a belief, but without the evidence to support the belief one has nothing except wishful and comforting lies.

 

If it cannot be explained, science states: I don't know right now.

Only ignorance states that it already has an answer, especially if that answer is "god did it".

Science will search for the answer honestly. Religion will claim to already have the answer when it clearly does not.

 

It is true that people killing and being killed does not clash with reality, but your statement was: "Reality does not clash with make believe as the two never meet." And my question was: "Doesn't the make-believe ideas of the church authorities clash with reality?"

The make-believe ideas of the church authorities indeed clashed with the reality of the woman burned at the stake. And no, we can't ask the woman if the unreal nature of the ideas of the religious authority clashed with her reality, but do we really have to?

 

No.
Beliefs contend only with other beliefs. What is so, is so. What is not so does not exist.

No, a religious fervor caused some to vigorously contend for space. In this we are all ever in contention as our fact is we create temporary conditions for ourselves to the extent we are able. And I am not the one who suggested asking incinerated individuals what they think.

 

All of this just begs the question of what the point of faith in a god is for. What is it that we have faith in? A god? If so, then what is the reason for the faithfulness. What do we have faith in god for? Like, finish the sentence: I have faith that god will _ _ _ _!

 

Absolutely nothing except personal comfort, which can be found in any number of healthy ways other than nonsensical religion.

 

Concerning the incinerated woman, I was not assigning authorship of that premise to you. I was simply pointing out that her reality was indeed impacted by the make-believe ideas of others, and that if asked, she would agree.

I understand your point, however, that the ones holding the make-believe ideas about witches are real.

 

In some ways, it can be said that prayer is the act of petitioning a god to change the weight and measure of everything so that things go good for you.

 

Then by all means they should refer to it as self-fullfulling prophecy or coincidence or humanisitic intervention instead of prayer.

 

Well---on the one hand, you could argue that there is something to that description of God as the Tao, but on the other hand, it is also a New Age interpretation, that is just as empty and baseless as any other Post-Kantian, Post-enlightenment Modern Age attempt to understand ancient concepts of divinity after stripping them of all cultural context and understanding.

It sounds like it is based entirely on the Taoism of Lao Tzu (Philosophical Taoism)---completely ignoring the experiential understanding of the Tao of the common people (Folk Taoism). Most of all it makes one critical mistake---Lao Tzu wrote, the Tao that can be spoken (or in this case, written) is not the true Tao.

So what is wrong with you---trying to understand the Tao? Geeeeze!!!

Ok---all joking (and half joking) aside. The Tao is more than a magnetic mish mash of positive and negative. In fact I disagree with the strong focus on the yin-yang duality that modern man places on Taoism. The Tao is an animating force through all the universe that is beyond definition. Because it cannot truly be defined, any contradictions that arise from trying to define it are truly our own. But by the same token, that does not mean that it is a faceless, impersonal movement of the universe that leaves all of creation to fend for itself. It manifests in the many Gods of folk Taoism that provide help in their own ways. But because there is no all powerful force of good battling an all-powerful force of bad---then ideally one seeks to achieve a balance--wherein you have a balance of the forces of nature. This is a very universal and older belief system that is shared by all indigenous people---at least, as far as I know---I have yet to find one that is contrary.

Aristotle discredited the beliefs of his ancestors, and used the logic and rationalism of his day to show that there is an absolute consciousness behind the universe. It is an entity of one, and apparently is the all Good. It is from this that all forms and will arise.

 

Neither-nor. We are not prophets, and therefore miracles are rated at the time of occurrence. The observer of the event observes it unscientifically, but scientists make general observations of "psychic" events. The prayer sets you up rather than an after-thought. the popes' canonization is reviewing Gods through the changes in history, but at the same time the factual passage of Time is a gross cruelty of Materialism. Prophesying the ideas will show-- happy bullshit. What's wrong with making miraculous ideal happenings be Happy for the explanation?

 

Because a miracle is something theists concocted due to intellectual laziness. I'm too bothered to figure out a natural explanation for what happnened, so I'll call it a miracle..

 

What's quantum mechanics then, naturally(ho, ho), to judge the determinism of the future about. The E.P.R. (EInstiein, Podolsky, Rosenberg) argument attempted deterministic assumptions occurring on the sub-atomic scale and found indeterminism insurmountable in the realism of the Statistical thermodynamic.. bla, bla systems.:biker:

 

That is amazing AiryFox, and highly irrational of you. You know what it means to experience God, and yet you still became atheist. I don’t think there are many Christians that really know what it means to experience God. But there are Christians that do. I think that many of those who speak up and argue with you, have such an experience.

I was raised Christian. But Christianity never provided that experience to me, and it was something that was important to me. Perhaps it was because at an early age, I could already see the contradictions and hypocrisies and that was important to me. I looked through all the religions, and I never experienced God.

I experienced sacred moments---sitting in a Zen Buddhist temple in Kyoto, Japan, one night as a teenager, a beautiful zen garden outside the open walls, designed to reflect a subtle perfection in nature, the incense, the temple bell----it was all very sacred, but I didn’t experience God. I only experienced sacred moments created in a physical environment. I cannot tell you what it is like to experience satori---enlightenment.

I can meditate to a Hindu mantra. Afterwards I will feel very relaxed and at peace. But I won’t have experienced God in a Hindu fashion. I never experienced Hindu enlightenment. I have never had any of the subjective experiences that certain other followers of these religions have had----so I cannot know their truth.

Religion never provided that experience---that is why I was well on my path to agnosticism. To become an atheist was just as much of a leap of faith for me as to become a follower of a religion, without that authentic experience. Nor could I could discredit anyone else’s experience, because I didn’t have it.

Anyway---you get the point.

 

You misunderstand.

I eventually came to the realization that as a theist I had deluded myself into thinking I knew/felt god. It was not a unique experience. I learned that every theist deludes himself into thinking that he knows or feels god. The theist simply wants to experience god so badly that he deludes himself into believing that he actually does feel god, but sometimes we wake up and realize that we have been deluding ourselves. Which is what happened to me and it is what happens to many other former theists who are now atheist. Unfortunately, most theists never wake up, because the comfort of the lie is too demanding.

None of them do. As I have stated above, the comfortable delusion keeps them prisoner to the lie.

 

The only thing you think you learned is all and only about you. Your mind tries to lump "every" person in there so you can affirm yourself. You never realized anything but about your own self. The rest is projection.
Is this entire thread about the human struggle with paradox?