Is this Statement Correct in Your View?

[Quintessence]

I don't care what you believe, I care what you can prove. And I didn't move a thing. You said it wasn't possible, I gave myself as an example and you totally failed to back up your claim. No surprise there.

You said:

Meaning is not inherent in anything, theists only insist that it is for emotional comfort.

... and then started talking about this odd "intellectual purity" thing. Not sure what else to call that other than moving the goal posts. Claiming that all theists insist on meaningfulness for "emotional comfort" and then suddenly jumping to "intellectual purity?" What? Where did that come from? Frankly, I don't get where the association with "theist" and "meaningfulness" and "emotional comfort" came from either, considering all "theist" means is "someone who believes in, honors, or accepts some particular god(s)." Now, I get that it's all the rage to conflate (a)theism with a bunch of things that aren't technically within its architecture - the OP does it too. But it'd be nice for us to not, yeah?

 

[Cephus]

... and then started talking about this odd "intellectual purity" thing. Not sure what else to call that other than moving the goal posts. Claiming that all theists insist on meaningfulness for "emotional comfort" and then suddenly jumping to "intellectual purity?" What? Where did that come from? Frankly, I don't get where the association with "theist" and "meaningfulness" and "emotional comfort" came from either, considering all "theist" means is "someone who believes in, honors, or accepts some particular god(s)." Now, I get that it's all the rage to conflate (a)theism with a bunch of things that aren't technically within its architecture - the OP does it too. But it'd be nice for us to not, yeah?

You cannot reach belief in any god through purely intellectual means. Thus, belief in gods comes from untethered emotions, which is the other alternative. You said nobody operates through pure intellectualism, as though to give an excuse to the religious, and got upset when I said I do, in this particular case at least, operate out of pure intellect. This isn't about purity, it is about finding the best possible path to objective fact and your feelings is not it.

 

[Quintessence]

You cannot reach belief in any god through purely intellectual means. Thus, belief in gods comes from untethered emotions, which is the other alternative.

Setting aside that that the purism you're talking about does not actually exist in humans, don't you think you're presenting a false dichotomy?

This isn't about purity, it is about finding the best possible path to objective fact and your feelings is not it.

If it isn't about purity, can you explain to us why you choose to bring that into the conversation with framing like "purely intellectual means?" Seems to me that asking a human to be "purely intellectual" is nonsensical, but I mention it only because you used the phrase. As I said, there is no way to isolate a human from its environmental influences (which are not "intellectual") or its genetic heritage (which is also not "intellectual") or from its emotions (which are commonly contrasted with "intellectual"). If you want to discuss a "best path" to "objective fact" that's fine (though very ironic), but that purity language is a touch problematic.

 

[Cephus]

Setting aside that that the purism you're talking about does not actually exist in humans, don't you think you're presenting a false dichotomy?

Again, you're just claiming it doesn't exist, you have done nothing to prove that it doesn't.

If it isn't about purity, can you explain to us why you choose to bring that into the conversation with framing like "purely intellectual means?" Seems to me that asking a human to be "purely intellectual" is nonsensical, but I mention it only because you used the phrase. As I said, there is no way to isolate a human from its environmental influences (which are not "intellectual") or its genetic heritage (which is also not "intellectual") or from its emotions (which are commonly contrasted with "intellectual"). If you want to discuss a "best path" to "objective fact" that's fine (though very ironic), but that purity language is a touch problematic.

The point is that coming to worthwhile conclusions requires logical means and that's simply not what happens when it comes to religion (or some other things for that matter). The religious believe things because it feels good to believe the things they believe. That doesn't say anything about the truth of those beliefs, only the feelings that are associated with them. And even if people are not perfectly rational every second of every day, making the best effort to care that what you accept is actually objectively true certainly is the best path that we know of to objective fact. It seems you'd rather ignore that because it gets in the way of feeling good about the things you wish were true, but cannot demonstrate.

 

[Quintessence]

Again, you're just claiming it doesn't exist, you have done nothing to prove that it doesn't.

Why should I do that when you haven't answered the initial question posed to you? Done chasing you down these rabbit holes... let's get back to the original question, yeah?

And we should accept you speak for all theists because.... ?

I really am wondering what gives you the authority to speak for all theists. At any rate, all this is pretty tangential to the OP, so I'm not going to take this further. You're free to be a self-appointed authority about theists in your own head-universe, I guess.

 

[Cephus]

Why should I do that when you haven't answered the initial question posed to you? Done chasing you down these rabbit holes... let's get back to the original question, yeah?

One that I answered in the very first post I made in this thread.

I really am wondering what gives you the authority to speak for all theists.

At any rate, all this is pretty tangential to the OP, so I'm not going to take this further. You're free to be a self-appointed authority about theists in your own head-universe, I guess.

Reality is what it is. Nobody has to be granted permission or authority to speak fact. And as I said, please present someone who doesn't operate as I said and I'll admit I'm wrong. Go ahead. We're still waiting.

 

[RedDragon94]

Well... I'm a theist and I don't think there's any "inherent meaning" to the universe, so...

... bagels?

But you believe there's more than just the material. Am I right?

 

[Quintessence]

But you believe there's more than just the material. Am I right?

I don't know what that means. I don't adhere to western dualism, so it doesn't feel appropriate to say "yes" or "no." It's more of a "not applicable" I guess.

You've got me curious though - how is meaningfulness and ontological philosophy related? I'm wondering where this question came from in connection to the idea of meaningfulness.

 

[Shad]

What a weird parallel. Why are you lumping Richard Dawkins in with WBC and ISIS?

All 3 are loud, annoying and do not represent all views of the group they belong to yet all 3 are used by others to represent said groups.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All 3 are loud, annoying and do not represent all views of the group they belong to yet all 3 are used by others to represent said groups.

The average moderate Christian pastor or Muslim imam is far past Richard Dawkins on the "loud and annoying" scale.

If you're saying that Richard Dawkins is beyond the limits of civility that we should tolerate, then you're implying a pretty damning condemnation of religion generally.

Edit: a better comparison:

- ISIS will kill you for disagreeing with them.
- WBC won't do anything to you physically if you disagree with them (BTW: this is why I consider WBC to be less extremist than, say, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Catholic Church), but they'll cheer at the idea that their God will torture you forever.
- Richard Dawkins will tell you that he disagrees and try to change your mind. He might also think a bit less of you for your beliefs.

 

[Shad]

The average moderate Christian pastor or Muslim imam is far past Richard Dawkins on the "loud and annoying" scale.

If you're saying that Richard Dawkins is beyond the limits of civility that we should tolerate, then you're implying a pretty damning condemnation of religion generally.

Tongue in cheek comment more than a factual comparison. The one point I believe has a basis is using any of these people to smear the whole group.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tongue in cheek comment more than a factual comparison.

No, I'm dead serious.

Take any Dawkins speech criticizing religious faith and rewrite it to be in praise of faith; you'll get something that seems like a watered-down UU or United Church sermon that people would criticize for being too boring.

OTOH, take a sermon in praise of faith from a liberal Christian church and rewrite it to be critical of faith, and you'll have something more vitriolic than anything Dawkins ever wrote.

 

[Shad]

No, I'm dead serious.

Sorry I mean my comment was not your comment.

 

[shmogie]

Human desire for something to exist is the usually the main reason something exists, if that something isn't actually a physical object that can be touched.

Applies perfectly to the so called process of abiogenesis. Many atheists adhere to this concept as the beginning of life. A concept never observed, never replicated, with no proof it occurred. Isn't this the objection many make about religion ?

 

[dust1n]

Applies perfectly to the so called process of abiogenesis. Many atheists adhere to this concept as the beginning of life. A concept never observed, never replicated, with no proof it occurred. Isn't this the objection many make about religion ?

No, my objection is that religion is mostly senseless and results in nothing; and this was far apparent to me before abiogenesis was, or before I even knew what it was.

Abiogenesis is as collection of theories, not a list of 10 dogmas one most follow or burn eternally in God's torture chamber.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Atheism ignores the why [of how we got here] and only looks at the how. They do not care if there is a why, how we got here is all that matters. For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Please discuss.

Yes, although of course many Atheists will say that they don't think anything - it's the lack of thinking - I mean believing - or something like that.
Atheism is illogical:

1. Too many definitions of to many gods to know them all - yet Atheists assert that somehow they are omniscient enough to deny them all.
2. Atheism is based on rejecting theology - "A-theism" = without theology - yet google it and you'll see countless Atheist books/theology.
3. Atheism is group thought - and discourages considering any possibility of God, no matter how logical.
4. There are definitions of God that are irrefutable... ie "God is love" and "The kingdom of God is within you."

 

[shmogie]

No, my objection is that religion is mostly senseless and results in nothing; and this was far apparent to me before abiogenesis was, or before I even knew what it was.

Abiogenesis is as collection of theories, not a list of 10 dogmas one most follow or burn eternally in God's torture chamber.

 

[shmogie]

I am not sure exactly how much you know about Christianity. There are neither 10 dogma;s you must follow or a torture chamber. Irrespective of what tradition or theologians pontificate about, I simply believe the foundation documents of the faith. I have found the Gospel to be as Christ described it, freedom, not enslavement.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

Atheism ignores the why [of how we got here] and only looks at the how. They do not care if there is a why, how we got here is all that matters. For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Please discuss.

If there is no mind behind everything then asking why makes no sense. There is no why.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

I am not sure exactly how much you know about Christianity. There are neither 10 dogma;s you must follow or a torture chamber. Irrespective of what tradition or theologians pontificate about, I simply believe the foundation documents of the faith. I have found the Gospel to be as Christ described it, freedom, not enslavement.

Do you read Koine, Ancient Hebrew, or Latin? If not, you are not reading the source document. And the KJV is riddled with translation errors.