[quote]svenrichard wrote:
To know Paul Chek is to know someone that is all loving and judges no one. Try doing that. Bet you can’t. His life of pain has not only given him the obvious strengths that he exhibits but allows him to empathize with all. That is how he knows me (and you) so well. He does not dwell in the pain of his abusive childhood, instead he sees the beauty and gifts that those journeys have given him and uses them to further his legacy.
Paul sells nothing but the truth and I think those that don’t see this just can’t handle the truth. But that’s ok I’m sure Paul will still love and understand you. I consider myself one of the countless people fortunate enough to have been able to learn from Paul. [/quote]
He did pass judgment on all religions other than the one he practices. He may be a wonderful person, but saying the things he said, you could not possibly expect folks wag their heads in agreement. If you cannot tell, religion evokes strong passions by both those who have it and those who don’t. He did not make a neutral statement. People are going to respond.
I don’t see judgement. If anyone was to do the extensive research that Paul has done on religion, the bible, Jesus, Buddhism etc. and still believe that there is a man in the sky that created all this or that God wants something from us is just laughable. If someone say 2 plus 2 equals 5 and you say they are wrong, is that a judgement? I dare anyone to have a debate with Paul about God. They don’t have a chance.
[quote]svenrichard wrote:
I don’t see judgement. If anyone was to do the extensive research that Paul has done on religion, the bible, Jesus, Buddhism etc. and still believe that there is a man in the sky that created all this or that God wants something from us is just laughable. If someone say 2 plus 2 equals 5 and you say they are wrong, is that a judgement? [/quote]
What’s laughable is his shallow understanding of Christianity; not to mention your ascribing to him a Messiah-like authority (Paul doesn’t make judgements, he just utters absolute truth. LOL.)
Probably most every Christian here on this board would love to debate him about God. I know I would. Here or in person.
[quote]svenrichard wrote:
I don’t see judgement. If anyone was to do the extensive research that Paul has done on religion, the bible, Jesus, Buddhism etc. and still believe that there is a man in the sky that created all this or that God wants something from us is just laughable. If someone say 2 plus 2 equals 5 and you say they are wrong, is that a judgement? I dare anyone to have a debate with Paul about God. They don’t have a chance.[/quote]
I’ll take that dare, any time, any place. Well not any place, but I’ll take that dare.
If you can set it up, bring it.
[quote]svenrichard wrote:
I don’t see judgement. If anyone was to do the extensive research that Paul has done on religion, the bible, Jesus, Buddhism etc. and still believe that there is a man in the sky that created all this or that God wants something from us is just laughable. If someone say 2 plus 2 equals 5 and you say they are wrong, is that a judgement? [/quote]
What’s laughable is his shallow understanding of Christianity; not to mention your ascribing to him a Messiah-like authority (Paul doesn’t make judgements, he just utters absolute truth. LOL.)
Probably most every Christian here on this board would love to debate him about God. I know I would. Here or in person.
[/quote]
Chek has no more going for him when it comes to spiritual matters than Benarr McFadden did around the turn of the century (no I wasn’t there wise guy). It seems that almost every time period has its own fitness guru who tries to make some sort of “religion” out of fitness and a garbled misunderstanding of the Bible, it comes out as sheer quackery.
One more reason why Jack LaLanne is the man, he’s never once gone down that road.
I say this while having the utmost respect for Cheks methods regarding fitness.
[quote]migrantworker wrote:
You all seem to be making the assumption that every nonbeliever is an atheist. This is a straw man representation of many nonbeliever’s beliefs. Many of us come to terms with our spirituality as being an unknown unknown. Christians are the known knowns. Atheists are the known unknowns.
I happen to have no idea how any of it works (though history does seem to explain a good deal). And until anyone makes a good enough case to us we don’t see why we should be compelled to choose sides.
[/quote]
You either believe in God (Theist); or you believe in yourself, or money, or what not (so-called “Atheist”) - what, exactly, is the third possibility? [/quote]
This is a false dichotomy - a classic logical fallacy. The “third option,” and the one that migrantworker is talking about, is simply saying “I don’t know.” It’s like Shrodinger’s cat inside the box. The cat is either dead or it’s alive. You can believe all you want that the cat is alive or you can believe all you want that it is dead. But you will not know until you open the box. I’m simply waiting for the box to be opened.
So, what do I do while I wait for the box to open? I lead my life. I suppose you can say that I “believe in myself” not because I think I am great or perfect. Rather, it’s the sense that I alone control my life to the extent that I can control it. There is no grand plan. If I mess up, going to church and praying won’t make it better. If I get into a car accident, it’s not because a divine being is trying to punish me. I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, by driving carefully, I reduce my chances of having an accident, and thus I have some control, albeit not complete control, over whether or not I have a car accident.
I agree with the Cat in the Box analogy, there is no way to win this argument on either side, I will even go one farther and say no one can open the box until after death, So we that preside on earth will never know until death or the Rapture
[quote]migrantworker wrote:
You all seem to be making the assumption that every nonbeliever is an atheist. This is a straw man representation of many nonbeliever’s beliefs. Many of us come to terms with our spirituality as being an unknown unknown. Christians are the known knowns. Atheists are the known unknowns.
I happen to have no idea how any of it works (though history does seem to explain a good deal). And until anyone makes a good enough case to us we don’t see why we should be compelled to choose sides.
[/quote]
You either believe in God (Theist); or you believe in yourself, or money, or what not (so-called “Atheist”) - what, exactly, is the third possibility? [/quote]
This is a false dichotomy - a classic logical fallacy. The “third option,” and the one that migrantworker is talking about, is simply saying “I don’t know.” It’s like Shrodinger’s cat inside the box. The cat is either dead or it’s alive. You can believe all you want that the cat is alive or you can believe all you want that it is dead. But you will not know until you open the box. I’m simply waiting for the box to be opened.
So, what do I do while I wait for the box to open? I lead my life. I suppose you can say that I “believe in myself” not because I think I am great or perfect. Rather, it’s the sense that I alone control my life to the extent that I can control it. There is no grand plan. If I mess up, going to church and praying won’t make it better. If I get into a car accident, it’s not because a divine being is trying to punish me. I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, by driving carefully, I reduce my chances of having an accident, and thus I have some control, albeit not complete control, over whether or not I have a car accident.[/quote]
What if you hear rustling of some sort in the box? The theist would say “See God exists” and the atheist would say, maybe a mouse got in the box, but the cat if fucking dead.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree with the Cat in the Box analogy, there is no way to win this argument on either side, I will even go one farther and say no one can open the box until after death, So we that preside on earth will never know until death or the Rapture [/quote]
See my “hearing rustling in the box” addendum to the cat in the box. Still can’t know until you open the box, but you can make determinations based on the evidence you can get to. This is important because everyone makes a decision the status of that cat, what you base that decision on is paramount.
Once you open that box, it’s to late to be wrong, so you should try not to be. That cat may claw your eyes out, you’d want to be prepared.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree with the Cat in the Box analogy, there is no way to win this argument on either side, I will even go one farther and say no one can open the box until after death, So we that preside on earth will never know until death or the Rapture [/quote]
See my “hearing rustling in the box” addendum to the cat in the box. Still can’t know until you open the box, but you can make determinations based on the evidence you can get to. This is important because everyone makes a decision the status of that cat, what you base that decision on is paramount.
Once you open that box, it’s to late to be wrong, so you should try not to be. That cat may claw your eyes out, you’d want to be prepared. [/quote]
You may believe you hear rustling, but you can not prove to a disbeliever that you are not imagining the rustling
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree with the Cat in the Box analogy, there is no way to win this argument on either side, I will even go one farther and say no one can open the box until after death, So we that preside on earth will never know until death or the Rapture [/quote]
See my “hearing rustling in the box” addendum to the cat in the box. Still can’t know until you open the box, but you can make determinations based on the evidence you can get to. This is important because everyone makes a decision the status of that cat, what you base that decision on is paramount.
Once you open that box, it’s to late to be wrong, so you should try not to be. That cat may claw your eyes out, you’d want to be prepared. [/quote]
You may believe you hear rustling, but you can not prove to a disbeliever that you are not imagining the rustling[/quote]
What if you both agree you heard it, but just disagree on the source… I really like this cat in the box analogy.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree with the Cat in the Box analogy, there is no way to win this argument on either side, I will even go one farther and say no one can open the box until after death, So we that preside on earth will never know until death or the Rapture [/quote]
See my “hearing rustling in the box” addendum to the cat in the box. Still can’t know until you open the box, but you can make determinations based on the evidence you can get to. This is important because everyone makes a decision the status of that cat, what you base that decision on is paramount.
Once you open that box, it’s to late to be wrong, so you should try not to be. That cat may claw your eyes out, you’d want to be prepared. [/quote]
You may believe you hear rustling, but you can not prove to a disbeliever that you are not imagining the rustling[/quote]
What if you both agree you heard it, but just disagree on the source… I really like this cat in the box analogy.[/quote]
I don’t like the analogy - it’s an analogy of an analogy, adding complexity on top of complexity. Analogies are only useful when they clarify, not obfuscate.
In my opinion, we need to get out of this false choice of Theist, Atheist or Agnostic.
Agnosticism is an especially incoherent concept: it’s really just a so-called “Atheist” - saying that “I don’t know whether God exists” is exactly equivalent to saying that you “don’t believe in him.” An Agnostic is an Atheist who simply fails to understand that not making a choice is also making a choice. If you cannot bring yourself to believe in God - you’re not an Agnostic, you’re an “Atheist” who is trying to fool himself by calling himself an Agnostic.
Moreover, Atheism itself is not really a tenable category. Just ask yourself: what is the most important belief you hold about yourself and the world? What do you value most? What or whom do you look to when you need answers? Et cetera.
It is in these ^^ questions that you will find your god.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Rather, it’s the sense that I alone control my life to the extent that I can control it. There is no grand plan.[/quote]
Either you believe in God or you hold some other governing belief. Here ^^ is yours. You can’t really escape this; indeed, you just proved you can’t. [/quote]
Of course there is some governing belief - I don’t disagree with that at all. As Neil Peart said, “If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice.” What I disagree with was the statement (I believe it was made by Zeb) that those who don’t believe in God or who perhaps question the existence of a God automatically worship money, sex, themselves, drugs, or whatever. In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if you didn’t know that I had questioned the existence of God, you’d think I was a practicing Christian: I’m going on 20 years of marriage to the same woman, I’ve never cheated, I love my child and try to spend as much time as I can with her, I do volunteer work, and I’ve never done drugs and don’t plan to. And on some issues I agree with the conservatives: a free market economy is good, high taxes are bad, and socialized medicine is a bad idea. To be fair, I was raised Catholic, so that probably had some influence.
However, I now do these things because I believe they have intrinsic value, not because I fear punishment from an invisible being. In fact, this is how I try to maintain control over my life. Having an affair and doing drugs make life more complicated. If I want to maintain control over my life, I want to keep things as simple as possible. If I don’t, and things go bad, I can’t rely on some invisible deity to help me out.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I don’t like the analogy - it’s an analogy of an analogy, adding complexity on top of complexity. Analogies are only useful when they clarify, not obfuscate.
In my opinion, we need to get out of this false choice of Theist, Atheist or Agnostic.
Agnosticism is an especially incoherent concept: it’s really just a so-called “Atheist” - saying that “I don’t know whether God exists” is exactly equivalent to saying that you “don’t believe in him.” An Agnostic is an Atheist who simply fails to understand that not making a choice is also making a choice. If you cannot bring yourself to believe in God - you’re not an Agnostic, you’re an “Atheist” who is trying to fool himself by calling himself an Agnostic. [/quote]
This is interesting because atheists have the same criticism of agnostics. An atheist is actually someone who cannot bring himself to believe in God. An atheist does not say “I am 100% certain that God does not exist.” Rather, an atheist does not find the evidence for the existence of God compelling. An atheist can be persuaded that God exists, but it would take something truly extraordinary - something that could not be explained away as a hallucination, delusion, or really good magic trick.
This seems a bit like a God of the gaps argument. It’s not that I don’t want to believe in God, it’s that I’ve yet to be convinced of God’s existence.
What I disagree with was the statement (I believe it was made by Zeb) that those who don’t believe in God or who perhaps question the existence of a God automatically worship money, sex, themselves, drugs, or whatever.[/quote]
I should have been more clear on that point. What I was saying was that we (as human beings) have a certain capacity to worship. And if you remember I used the word “worship” as meaning “extra devotion to something”. I never said that if you do not worship God that you automatically worship money, cars, boats etc. But there is a tendency to direct that “devotion” to other areas of your life, many of which are not very healthy.
Don’t underestimate the early influence of Christian living on your current way of thinking. While one may not believe in God if you practice living a good life you can reap the rewards of that life. Of course that is merely the here and now.
You are a bit confused my friend, Christians don’t do good things because they’re afraid of God.
As it says in the book of James:
2:18 “But someone will say you have faith I have deeds, show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”
As a Christian I want to help when I can and do the right thing, it has nothing to do with fear, to allege such a thing is simply inaccurate.
This just shows that you’re a smart guy. When Christians sin by having extra marital affairs etc. they know that they too will have to suffer the consequences. God won’t swoop down and rescue any of us when we behave like that. However, we do know that there is forgiveness. If you think that Christians feel that they’ll be bailed out by God if they cheat on their wives you are once again quite mistaken.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree with the Cat in the Box analogy, there is no way to win this argument on either side, I will even go one farther and say no one can open the box until after death, So we that preside on earth will never know until death or the Rapture [/quote]
See my “hearing rustling in the box” addendum to the cat in the box. Still can’t know until you open the box, but you can make determinations based on the evidence you can get to. This is important because everyone makes a decision the status of that cat, what you base that decision on is paramount.
Once you open that box, it’s to late to be wrong, so you should try not to be. That cat may claw your eyes out, you’d want to be prepared. [/quote]
You may believe you hear rustling, but you can not prove to a disbeliever that you are not imagining the rustling[/quote]
What if you both agree you heard it, but just disagree on the source… I really like this cat in the box analogy.[/quote]
What if you don’t[/quote]
Then we’re back to your preceding statement. But what if you do?