Originally posted by jaywillBasically, the things that you believe and these stories, claims and beliefs that you speak of - after inspection and consideration (an indication that I have cared even if I now "don't care"anymore) - do not interest me or animate me in any spiritual way.
Basically, your position is you don't care. You're just not interested.
Originally posted by John W Booth============================
It does not involve anything remotely akin to a "blind leap of faith" to tell you that I find the stories about Paul and Jesus not compelling and not relevant to me personally.
It does not involve anything remotely akin to a "blind leap of faith" to tell you that I find the stories about Paul and Jesus not compelling and not relevant to me personally.
=================================
The operative words here I think are "not relevant to me personally".
By act of will you intend that these matters are not going to interfere or touch you, PERIOD. You do not need to come up with a rational alternative conspiracy theory as to how the witness of the New Testament could have come about.
Its better to just stay away and not get involved. I call that a blind leap of something.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou are absolutely right. I do not have to explain or account for, or theorize about, the claims, stories and beliefs laid out in the New Testament in any shape or form. That is surely something for Christians to do.
You do not need to come up with a rational alternative conspiracy theory as to how the witness of the New Testament could have come about.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillIndeed. I see spirituality as strictly a 'personal' thing and efforts to create uniformity, conformity and compliance with such things as 'tenets' and 'textual analysis' and 'dogma' and 'epistemology' - or any other tendencies towards what some people might call groupthink - as anti-spiritual and mundane. Personally speaking, that is.
The operative words here I think are "not relevant to me personally".
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothI have no more exchanges for you.
You are asking me whether I want to get involved with you and your beliefs and get involved in Christianity?
However, I believe that you did say you had a thread in which there were some 400 posts. This is a spirituality forum, and I assume I could learn more about your spirituality on that thread if I wanted to.
If you want to, you can point me to where that thread is.
Thanks for the talk.
Originally posted by KellyJayHere's a thought Kelly ...
I don't know about Joseh or not, but without God I don't see how you can have
a moral absolute. Without a single source for this absolute you have nothing but
desire and opinion from several sources that would argue over what is and is not
absolutely moral. Without a single source for morals you have shifting powers
that would be want or feel the need to setup their 'absolute' morals.
Kelly
What if, just what if, a religious text - one that provides absolute morality for its believers - were written by humans? Does this fact negate the moral absolutes? Must it come from a god to be absolute? And if it must, how can you prove that it has?
The reality is we live in a world where there are few if any moral absolutes. All of our morality is contingent and socially agreed. It was once agreed that homosexuality should be punished with death, now it isn't in some countries, but is in others. Is that absolute morality?
It's generally agreed that we shouldn't kill other people, but this 'absolute' is quietly shoved aside when we go to war, or when we must defend ourselves against others.
Desire and opinion isn't a bad starting point for a morality, but it's meaningless unless you have social consent. If I decide that my morality is based around killing people, I'm not going to be tolerated in many societies for very long. They'll kill me in some places, or they'll lock me up, or at the very least I'll be evicted from that society.
Now you may prefer to pretty this all up with words about the absolute moral authority of some god or other, but people have been living like this long before they thought up any supernatural tooth fairies in the sky, and I'm guessing they still will be, long after the easter bunnies are gone.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergRichard Dawkins here is merely positing that there is not a god steering the course of our universe.
Richard Dawkins here is merely positing that there is not a god steering the course of our universe. It's funny that with your definition I see no reference to gods; in particular I see no reference to epiphinehas-God.
Indeed, the question I would ask (as per my other thread) is: What is any more meaningful about an existence that pointlessly carries on for ...[text shortened]... ss in others, so to ensure this is a pursuit worthy of undertaking?
Because you say so??? 😕
That's not all that Dawkins is positing. In particular, he says the universe has no purpose, the implication of naturalistic/atheistic belief.
Indeed, the question I would ask (as per my other thread) is: What is any more meaningful about an existence that pointlessly carries on for all eternity to appease the self-admiring nature of some magic god?
(1) If Christianity is true, then believers can expect to live forever instead of looking forward to only death and nothingness. (2) What the Christian feels in his heart to be right or wrong he knows is mirrored in the heart of God Himself and one day everything will be set right. Both (1) and (2) prevent life from being an absurdity for the Christian.
The atheist must contend with the absurdity of an existence wherein all his efforts are ultimately futile.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]I have kids. I influence my kids and their future lives.
[b]Richard Dawkins here is merely positing that there is not a god steering the course of our universe.
That's not all that Dawkins is positing. In particular, he says the universe has no purpose, the implication of naturalistic/atheistic belief.
Indeed, the question I would ask (as per my other thread) is: What is any more meaningfu ...[text shortened]... must contend with the absurdity of an existence wherein all his efforts are ultimately futile.
I am a teacher. I influence my students in their future lives.
I interact with people around me - family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, strangers - these interactions influence their lives.
I would contend that my efforts are thus far from futile.
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothSeizing the extraordinary opportunity that life offers and navigating one's way through, and experiencing, its many wonders is legitimate 'meaning' in itself surely. Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about what happens after it ends or fretting about being punished for sins by a God. Indeed, conjuring up some sort of 'extra meaning' or claiming to transcend the "meaninglessness" through speculation and surmise strikes me as being rather pointedly nihilistic on the part of theists.
I myself am a theist but if I may offer a little conjecture perhaps.
Seizing the extraordinary opportunity that life offers and navigating one's way through, and experiencing, its many wonders is legitimate 'meaning' in itself surely. Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about wh ation and surmise strikes me as being rather pointedly nihilistic on the part of theists.
Well said. I sincerely apologize if I was ever unclear about this, but I am not arguing that atheists cannot find real meaning in life. I would be absolutely shocked if they couldn't. My point is this: the implication of atheism, as a world-view, is absurdity. That is, since everything comes to an end and everything arises from chance, with no creator at the helm, it does not matter whether or not we insignificant specks living on an insignificant speck in a largely hostile waste, find personal meaning for ourselves, since in the end everything is utterly futile. It truly wouldn't matter if the world never came into existence in the first place, nothing would be gained or lost. This, mind you, is the implication of atheism as a world-view. I have no doubt that atheists themselves find the world quite rich in meaning and many no doubt live incredibly meaningful lives. However, and this is my main point: how they experience their lives can only be inconsistent with their world-view. Perceived meaning and moral truths is one thing, being able to justify the existence of meaning and moral truth is another. My contention is that atheists cannot justify the meaning they feel nor the moral truths they perceive, without engaging in some form of self-deception.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm not sure that atheism is a worldview. It's just the denial of something, and certainly doesn't constitute what I would call my worldview.
[b]Seizing the extraordinary opportunity that life offers and navigating one's way through, and experiencing, its many wonders is legitimate 'meaning' in itself surely. Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about what happens after it ends or fretting about being punished for sins by ...[text shortened]... that atheists cannot justify the meaning they feel nor the moral truths they perceive.
But regardless, I don't need an old tooth dairy in the sky to justify the meaning I get from my life, or the morality that I live my life by. I find it utterly bizarre that some people feel they have to rely on supernaturally imposed rules to be able to justify the way they live their lives.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm not sure that atheism is a worldview. It's just the denial of something, and certainly doesn't constitute what I would call my worldview.
[b]Seizing the extraordinary opportunity that life offers and navigating one's way through, and experiencing, its many wonders is legitimate 'meaning' in itself surely. Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about what happens after it ends or fretting about being punished for sins by ...[text shortened]... that atheists cannot justify the meaning they feel nor the moral truths they perceive.
But regardless, I don't need an old tooth dairy in the sky to justify the meaning I get from my life, or the morality that I live my life by. I find it utterly bizarre that some people feel they have to rely on supernaturally imposed rules to be able to justify the way they live their lives.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm not sure that atheism is a worldview. It's just the denial of something, and certainly doesn't constitute what I would call my worldview.
[b]Seizing the extraordinary opportunity that life offers and navigating one's way through, and experiencing, its many wonders is legitimate 'meaning' in itself surely. Furthermore, by my estimation, the wonder of life is not made any more wondrous or meaningful by speculating about what happens after it ends or fretting about being punished for sins by ...[text shortened]... that atheists cannot justify the meaning they feel nor the moral truths they perceive.
But regardless, I don't need an old tooth dairy in the sky to justify the meaning I get from my life, or the morality that I live my life by. I find it utterly bizarre that some people feel they have to rely on supernaturally imposed rules to be able to justify the way they live their lives.