Posted on 01/31/2002 11:20:41 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
During Shep's and Sean's little conversation in the 2:00 hour Central time, Shepherd Smith defended atheists and told Sean Hannity to "shut up" when Sean said not those who didn't believe in God were, in some respects, endorsing evil acts.
Sean was closer to being right than Shep was, and Shep got a bit nasty.
They tried to make it look friendly, but it sounded a bit heated there for a while.
Hi weikel! Question: Does this mean that God and the universe are identities? That is, do they represent the same thing under different names, such that the statement, "the Universe is God" would be a true statement? Just trying to clarify your meaning. best, bb.
And of course you look around you and you don't see Odin. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Ra. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Vishnu. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Buddha. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Allah. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Zeus. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Gaya. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Shiva. So you don't believe.
And you look around you and you don't see Isis. So you don't believe.
And when you can tell me why it is that you look around you, and you do not believe in all the other assertions of magical creatures who protect and guide us from the heavens, you will have some understanding as to why I do not believe in yours.
I would propose a relatively simple experiment, whereby you could ground yourself in the nature of reality and objectivity.
If you have some objective doubts about the existence of something.... say a brick wall for example, you could perhaps step into an automobile, and press the gas pedal until you reach about 90 or so. While you might have some doubts about the existence of that wall, I would suggest that contact with it at 90 mph would quickly disabuse you of any uncertainty or confusion as to it's objectively real existence.
It (like reality) exists, despite your hopes, fears, wishes, or desires to the contrary.
Just goes to show you how long human beings have been thinking about God, and how truly universal this phenomenon is.
Though such sagas, legends, myths, etc., hardly constitute direct proofs of the existence of God -- and a formal proof may be impossible -- do you think that the existence of such evidence might suggest, if only anecdotally, that God Is what He said He Is -- the "Am that Am?" And that intramundane, finite human beings quite naturally resonate to divine and eternal Being, creature to Creator? (Unless they're trying really hard not to?...)
If not, then must we conclude that billions of people down the ages were simply delusional -- that the great art and symbols they created to articulate the relations of man and God and nature are completely worthless -- because all of these symbols of divine transcendence simply, really do not refer to anything at all? Just wondering. best, bb.
I would not seek to deny the universal nature of man's tendency to create mythical explanations for things beyond the scope of his understanding. Only the objective existence of God.
Though such sagas, legends, myths, etc., hardly constitute direct proofs of the existence of God -- and a formal proof may be impossible -- do you think that the existence of such evidence might suggest, if only anecdotally, that God Is what He said He Is -- the "Am that Am?" And that intramundane, finite human beings quite naturally resonate to divine and eternal Being, creature to Creator? (Unless they're trying really hard not to?...)
I would think that the existence of various mythos would suggest that man's psyche is compelled to explain the unexplainable. And that certain shamanastic men (seeking to exploit this tendency) created veritable pantheons of angry gods with which to threaten their neighbors into submission and obedience.
If not, then must we conclude that billions of people down the ages were simply delusional --
Not delusional in any defective sense, but deluded by indoctrination (most commonly in their youth), yes. In the absence of such indoctrination, you would not hold your current beliefs.
that the great art and symbols they created to articulate the relations of man and God and nature are completely worthless --
I do not place any greater value on the great art and symbols created by man to articulate his relationaship with God(s), than I place on great art and symbols created by man for any other purpose.
because all of these symbols of divine transcendence simply, really do not refer to anything at all? Just wondering. best, bb.
I don't think the beauty of the artistic creations of the mind of man are any less beautiful, because the artist or creator happened to believe in a myth while creating it.
Not so.
Owk: "I would propose a relatively simple experiment, whereby you could ground yourself in the nature of reality and objectivity.
If you have some objective doubts about the existence of something.... you could perhaps step into an automobile, and press the gas pedal until you reach about 90 or so. ...I would suggest that contact with it at 90 mph would quickly disabuse you of any uncertainty or confusion as to it's objectively real existence.
It (like reality) exists, despite your hopes, fears, wishes, or desires to the contrary."
Do you believe that other people have minds?
Prove it
You probably know you have a mind, but how do you know that others aren't just robots?
Bump - See #418 and #420
And here I was thinking that he is an ugly, tyrannical, short, evil, troll-like, little vampire. Oh, well, I'm not perfect...
LOL dax zenos!!! Well, my meaning would have been a little clearer perhaps if I put the great world religions and their various sects and doctrines on my little list. Generically, we are speaking of the symbols by which human beings have tried to articulate and explain their own experiences of God.
Dear OWK -- you do not seem to get my point at all. Apparently you believe that all the "stuff" in the universe is pretty much the same stuff that goes into making a brick wall.
You suggest that people who are capable of responding to the divine do so only because they were "indoctrinated" while they were young.
Well, I have not been "indoctrinated" -- religious training of any kind was denied to me as a child. (My Dad still blames God for World War II.) So I must be a victim of self-delusion on your theory.
The fact is, if I am "religious" at all, it is because God "draws" me to know and love Him; the fact is (based on my experience at any rate): His actual Presence is undeniably, indisputably real to me, conveyed to me in full consciousness.
That will be my "confession of faith" for today. FWIW. best, bb.
I recognize myself as a human being. A member of the species homo sapien. I recognize other human beings as members of the identical species.
I recognize the workings of my own mind. I am self-aware. I think. I create. I achieve.
Likewise I recognize expressions of self-awareness, thinking, creativity, and achievement in others.
I further recognize ongoing self-awareness, thinking, creativity, and achievement, as contingent upon continuing function of the electrochemical storage and processor contained in that bowl of grey mush inside the skullcap.
Once measurable function of the electrochemical storage and processing ceases, homo sapiens no longer maintain the measurable ability to express self-awareness, think, create, and achieve.
Stuff is stuff. I have no objective evidence which would lead me to conclude that magic stuff (which really isn't stuff) exists.
You suggest that people who are capable of responding to the divine do so only because they were "indoctrinated" while they were young.
I'm suggesting that people are incapable of responding to "the divine" at all, because there is no such thing as "the divine". I suggest further, that the only reason they believe in such a thing (and hence delude themselves into responding to it), is indoctrination.
Well, I have not been "indoctrinated" -- religious training of any kind was denied to me as a child. (My Dad still blames God for World War II.) So I must be a victim of self-delusion on your theory.
Parents are not the only source of indoctrination. Come on.... indoctrination permeates every crevice of our society. It is inescapable. And just as the most common societal indoctrination here, is into the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the most common indoctrination elsewhere, might happen to be into the doctrine of Ganesh the elephant-headed guy. And the thing that separates you (or at least most indoctrinees) from an accolyte of Ganesh, is the geographical accident of birthplace. (unless you mean to suggest that there is no geographical link to prevailing belief, which is just silliness)
The fact is, if I am "religious" at all, it is because God "draws" me to know and love Him; the fact is (based on my experience at any rate): His actual Presence is undeniably, indisputably real to me, conveyed to me in full consciousness.
And this is where our conversation gets a bit dicey.... because I respect you a great deal... and you could even say that I love you.... but I believe that your recognition of the presence of God, is based not on his existence, but on wishful thinking. And even though I say this, I know these are potentially hurtful words to someone who holds their beliefs dearly..... (and so I wonder whether we can have a conversation without my hurting your feelings, which I do not want to do)
That will be my "confession of faith" for today. FWIW. best, bb.
And I will love you regardless my friend. ;^]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.