Making Light: All Religions are UPG

[rug]

June 13, 2013
By Sunweaver

I regret that the title of this post will be upsetting to some, but this statement is not meant to belittle or demean any religion in particular or all religions in general. I’m a religious person myself and one who believes in the reality of the divine, but I’m also a scientist. Much of what I write about here stems from my own doubts and a struggle to reconcile these two aspects of my life. This is, in its essence, a story about how I worked through doubt for myself.

The conversations about whether and how we include fiction in our religious and spiritual practices have been really interesting these past few weeks, and I’m pretty sure I haven’t got around to all the wonderful responses around the blogosphere. I hear tell that there’s some lively conversation on Tumblr, but I don’t Tumbl, so I’ve largely missed out on that. This post is especially good and explores the diversity of Pagan belief within the context of the discussion we’ve been having. Reading about the various opinions on pop culture and Paganisms has been especially interesting when the conversation is courteous and respectful, and I’ve done my best to be both courteous and respectful in my posts and responses as well. There are a lot of folks out there who don’t believe as I do and that’s okay. My own beliefs are either strong enough to withstand challenges to them, or flexible enough to change when new information is presented. It is good and healthy to have one’s beliefs challenged, since it provides opportunity to apply some critical thinking and to develop stronger and more nuanced beliefs.

I’ve long been of the opinion that there is no person in the world who can tell me what I believe except for me. It’s my responsibility to take the information I have, form ideas based on that information, and either support, alter, or abandon those ideas when new information is presented. Religion is not a field of study where measurable evidence is very useful. Faith and belief have more to do with experience than anything else and experience of the divine, or lack of it, is a highly subjective and individual thing. The sciences are different, of course, and require measurable evidence to answer questions. We can study archaeology and anthropology and cobble together an idea about how people practiced ancient religions. We can even figure out what they may or may not have believed. What we can’t do is verify any religious belief as true or untrue.

The atheist’s argument is that you can’t prove a god exists, and the believer’s argument is that you can’t prove a god doesn’t exist. Both are correct. The nature of the gods is such that they don’t leave measurable, tangible evidence, but rather that we know them through our experiences. Part of this discussion on “pop culture Paganism” has been about the nature of the divine: what “counts” as a divinity and what does not. In the absence of measurable evidence, I must assume that an individual’s experience of the divine is real. For my own part, I do let my inner skeptic ask the “am I making this up?” question to keep me from talking the crazy talk. Sometimes the answer is yes, but I wouldn’t be a believer if the answer was always yes.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/agora/2013/06/making-light-all-religions-are-upg/

[cbayer]

1. Had to look up UPG - unverified personal gnosis, I am assuming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unverified_personal_gnosis

I like that concept and while I don't really *get* her religious leanings, I agree with her conclusions.

[rug]

2. It's discussed further down in the article.

The writer self-identifies as Pagan.

[cbayer]

4. Caught me in not reading the whole thing, lol.

As I sometimes do, I read the beginning and the end.

I did see that she was described as a "Hellenic polytheist", but I don't really know what that means.

[MellowDem]

3. When a claim is unprovable and unfalsifiable....

The rational position to take is a lack of belief, or atheism in this context. Someone can tell me that they've experienced God, but I can quite easily claim that, in reality, I don't believe they did because they have no evidence. Rather, they have a mistaken belief. Not uncommon, given how many mental disorders were and still are claimed to be experiences with the supernatural or even demon possession.

The idea that because all experiences cannot be explained yet (or maybe ever), that I should therefore accept a person's explanation of their experiences as supernatural seems rather bizarre. To me, they don't know and are just filling in their lack of knowledge with the God of the gaps, which suspiciously usually aligns with their cultural upbringing.

[rug]

6. You are limiting the term "rational" to "scientific".

I reject that.

The essence of reason is to proceed from a premise. You reject the premise because it does not comport to what you consider scientifically verifiable evidence. On the other hand, if the premise is accepted, what follows can indeed be quite rational.
You are rejecting the premise and misusing a word.

As to your comments about mental disorders, well, I will suspend acceptance of your claim without evidence of your expertise in the field.

[MellowDem]

9. I'm not limiting the term...

I did not reject the premise. I accept the premise that gods are unproveable and unfalsifiable, just as the author did. So it's in what follows where we part. I say that the only reasonable way to proceed is to hold a lack of belief. She says beliefs based on "experiences" are rational. That's irrational to me.

I understand it's subjective, so I'm just saying what my preferences are. Namely, she is advocating gullibility in my opinion, or faith. Faith is irrational.

I understand why she is advocating gullibility. It is the only way to not be hypocrites for believers. After all, the believer that claim their god is the real god based on no evidence, but then that turns around and rejects all other gods because there is no evidence for them is engaging in cognitive dissonance at least, if not intellectual dishonesty. Or claiming that other gods require proof where their god does not.

Or, as is more often the case, claiming that there is more and better "evidence" for their god than others, though I find the "evidence" to be very poor or not evidence at all (like "experiences&quot . Indeed, if that's the claim, then it's a rejection of the original premise that gods are unproveable and unfalsifiable to a degree.

So, she is in the supremely silly position of accepting all supernatural claims from experience as equally true, whether it be about experiences with Batman or Alice in Wonderland.

As for mental disorders, I certainly don't need to be an expert to make that claim. It's common knowledge in most first world nations due to there being plenty of evidence both contemporary and historical on the internet, produced by experts, that show how different mental defects are or were interpreted as something supernatural.

[rug]

15. That is not the premise.

The premise is that there is a god in the first place.

If you proceed in a discussion about god with the notion that god does not exist in the first place, that strikes me as being per se irrational. It's clear your argument is with the premise itself.

Nor would I say you understand why "she is advocating gullibility." That's likely because she is not advocating gullibility. Nor is she asserting that gullibility "is the only way to not be hypocrites for believers". You are masking your own claims in the guise of another's words, even though those are not the other's words.

Why? Is there something lacking in your own?

So, in one post you've used "gullibility", "hypocrites", "cognitive dissonance", "intellectual dishonesty", "supremely silly", "Batman", "Alice in Wonderland", "mental disorders" and "mental defect". Pardon me if I pass on your claims to rational discussion.

And yes, you do need more than asserting "common knowledge" and "plenty of evidence both contemporary and historical on the internet (!)" to be taken seriously. Anyone with a pimple and a computer can read reddit.

[MellowDem]

18. Yes, that is the premise...

how is it not? I am able to determine what parts of the author's post I wish to discuss. One premise I chose from the author's piece is that gods are not provable or falsifiable. We both agree on this. It is from that premise that I arrive at a lack of belief in gods. It is from that premise that the author (irrationally, IMHO) arrives at the conclusion in a belief in gods.

I am not discussing whether god exists or not, but rather the method used to come to a conclusion on that question (or any question that is not proveable or falsifiable).

Of course the author is asserting that gullibility is the only way for believers not to be hypocrites, and she's right. Read the piece again if you need to, but she asserts that all religions are equally valid because she won't question the validity of someone's explanations of their experiences. That is gullibility. It's well intentionted, that is, it's all about avoiding conflict with other people that hold different supernatural beliefs. It unites believers under their common faith and gullibility. But I'm saying gullibility and faith are not rational grounds to proceed from the original premise.

All of the words I've used have been relevant, you quoting them does nothing to bolster any argument you have, whatever it may be.

Considering the informality of a discussion board on the internet, I don't believe I need to do more than present common knowledge on such subjects. It's like saying the sky is blue. Honestly, if someone doesn't know that religions have and continue to use supernatural explanations for experiences that have been shown to be nothing more than psychiatric disorders, then they can look it up themselves and find many examples of it. I don't believe the burden is on me, and I really don't care if someone else thinks otherwise, because, once again, it's not something in controversy. It's widely known and accepted.

[rug]

19. "It's widely known and accepted."

Well, you've convinced me.

[Phillip McCleod]

21. don't worry.. some of us bystanders read you loud and clear.

if i understand correctly, you're responding to the author's argument with, 'uh.. David Hume.. born more than 3 centuries ago. catch up.'

edit.. only with more and better words than me.

[gcomeau]

33. That would be your problem right there. Well, one of them.

That there is a God is the CONCLUSION that is being debated. You can't use it as the premise. That's the definition of circular reasoning.

[rug]

37. Of course you can. Let me tell you what your problem is.

You believe life is based on algebraic equations.

Let me know if you want to exchange lists of problems.

[gcomeau]

38. Wow...

So you're of the opinion that "I am justified in believing that God exists because if we start by assuming God exists then.... God exists!" is a perfectly reasonable statement?

Just... wow...

[rug]

39. No, read it again.

Although I do understand why it's easier for you to rephrase a statement than to understand it.

[gcomeau]

40. ok, I read it again.

I said you can't just assume your conclusion as your premise.

You said "of course you can".... which is exactly what I then proceeded to illustrate the mind blowing absurdity of...


Yeah, reading it again didn't change anything.

[rug]

41. Good, then you should know we we were discussing the concept of rationality, not proof of God.

[gcomeau]

44. Perhaps I am not the one who needs to read things again.

Both the article you posted, and the original post to which you were responding, were focused on proof/evidence/belief in God and how evaluating THAT was rationally done.

You then tried to claim that the premise from which that was supposed to be done was that God exists, and that the poster you were responding to was rejecting that premise and that's why they found the arguments and evidence in favor of believing in God irrational. Which was an absurd statement.

[cbayer]

8. Since the unkowable is, well, unknown, I would argue that taking a

postion of atheism is no more *rational* than taking a position of theism.

Whether you believe what others have experienced is true or not is irrelevant to their experience and they have no need to provide any evidence to you whatsoever.

When you claim that they have a "mistaken belief", you take the position that you know the truth. And you don't. You just haven't seen any evidence that convinces you otherwise.

To claim an association between mental illness and religious believers is offensive in the extreme. While many people with serious mental illness do develop religiously based delusions to explain what they are experiencing, there is no increased incidence of mental illness in people who are religious.

You don't have to accept anything, but one would hope that as a liberal/progressive person you would exhibit some understanding that not everyone shares your POV, experiences or philosophy about the world.

[MellowDem]

10. You have the question wrong...

it's not whether or not I believe a person has had an experience, but whether their explanation of that experience is true. And under that question, how I measure "truth" is quite relevant. If I will just accept any claim from experience as true, then I am very gullible indeed.

Their "mistaken belief" comes in their belief of the explanation of the experience, not the experience itself. There's really no reason for me to question the statment "I felt lighter, I felt a great weight lift off me, I felt a wonderful, rapturous feeling of warmth and comfort". But the explanation that that experience was the result of a supernatural force can and should be questioned on the basis that there is no evidence for it. And the much more rational answer would be that that person doesn't know why they felt that way, or that it is likely (as has been the case in other experiences, and for which there IS some evidence) a result of the very complex nature of the brain and the interaction of chemicals.

There is nothing "offensive" about stating facts. Certain religions have (and many still do) indeed interpreted various experiences as supernatural, only to later find out with the advance of knowledge that these expereiences were the product of the brain. It's no different really than religions back in the day having gods that threw lightning bolts down to Earth. The lightning was real enough, but the explanation of it was not. I never said that religious people were more likely to have mental disorders...

I understand not everyone shares my views, not exactly sure where I said that everyone shares my views (or must).

[cbayer]

12. So do you claim to hold the truth?

That's pretty astounding. What is "true" for you may not be "true" for others, and that is, or should be, a guiding principle for truly progressive/liberal people.

When you have an experience you most likely do perceive it as true. For you to then take the position that other people's experiences, which you have not shared, are untrue makes no sense.

Why do you think anyone has to prove anything to you? As long as their beliefs don't infringe on the rights of you or others, who are you to challenge their them to prove it?

Rationality is a double edge sword and varies a great deal among individuals. It may be rational for you to decide to jump out of an airplane. For me, not so much. It's a term often used to dismiss or belittle people of faith.

You do not state facts when you make statements about mental illness and religion. You state opinion not based on data. I would say that that is not very rational, but will receive it as your opinion. And insofar as it attacks people of faith, it is offensive.

[MellowDem]

14. Sure, on some things...

for most things, I'd have to say I don't know, or have to resort to probabilities based on limited evidence.

I understand that others have different ideas of what is "true". I am saying that how they arrive there is less useful, and indeed, in some cases harmful, according to my preferences, and that the way I and many others go about it is better. It's my opinions and my preferences that inform what method I use to find the truth.

Once again, I am not saying the "experience" itself is not true. Just the explanation of the experience. I have no way of knowing whether someone is lying about their experiences, and I don't care. But the explanation of those experiences, on the other hand, is as open to me as to anyone else.

I think I need to prove claims I make to others if they are to reasonably believe me, and vice versa. That's why I require proof before I will just automatically believe explanations for experiences. Unfortunately, many people who choose "truth" based on faith, or gullibility, are indeed infringing on the rights of me and others every day, throughout the world, precisely because of the method of thinking they use. I think attacking these methods of thinking as harmful and bad is therefore a good thing for me to do, according to my preferences.

Rationality isn't a double edged sword. It just is. What is subjective are preferences. The vast majority of people have very similar preferences, due to evolution. I understand some people are willing to be gullible on some subjects in exchange for perceived comfort, or more often through childhood indoctrination, social pressure, social rewards, and fear of punishment of some sort (financial, by the state, losing your family ties, etc.). I just prefer truth over all of those things, but then again, I am relatively privileged. If I lived in Iran, I'd be lying to myself with the best of them most likely. I wouldn't want to lose my life, my family, my friends, etc. etc. by renouncing Islam, for example.

The fact that many of the preferences of the religious are through coercion of some sort or other (mostly cultural) diminishes them to me though, and makes me think that they are the leftovers of a type of society humans are moving on from. Not to mention, religion is not required to have a community, to be close with family, or to even not fear death. But in many cultural contexts, it is impossible to have those things due to the nature of religion. Which is why I'm glad it is slowly dying off. It's not needed for all the positives it brings and is the source of a lot of negatives in the method of thinking it requires.

As for the mental illness thing... it's common knowledge, not my "opinion" that religions have long used supernatural explanations for experiences that are not supernatural:

http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content.asp?context=article&id=619

From the link:

Anthropologists, psychotherapists, psychologists and psychiatrists see beliefs about demonology as being culturally or socially determined explanations for problems which can otherwise be fully explained in sociological, psychodynamic, psychological or psychiatric terms.

The fact that I have to link you to "common knowledge" sources that you or anyone else could easily find thanks to the internet seems to make me think you're not very serious or like engaging in semantics.

[cbayer]

16. But do you specifically claim to hold the truth on the existence of a god or gods?

Again, what is "better" for you may not be better for others. Using what you know and believe to inform yourself is fine. Saying that your method is better and others should adopt it is proselytizing and very similar to what fundamentalists do.

Challenging those whose beliefs or faiths are infringing on your own rights makes sense to me. Challenging everyone who holds beliefs or faith which you do not share does not.

Rationality is a code word in this context and I again assert that it is used as a weapon to dismiss people of faith. You use it the same way that you use gullible and other pejorative terms to denigrate those who see the world differently than you. That they are diminished to you does not surprise me at all. Again, the comparison to one-wayers seems glaringly obvious.

Of course religion has been used to explain the unexplainable and it will continue to do so. And many scientists will say that every time science answers a question, it also presents new ones. This has absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

Religion is not slowly dying off, but it is changing. I agree that it is not necessary for the things you describe, but for many, it is the thing that provides it for them.

The link you supply is pretty funny. I hope you realize that the conclusion in this article is that demon possession can be a real thing and not a mental illness. You may want to look for alternative articles to bolster your argument.

And, as usual, when one is flailing in a debate, they resort to the ad hom. I am very adept at using the internet, can be quite serious and find discussions of semantics to be educational at times and trite at others.

Nice talking to you. See you around the campfire.

[MellowDem]

20. It is not similar to what fundamentalists do...

at least not as I understand the term. I'm on a discussion board, trying to convince others of my position. I mean, that's what most of politics is, right?

Everyone who is a faith based believer uses the same flawed system of thinking. Only some may use that belief to oppress the rights of others, but the method of thinking is poisonous regardless. That is, believing something is true without evidence is never a good idea. And, it's not just others who violate my rights. It's the people who trash the environment because they believe god is coming back soon, for example. And it's not just religion. It's atheists that try to use herbs to cure cancer because they were told it does so by a new age healer. Sure, progressive religions generally don't try to impose their beliefs on the rest of society, and for that I'm grateful, but the belief systems themselves are still irrational and can still lead to harm.

Skepticism is what I advocate. I am not using terms like "rationality" or "gullibility" as personal attacks, but as accurate descriptors of the kind of thinking promoted by religion. I think religious people generally are incredibly sensitive to having their beliefs criticized because traditionally they have been given privileged status over other ideas or belief systems. I'm treating them no differently than I would political ideologies or ideas. If someone wants to say why the idea of faith doesn't lead to gullibility, I'm all ears.

The link I provided was purposely from that source, since I didn't want to seem biased, I was just showing that religious people have and still do explain experiences with supernatural explanations, even as they themselves aknowledge experts have concluded these explanations are in fact bogus. They just think the experts are wrong, of course.

[cbayer]

22. It's a lot like it, IMO.

You are on a discussion board taking a pretty rigid position and stating that you are right and everyone who thinks differently is not just wrong, but irrational, illogical, poisonous, gullible, deluding themselves and exhibiting flawed thinking. It comes across as a very "one way" type of thinking.

Nothing wrong with skepticism. I have a great deal of regard for it. I also have a great deal of regard for those believers whose faith leads them to do good acts, work for social justice and promote civil rights.

I'm not buying your explanation about the link at all. You called it a "common knowledge" source, although it is certainly not common knowledge that demonic possession is a true phenomenon. And it's certainly not a "common knowledge" site. Of course some religious people still explain scientifically proven events as supernatural phenomenon. For example, there are way too many people in this country who believe in creationism despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but there are also many religious people who fully embrace evolution.

BTW, there is a growing movement in the evangelical community who have made global climate change one of the primary causes. Their religious interpretation is that the earth is a gift from god and that they are responsible for caring for it.

[MellowDem]

27. Not at all, it's called having a position...

and stating it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not one way thinking. I have an open mind. If good evidence is given to me, I will accept it and change my view. So far, you haven't even tried addressing my points. You have simply said that you don't like the words I use and think they're too harsh. Which just seems to back up my position. If you could give me a good reason to think that "faith" is ever a good way to think about anything, or any reason, I'd have something to discuss.

I have no great regard for people who do good works based on faith. I think it's better than doing "bad" works, but faith actually causes it to lose its luster. I have regard for people who do good because they want to, rather than because they think an all powerful god told them to, or for fear of hell, or for the reward of heaven, etc.

I'm not buying your explanation about the link at all.

Yes you are:

Of course some religious people still explain scientifically proven events as supernatural phenomenon.

Yeah, I agree, it's common knowledge, so why did you ask for it again? I think you misread my original comment as somehow saying all people with religious beliefs have a mental disorder, which is not at all what I was saying. I was saying that people have been claiming god can explain their experiences forever, even after science has shown that in some cases it's just the brain. And for the rest of the cases, it's the god of the gaps.

Look, I'm happy when faith based beliefs just happen to line up with my own beliefs, but the reasoning behind them is still flawed and can cause harm. It's similar to saying that libertarians support decriminalizing drugs, but their reasoning is very different, and also leads to supporting such things as getting rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. God of the gaps

What is irrational is assuming that, in the absence of a certain answer, that all proposed answers are equally valid or equally probable.

[cbayer]

24. God of the gaps is an argument used to prove there is a god.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying there is neither proof nor disproof, nor do I think there ever will be. The question is simply unanswerable, so taking a strong position on either side doesn't seem particularly rational to me. But that's just me.

I do think that it is equally valid and probable that there is a god and that there is not, but we will never know.

[Stargazer99]

5. what a wonderful post

I also am interested in science and religion, you express much of what I feel about the so-called science verses religion

[rug]

7. They're not my words. The author has a pretty good blog at the link.

[durbin]

11. Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge

So much of what the faithful folks engage in is really a dance into semantics.

It seems to me that whenever I engage a person of faith in a rational discussion, the rationality fades away into some sort of semantic definition of concepts like "what is knowledge?" or "what is reality?".

When I counter their assertions of personally "knowing" god with the argument that I, too, have dreams and that dreams are very real, especially "real" while I am dreaming them, and that, for that moment in time, my body and mind are taken up with the "reality" of that dream, they get this puzzled look on their face. They think dreams are not real, perhaps, or that I have changed the subject from their "subjective" "knowledge" of their "personal" god.

The discussion usually ends there. They really don't want to hear about my dreams, and I don't want to hear about their personal knowledge of their god.

[rug]

13. So it is.

Now, who on earth have you been talking to? Your descriptions of your conversations is like hearing one end of a phone conversation that is better left unheard.

[durbin]

17. That's funny, I thought asking for personal information

was against the T.O.S. here.

I went to an American college, once way back in the past, and I had a number of deep believing fellow students. We sometimes stayed up late and talked, and maybe had a little wine or beer and got down to these deeply personal questions about what religious beliefs they had. I shared what my experiences were, none of them really deeply "gnostic" of any god figure.

I also lived with an American minister and his family abroad, and spent time with several guests of his family, all reliigous people. They would unwind and talk with me, late into the hot night, as they realized their reason for traveling half way around the world to help a strange group of people had more to do with their desire to help than it had to do with really deep religious convictions. We got along just fine.

I worked in an NGO, (non governmental organization) which served people in a severely depressed area of the world after a natural disaster there, some decades ago, actually more than once I did that, sometimes affiliated loosely with a religious "mission" there. Many of the people who came to volunteer were from a religious group from the USA, some others from England, France, Germany, and a few other European nations, if I recall.

We had a number of midnight discussions on some of those hot nights, (some of them while drinking a few beers with me).

All in all, I found a number of their stories of "personal encounters with (their) God" to be most like some of the amazing dreams of sex or fear or whatever I have had when I was dreaming, very real in the moment, hard to relate to others, and only "real" at the moment they happened in my mind. I still remember a few of those dreams, although I'm not silly enough to think that those dreams have anything to do with gnosticism, more like personal fantasy, or subconscious resolution of (my or other people's) internal psychological conflicts at the time. Sometimes, I day dream, even now, or even almost fall off to sleep, imagining things; I don't think any of those events are revelations, nor true "knowledge" of anything real.

IF you'd care to share some of those moments in life where you had a discussion with a non-believer like me, and when you connected with them on something other than a seeing eye-to-eye on an issue, when you found yourself more gifted and priviledged than them because of your "knowledge" of your god, I'm sure we'd love to read about them.

Thanks for asking when and where these happened. I remember them well, and fondly.

[rug]

25. I've had a lot of strange conversations in my life, including odd conversations about epistemology.

I can't say that I've had one about God and epistemology, nor can I say I've had any sort of a personal encounter with God.

The basic concept of God is that it is unknowable, so knowledge is not in my view the best way to understand or experience a concept of God. Most religions start from revelation, that is, whatever we know of God is revealed by God since, again, it is unknowable and unreachable by human efforts alone.

That said, I make a point of knowing what my religion, Catholic, teaches about what it considers to be revealed and I make an effort to learn what other religions teach as well.

Beyond that, since I believe what my religion teaches, I mostly look around and see how it plays out. For the most part it holds together.

I've been around atheists since college. One was a close friend who overtly rejected Catholicism and made his point by throwing a crucifix in a trash can. I thought that was stupid and we argued more about him being an ass than about belief, knowledge or faith.

I also spent a lot of time with American communists (very much into revolutionary communism) whose concern with religion, faith, or atheism was very definitely an afterthought. It had nothing to do with religion or faith because it was irrelevant to dialectical materialism (a position I agree with) and opposed religion so much as it was aligned with the ruling classes and class oppression. Given that this was the era of Vietnam, soon to be followed by Reagan, and before the ascendence of the religious right, it really didn't come up much. However, I am confident that if asked today what the enemy is, capital, not religion, would be the focus of the battle. So, I guess atheism was irrelevant to that as well.

Now, I'm pretty close friends with a professional clown who I met at Kids' Night at the local Perkins Restaurant. He says he simply doesn't believe in the same tone that others say they don't like squash.

I suppose, overall, I don't get the big deal about viciously countering atheism and viciously countering theism. If pressed, I would give the same answer the clown gives, I prefer belief, it makes sense to me at sits well with me. If pressed further about the causes of repression and oppression, I would give the same answers my old comrades gave: the atheist/theist argument is for the most part a petit bourgeois squabble that only divides and continues to allow the grand bourgeoisie to maintain.

[durbin]

26. "The basic concept of God is that it is unknowable"

Yup! You summed it all up there.

Just like my dreams.

I suppose, overall, I don't get the big deal about viciously countering atheism and viciously countering theism. If pressed, I would give the same answer the clown gives, I prefer belief, it makes sense to me at sits well with me. If pressed further about the causes of repression and oppression, I would give the same answers my old comrades gave: the atheist/theist argument is for the most part a petit bourgeois squabble that only divides and continues to allow the grand bourgeoisie to maintain.

Got it, too fearful to state a position that you stake your life on, but willing to make a stance that you liked when it came up on these internets a few years ago.

Got it. No personal position, because that would be too risky. Putting out there that you have some religious beliefs that are better than atheisits beliefs and deserve posting a few new threads every day on DU, just because you believe in a mythical god and can't discuss why, but have thousands of others around the world, and 2000 years of "evidence" in the Bible.

Yup! Kind of what I expected from such a prolific poster on the Religion forum. Lots of fun articles to read, no read position other than to make sure this religion forum is forbidden from discussing real logic.....so anti-religious to do that.


Let's remind the readers: the Topic of this thread:

Can you repeat it? Just post if you actually want this thread to go in that direction. Otherwise, we know you want to do something else here.

[rug]

28. What the hell are you talking about?

Got it, too fearful to state a position that you stake your life on, but willing to make a stance that you liked when it came up on these internets a few years ago.

Please do go on. I'd like to know where you got this nonsense in 19 days. Of course it's highly unlikely you got it in those 19 days.

Got it. No personal position, because that would be too risky. Putting out there that you have some religious beliefs that are better than atheisits beliefs and deserve posting a few new threads every day on DU, just because you believe in a mythical god and can't discuss why, but have thousands of others around the world, and 2000 years of "evidence" in the Bible.

Please do go on. I'd like to see where you're getting the fuel for your flamebait.

Yup! Kind of what I expected from such a prolific poster on the Religion forum. Lots of fun articles to read, no read position other than to make sure this religion forum is forbidden from discussing real logic.....so anti-religious to do that.

Well, let's see:

Exclamation points? Check.

First person plural? Check.

Caps? No, you've learned something. Too bad you didn't learn the 100 post rule.

See you later.

[rug]

30. Busted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=304524&sub=trans

[cbayer]

31. Cool. I knew it was him but he really backed off when challenged.

[okasha]

35. Damn, he's persistent.

nt

[cbayer]

36. Which is not a great quality when you just aren't very good at something.

[eomer]

42. What about revelations from God that had to be exterminated along with the people that "heard" them?

The Catholic religion of today, in its particulars that you say were revealed by God, is the result of violent struggle that included torture and horribly painful executions of people who thought they heard something different.

If a different group had won on one or more of those violent struggles then you would believe something different, perhaps significantly different, than what you do. Do you believe that God intended for "His truth" to come to you by a process like that? Does the horrific process, do the atrocities, not make you pause and wonder whether the "truths" that came out of them are tainted and suspect?

[rug]

43. Gauguin was a pig. That does not diminish his art.

Hitchens was an Islamophobic pig. Does that diminish his writings?

Human beings do fucked up things. A church is no different. You are confusing history, ecclesiology and humanity with the concept of God. You might want to look up Donatism to see the difference between a vessel and its contents.

[eomer]

45. You said how you think we know things about God; my point is a different take on that.

You said:

... whatever we know of God is revealed by God since, again, it is unknowable and unreachable by human efforts alone.

My view is that the things you and the Catholic church "know" about God were arrived at by an all too human process, one that included torturing and murdering some of the people who claimed to know things and beatifying people who said the "right" things. Apparently you think that God's hand helped pile the wood, strap the "heretic" on top of it, and set if afire in order to stamp out "errant" propositions; I don't.

In other words, to call this process "revelation by God" is quite a euphemism.

[rug]

46. Then we have two different opinions.

BTW, if you want to talk about torture and murder, start a thread on it. I'll be happy to join it.

[okasha]

47. Just to be clear,

how does "torture and murder" constitute a "revelation from God?"

I think you will find that Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular have changed over time. "Torture and murder" are now regarded by most as grave sins.

How do institutional "torture and murder" affect the content of the Sermon on the Mount, for example?

[MrModerate]

29. I'd prefer not to be rude, so I'm merely going to characterize this article as "piffle" . . .

Rather than the stronger language it might actually deserve.

Aside from a certain self-indulgent solipsism, the first three paragraphs are at least not grating, but then the author falls on his/her face in graph 4 by grossly misstating the atheist's point of view.

Atheists don't argue that you can't prove a god exists, only that no one has ever done so. If there were any evidence for the existence of god(s) we'd certainly expect the religious to use that evidence. But there isn't, and so they can't.

And THAT is the atheist's argument: because there is zero evidence that god(s) exist, there is zero reason to behave as if they do. Many atheists believe with a moral certainty that there is in fact no supernatural component of the universe whatsoever, but realize that it would be foolish to attempt to prove a negative. And so we don't try. We are content to live our lives happily godless.

The rest of the article quickly degenerates into self-parody, with the author unwilling to commit, one way or the other, to the possible divinity of Batman or the White Rabbit. The attempt to tie this together with the truly laughable concept of 'Unverifiable Personal Gnosis' and the notion that anyone would take reports of such experiences as being in any way meaningful, is pretty much the nail in the theological coffin.

Until the author reveals that this strategy of accepting everyone else's truth as literal is his crafty means of maintaining interfaith dialog — at which time the shambling corpse of self-referential silliness rises from the grave and threatens to eat our brains.

Jesus wept (or perhaps it was the Mad Hatter).

[Warren Stupidity]

32. If UPG is roughly equivalent to unprovable gobbledygook, I concur.

[gcomeau]

34. It is.

It's just dressed up in more impressive sounding language to make it seem all respectable and philosophical and deep.