What Is Your Religion or Worldview?

[timothy1027]

What would it do, talk to you? Enter your brain? There are some pretty intelligent people on this website, but I must agree that it becomes personal. So let's just say that IF there is a God in the possible hypotheses, it could be up to Him to reach you.

In my 63 years of experience, I have never seen any evidence of God responding to my or anyone else's prayers. The rule of law requires proof (consisting of evidence). This is one of the foundations of modern society! Ancient mythology has been obsolete for a LONG TIME now!

 

[YoursTrue]

In my 63 years of experience, I have never seen any evidence of God responding to my or anyone else's prayers. The rule of law requires proof (consisting of evidence). This is one of the foundations of modern society! Ancient mythology has been obsolete for a LONG TIME now!

Ok I understand. But, ... Sometimes God waits and watches. Let's say you don't believe that the Bible is a true account. Nevertheless I am going to cite an example. Again, I realize that you don't believe the Bible is a message from God but I give you an example anyway. Moses spoke to Pharaoh and asked for release. Pharaoh refused to give it. God allowed Pharaoh's heart to be hard. Also, Moses himself had a long time in the wilderness before God met him, in a manner of speaking, in the burning bush. Ok, I know you don't believe that but it's two examples I thought of. About God working through or with people.
I truly understand your perception even though I have come to learn things in a different sense. After a long while.

 

[timothy1027]

I could claim to be a messenger of God (like others have done before me) and nobody could prove that I wasn't!

 

[YoursTrue]

I could claim to be a messenger of God (like others have done before me) and nobody could prove that I wasn't!

Except unless you could prove (I mean verify it), I'd wonder. And probably wouldn't believe you. I won't go any further than that now.

 

[timothy1027]

Except unless you could prove (I mean verify it), I'd wonder. And probably wouldn't believe you. I won't go any further than that now.

WHY should I have to prove anything? None of the claimants before me were required to prove that they were authentic!

 

[YoursTrue]

WHY should I have to prove anything? None of the claimants before me were required to prove that they were authentic!

Sorry, I wasn't singling you out, it's just that your post struck a chord with me.

 

[timothy1027]

Sorry, I wasn't singling you out, it's just that your post struck a chord with me.

I just hope that this dialog helps all the readers to QUESTION claims from people in the future.

 

[YoursTrue]

I just hope that this dialog helps all the readers to QUESTION claims from people in the future.

Perhaps some will.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah...ty. but let's be honest, if you're not sure, you might believe there's an unseen force (person) that is powerful and could perhaps make a person believe he is God?

Yeah, believe sure, but you asked in regards to evidence.
The formal problem in regards to knowledge is this. E.g. if God is all knowing, then if you have to know that to be sure that you know God, you are God. In other words you can only know God, if you are God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I just hope that this dialog helps all the readers to QUESTION claims from people in the future.

Yeah, but all us say that you change the mind of a Christian, then what does this Christian replace her/his/their worldview with.
The broader question in these debate is in effect that if you look closer, then there is no single universe objective version of critical thinking or skepticism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, believe sure, but you asked in regards to evidence.
The formal problem in regards to knowledge is this. E.g. if God is all knowing, then if you have to know that to be sure that you know God, you are God. In other words you can only know God, if you are God

• • these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?
• Job 26:14

 

[timothy1027]

Yeah, but all us say that you change the mind of a Christian, then what does this Christian replace her/his/their worldview with.
The broader question in these debate is in effect that if you look closer, then there is no single universe objective version of critical thinking or skepticism.

Are you now saying that some people might use critical thinking and conclude that God: exists, told them something, did something, etc?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

• • these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?
• Job 26:14

Yeah, you have a given belief in a given God. I have a different faith in another God. But I don't claim it is true or with evidence. I accept I have nothing but faith. And accept you do it differently. But I don't judge you or me in the name of God. Now what about you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you now saying that some people might use critical thinking and conclude that God: exists, told them something, did something, etc?

No, I am saying, lose God as a theistic Divine Comand God and you still have to get another worldview, but that is no just one possible version.
Nothing follows from the fact that you are a non-theist other than you are that. What your actual moral system is, is not given, just because you are not a theist.
The problem is 2 fold, lose theism, but replace it with what?

I have been doing this for close 25 years now as to what to replace non-theism with and that is not that simple. If you actually start observing non-theistic humans them they have for morality nothing in common. They can't even agree on what the world is or what e.g. critical thinking is.

 

[timothy1027]

No, I am saying, lose God as a theistic Divine Comand God and you still have to get another worldview, but that is no just one possible version.
Nothing follows from the fact that you are a non-theist other than you are that. What your actual moral system is, is not given, just because you are not a theist.
The problem is 2 fold, lose theism, but replace it with what?

I have been doing this for close 25 years now as to what to replace non-theism with and that is not that simple. If you actually start observing non-theistic humans them they have for morality nothing in common. They can't even agree on what the world is or what e.g. critical thinking is.

"The problem is 2 fold, lose theism, but replace it with what?"
This is exactly what I am currently working on!
THANKS!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"The problem is 2 fold, lose theism, but replace it with what?"
This is exactly what I am currently working on!
THANKS!

Now, yes you have. Yet so have I and I do it differently than you though we are both non-theists.
That is the point. There is a whole world of different ways to do it beyound non-theism and you are not the only one doing that.

 

[timothy1027]

Now, yes you have. Yet so have I and I do it differently than you though we are both non-theists.
That is the point. There is a whole world of different ways to do it beyound non-theism and you are not the only one doing that.

I guess there must be about 8 billion different ways to do theism and non-theism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess there must be about 8 billion different ways to do theism and non-theism.

Let me give you an example of non-theistic ideology and philosphy that is related to critical thinking.
It is Objectivism from Ayn Rand and that is both a particular version of thinking, but also a general one for what truth and logic is and how it relates to how we humans ought to behave.
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

Now you don't have to explain how you as you understand that text. Rather it is one example of how one human tried to solve the problem of how we ought to live as humans. But it is not the only one as non-theistic. In effect for the categories of religious and non-religious, there is nothing else to say about a given human that is one of those, other that that human is a human.

So what you will find here is a world beyound your culture as a human, because we are more diverse than just relgious or not.

 

[timothy1027]

Let me give you an example of non-theistic ideology and philosphy that is related to critical thinking.
It is Objectivism from Ayn Rand and that is both a particular version of thinking, but also a general one for what truth and logic is and how it relates to how we humans ought to behave.
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

Now you don't have to explain how you as you understand that text. Rather it is one example of how one human tried to solve the problem of how we ought to live as humans. But it is not the only one as non-theistic. In effect for the categories of religious and non-religious, there is nothing else to say about a given human that is one of those, other that that human is a human.

So what you will find here is a world bwyound your culture as a human, because we are more diverse than just relgious or not.

My initial thought on this text from a famous author is that religious people have been voluntarily evicted from reality! -)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My initial thought on this text from a famous author is that, religious people have been voluntarily evicted from reality.

Yeah, this is one way to think about it. But I think about it differently than you and yet we are both not Christians or not theists. That is the point.