Have You Always Believed As You Do Now?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20100222.html

I believe we would be able to convert fat to sugar via the TCA cycle if we were created by some supernatural being. We would also be able to create C vitamins, like other mammals. I was baptised and confirmed lutherian, like most Norwegians. It would be nice if there was something out there, but I dont see how there could be. I like Christopher Hitchens theory.[/quote]

Truth. In general, far too much is fucked up in the world for there to be an omnipotent being out there who created us all and looks out for us, unless God is really a sadistic bastard, and who wants to worship that guy anyways?

But this is why I don’t discuss religion with people. I say that statement, and I hear some bullshit about how God ‘is just testing us!’, or how ‘there is a better life if only yor truly believe!’. How about you go tell that one to the mom who I saw on the news after her 5yo daughter was raped and killed. But it was just a test right?

Oh, and I’m not buying the idea that God made us so that we could be given free will and to do as we want with our free will, as if we are some kind of circus for him to watch. If he could create the universe, and galaxies and LIFE out of nothing or whatever the hell religious people believe, then he sure as hell could take a step in every now and again to stop some of the truly inhumane and disgusting things that happen daily in the world.[/quote]

This is a VERY common problem people have with God. If I were to show you reasoning FROM THE BIBLE, about why we have the problem we have, why God doesn’t step in now, and what he is going to do in the future, would you be open to the discussion? God is not “all mystical”. He WANTS us to know things. He is NOT testing us. God cannot test with evil things - James 1:13[/quote]

God all of a sudden now not being ‘all mystical’ seems like an excuse to me. He could create the universe, man, and countless other ‘miracles’ according to THE BIBLE, but now he has simply dusted off his hands and said GO!? Not buying it.

But I also don’t believe the bible is anything more than a collection of stories by which to receive guidance. It does not tell FACTS, but of general morals. But in order to discuss this, I would need to know your position on the bible. Do you take it as word of God written by the divine and inspired? If you do, then whatever I say doesn’t matter to you and vice versa. The bible, both old and new testaments, were written by MEN with an agenda.

But this is why I don’t generally discuss religion. I have respect for what others believe, even if I think it is wrong, as long as they try to not push their beliefs on me or others. No side can win this argument as both sides see their way as ‘right’. I will say though, some of the most ignorant people I have ever met have a background in christian rhetoric and religion. More than any other religion, at least in my experience, these people want to project their beliefs onto others, even if others don’t want to hear it. But they consider themselves justified in what they do by trying to ‘save your soul’, so there is no talking to these types of people as nothing gets through.

222

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20100222.html

I believe we would be able to convert fat to sugar via the TCA cycle if we were created by some supernatural being. We would also be able to create C vitamins, like other mammals. I was baptised and confirmed lutherian, like most Norwegians. It would be nice if there was something out there, but I dont see how there could be. I like Christopher Hitchens theory.[/quote]

Truth. In general, far too much is fucked up in the world for there to be an omnipotent being out there who created us all and looks out for us, unless God is really a sadistic bastard, and who wants to worship that guy anyways?

But this is why I don’t discuss religion with people. I say that statement, and I hear some bullshit about how God ‘is just testing us!’, or how ‘there is a better life if only yor truly believe!’. How about you go tell that one to the mom who I saw on the news after her 5yo daughter was raped and killed. But it was just a test right?

Oh, and I’m not buying the idea that God made us so that we could be given free will and to do as we want with our free will, as if we are some kind of circus for him to watch. If he could create the universe, and galaxies and LIFE out of nothing or whatever the hell religious people believe, then he sure as hell could take a step in every now and again to stop some of the truly inhumane and disgusting things that happen daily in the world.[/quote]

This is a VERY common problem people have with God. If I were to show you reasoning FROM THE BIBLE, about why we have the problem we have, why God doesn’t step in now, and what he is going to do in the future, would you be open to the discussion? God is not “all mystical”. He WANTS us to know things. He is NOT testing us. God cannot test with evil things - James 1:13[/quote]

God all of a sudden now not being ‘all mystical’ seems like an excuse to me. He could create the universe, man, and countless other ‘miracles’ according to THE BIBLE, but now he has simply dusted off his hands and said GO!? Not buying it.

But I also don’t believe the bible is anything more than a collection of stories by which to receive guidance. It does not tell FACTS, but of general morals. But in order to discuss this, I would need to know your position on the bible. Do you take it as word of God written by the divine and inspired? If you do, then whatever I say doesn’t matter to you and vice versa. The bible, both old and new testaments, were written by MEN with an agenda.

But this is why I don’t generally discuss religion. I have respect for what others believe, even if I think it is wrong, as long as they try to not push their beliefs on me or others. No side can win this argument as both sides see their way as ‘right’. I will say though, some of the most ignorant people I have ever met have a background in christian rhetoric and religion. More than any other religion, at least in my experience, these people want to project their beliefs onto others, even if others don’t want to hear it. But they consider themselves justified in what they do by trying to ‘save your soul’, so there is no talking to these types of people as nothing gets through.[/quote]

I appreciate that honest answer. If someone doesn’t want to hear about the Bible, you can’t force them. It is very hard to believe the Bible and in a God and then look around a see all the problems.

I do believe that the Bible was inspired of God. That the men who wrote it did not have an agenda. I DO feel that many religions distort the teachings of the Bible for their own political or material gain. That THAT has turned many people off from religion. You may have already, but if you haven’t, I would encourage you to look into the Bible and you will find on your own, that what people teach as ‘fact’ has really no basis in the Bible.

If you do have specific questions about the Bible, I can answer those for you, but of course I will use scripture to prove it. However, it seems you would have to belief the Bible is factual; you would need to establish that baseline. But again, that cannot be forced, nor would it do any good to force it.

223

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
You asked about the most important thing in my life, and I told you. The vast majority of moral systems agree that love is the most important thing in life, so you’re not just quibbling with me.

I never claimed to be a perfectly loving person. Nobody is perfect in aligning his life with his values.[/quote]

“love” is a mystical, illogical, unquantifiable value assignment. If you believe in it, you believe in a mystical, non-scientific concept. I see little distinction between believing in that and a higher power.[/quote]

“Love” is the chemical reactions going on in my brain when I see someone my brain decides is a suitable asset for passing on my genetic junk.

That doesn’t seem very magical to me.

224

Katzenjammer: I find your views on ‘love of self’ and the impossibility of atheism to be very interesting. Did you come up with these ideas on your own? Where can read more? When I look into myself, I see more – I suppose you could call it ‘selfishness’, than I like.

I just read CS Lewis’ ‘Poison of Subjectivity’. Even though I disagree, I find it thought provoking.

I also read ‘The Screwtape Letters’ and it’s given me more to think about. Any recommendations like that? Is it time I read the Bible?

225

[quote]toolshed wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
You asked about the most important thing in my life, and I told you. The vast majority of moral systems agree that love is the most important thing in life, so you’re not just quibbling with me.

I never claimed to be a perfectly loving person. Nobody is perfect in aligning his life with his values.[/quote]

“love” is a mystical, illogical, unquantifiable value assignment. If you believe in it, you believe in a mystical, non-scientific concept. I see little distinction between believing in that and a higher power.[/quote]

“Love” is the chemical reactions going on in my brain when I see someone my brain decides is a suitable asset for passing on my genetic junk.

That doesn’t seem very magical to me.[/quote]

If you care to read through the posts I noted this definition of love is not magical. I also noted and confirmed that this is not what forelife and I were speaking about. Lastly, I noted that if this is the love you value, you should value large quantities of chocolate equally.

Most people, forelife included, define and believe in love outside of this context.

Please read back through my posts before commenting.

226

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Love is a noun, it is a thing. However the only way we interact with it is via action. We can feel love and express it, but we cannot touch, feel it physically, taste it, hear it or see it. Love has no physical embodiment in it self; we sense it only through emotion and expression. Things that exist, but do not have a physical make up are metaphysical entities.

It’s just logical.[/quote]

[quote]
You claim love has no physical embodiment. You know this how? Also, if you think it doesn’t have a physical component, you must be high.[/quote]

Ok, so what physical substance is “love” made of? Does it have the property of mass? Is it a gas, solid, liquid, or plasma?[/quote]

Let me guess, whether I answer or not, you’ll write off whatever I say and hey presto! your magical love force wins by default.

You are the one making claims here.[/quote]

Your the one who said love has a physical component. So it is you who made the claim…What is the physical component?

227

[quote]toolshed wrote:

“Love” is the chemical reactions going on in my brain when I see someone my brain decides is a suitable asset for passing on my genetic junk.

That doesn’t seem very magical to me.[/quote]

Wanting to pass on your seed isn’t love. At best it’s lust. I can fuck a lot of chicks an not love them. Hell, I can fuck anything with a decent enough sized hole, that does not mean I love it.

228

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Love is a noun, it is a thing. However the only way we interact with it is via action. We can feel love and express it, but we cannot touch, feel it physically, taste it, hear it or see it. Love has no physical embodiment in it self; we sense it only through emotion and expression. Things that exist, but do not have a physical make up are metaphysical entities.

It’s just logical.[/quote]

It would be the chemicals mixing around in your brain and the corresponding physical feeling you get as a result.

Stop trying to downplay the fact that you made assertions that are untestable and unprovable.

229

I’m an ex muslim. It is not something I advertise to the mainly muslim community within which I live.

No … that would turn out incredibly badly for me.

230

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Love is a noun, it is a thing. However the only way we interact with it is via action. We can feel love and express it, but we cannot touch, feel it physically, taste it, hear it or see it. Love has no physical embodiment in it self; we sense it only through emotion and expression. Things that exist, but do not have a physical make up are metaphysical entities.

It’s just logical.[/quote]

It would be the chemicals mixing around in your brain and the corresponding physical feeling you get as a result.

Stop trying to downplay the fact that you made assertions that are untestable and unprovable.[/quote]

Really, so it’s just a bunch of chemicals? Well, how do you explain marriage, or life long relationships and what not. There’s a whole lot more to it than feeling good. Sometimes it good, sometimes it’s bad sometimes you don’t feel anything at all. Your thinking of puppy love…Which chemical do you use to love your mother vs. some girl vs. your dog.

231

There is no reason to assign love to be the result of a supernatural being.

232

[quote]pat wrote:
Really, so it’s just a bunch of chemicals? Well, how do you explain marriage, or life long relationships and what not. There’s a whole lot more to it than feeling good. Sometimes it good, sometimes it’s bad sometimes you don’t feel anything at all. Your thinking of puppy love…Which chemical do you use to love your mother vs. some girl vs. your dog.[/quote]

Give me testable evidence to the contrary. I think you are confused. No where did I state these were all the same, merely that chemicals in the brain control them. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Also, you must be insane if you honestly think none of these types of love are related. I know it’s scary to step out of your shell, but it’s better than wishing to live under some kind of dictatorship where thought crime can be prosecuted.

233

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Really, so it’s just a bunch of chemicals? Well, how do you explain marriage, or life long relationships and what not. There’s a whole lot more to it than feeling good. Sometimes it good, sometimes it’s bad sometimes you don’t feel anything at all. Your thinking of puppy love…Which chemical do you use to love your mother vs. some girl vs. your dog.[/quote]

Give me testable evidence to the contrary. I think you are confused. No where did I state these were all the same, merely that chemicals in the brain control them. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Also, you must be insane if you honestly think none of these types of love are related. I know it’s scary to step out of your shell, but it’s better than wishing to live under some kind of dictatorship where thought crime can be prosecuted.[/quote]

Ok nimrod here are your exact words:
"It would be the chemicals mixing around in your brain and the corresponding physical feeling you get as a result.

Stop trying to downplay the fact that you made assertions that are untestable and unprovable."

So if love isn’t chemicals what is it?

Here’s you test, go get a bunch of people who love something and test their brain chemicals and see if that’s it. When it’s not merely chemicals, then tell me what it is.

234

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Really, so it’s just a bunch of chemicals? Well, how do you explain marriage, or life long relationships and what not. There’s a whole lot more to it than feeling good. Sometimes it good, sometimes it’s bad sometimes you don’t feel anything at all. Your thinking of puppy love…Which chemical do you use to love your mother vs. some girl vs. your dog.[/quote]

Give me testable evidence to the contrary. I think you are confused. No where did I state these were all the same, merely that chemicals in the brain control them. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Also, you must be insane if you honestly think none of these types of love are related. I know it’s scary to step out of your shell, but it’s better than wishing to live under some kind of dictatorship where thought crime can be prosecuted.[/quote]

Ok nimrod here are your exact words:
"It would be the chemicals mixing around in your brain and the corresponding physical feeling you get as a result.

Stop trying to downplay the fact that you made assertions that are untestable and unprovable."

So if love isn’t chemicals what is it?

Here’s you test, go get a bunch of people who love something and test their brain chemicals and see if that’s it. When it’s not merely chemicals, then tell me what it is.[/quote]

WOW.

235

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Katzenjammer: I find your views on ‘love of self’ and the impossibility of atheism to be very interesting. Did you come up with these ideas on your own? Where can read more? When I look into myself, I see more – I suppose you could call it ‘selfishness’, than I like.

I just read CS Lewis’ ‘Poison of Subjectivity’. Even though I disagree, I find it thought provoking.

I also read ‘The Screwtape Letters’ and it’s given me more to think about. Any recommendations like that? Is it time I read the Bible?[/quote]

There’s nothing new in what I’m saying really - I’m just using slightly updated language for very old ideas. I think that way of expressing it, however, evolved out of reading Sir Thomas Browne’s Religio Medici. Otherwise, however, the idea suffuses much of my fairly extensive reading in both theology & apologetics (I’m practically flooded with books - more than 1,000 volumes in my home, many more at my parents place…yikes!)

Anyway, it sounds like C.S. Lewis resonates with you - which is fortunate because he was one of the best in recent history. Go any further back in apologetics (Chesterton, Newman, etc.) and the writing seems to most moderns to be a little off-putting, at least at first. Go any further forward and it becomes less trustworthy - although, I really like Peter Kreeft.

I would start with C.S. Lewis: in addition to what you’ve read (Screwtape is simply excellent), I’d start with is brilliant and profound essay called “The Weight of Glory.”

Then, Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man (which develops further the earlier essay, “The Poison of Subjectivism”), and finally, The Four Loves.

An older - and more comprehensive - way of putting what I’m saying is the sin of Pride; which is the first sin and in many ways the father of all other sins. One of the best descriptions - indeed, one could say it’s a history of sin on a cosmic scale - is Paradise Lost.

I would also recommend St. Augustine’s Confessions - which is probably the most profound Christian statement (though complex) of the nearly inexorable tendency of man to Pride. If you like his treatment, City of God is an even deeper exploration.

Finally, I would recommend, as supplementary, Dr. Peter Kreeft’s lectures on audio here: Peter Kreeft - Featured Audio

On the Holy Bible - by all means do so; it’s hard to say if plunging right in is right for you at this moment - eventually, yes of course. Everyone seems to have a slightly different path in all this. Just keep reading and you’ll discover quickly what speaks to you and what does not. And sometimes what speaks to you now - won’t in a few months or years; and vice versa.

Feel free to ask questions any time.

Cheers,

~katz

236

[quote]espenl wrote:
There is no reason to assign love to be the result of a supernatural being.[/quote]

Yes. There is.