RIP Davy Jones

nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
RIP Davy Jones

I'm a theist and I don't think I'm irrational at all.   First, here are some definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com (thank you Dictionary.com.  All copyright for these belongs to Dictionary.com!):

the·ism
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).


ir·ra·tion·al

adjective

1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.
not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
5.
Mathematics .
a.
(of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers.
b.
(of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials.

rea·son
   
noun
1.
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3.
the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4.
sound judgment; good sense.
5.
normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.



For theism, using definition #2 only, I'm a believer.   I'm also agnostic - I don't know there is a god, it's just something I believe even though I don't have evidence for it.  I don't think that believing in the existence of a god makes me irrational.  There isn't anything in the definitions for "irrational" or "reason" about evidence.   They're more about thought, and I reckon there IS a god.

Here are my beliefs:  

-Everything material is a part of god, and god is more than that.  So I'm a panentheist (loosely).  I don't see god as the creator of the material world.  That would be a distinction between creator and created.  Rather the material world is just a part of god.

-God is an it.  Assigning gender to god doesn't make sense to me.

-I don't pray because that would just be talking to myself.   I'm god, you're god, everything and everyone is just a part of god. 

-Reincarnation is true and it's tied to evolution.   Pieces or parts of god incarnate themselves as bacteria, then plants, then bugs, then animals on and on up to humans and whatever else.   I believe this happens on many planets as well, not just earth.

-This means that not only has god always existed but everything and everyone has always existed.  (When I say everyTHING I don't mean elements have always existed in their present form, but they were you know, energy.)  When something dies, it returns to the spirit world where it remembers all of its past incarnations.  (Bacteria probably aren't evolved enough to remember anything and those things just incarnate themselves again automatically, maybe.)  But animals, insect colonies, humans, ETs are, on the other side, different beings from what they were in their latest incarnation.   So we're not who we think we are.   It's just that while we're in the material world we don't remember any of our past lives.

-The reason that evil is in the world is because that's how you grow.   Going to school and doing other things you don't want to do sucks but it helps you progress.  In the same way, parts of god choose to incarnate themselves in the material world in order to experience individuality and grow.  On the other side, in the "spirit world," everyone is connected.   You are able to think your own thoughts and create your own reality (build a house and live in that house in a body, all of which is created by your mind, for example) but you can't feel alone or experience individuality or separateness the way you can in the material world.

-The reason the material world exists is, it's just one of the ways that god lives or experiences its own life.

-There are no such places as heaven or hell, there is only a spirit world, thought planes, and other New Agey stuff like that.

-In the spirit world, the question of whether or not god exists is irrelevant.   It's like asking, "does everything that exists exist?"

Beliefs end here.

As I said, these are beliefs and I could be wrong about all of them, but I believe them anyway.   Maybe materialism is true.   I don't know.  I don't have a religion.   I just imagine what may exist based on what I piece together from various spiritualist / New Age stuff.   Look at definition #3 for reason.   I'm using my mind and forming conclusions.   That's not unreasonable.  

To me this is not that same as using my mind to form a conclusion that things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's Teapot or a Pink Unicorn exist.   Those things WOULD be irrational.   It's just not the same thing.  What I'm talking about encompasses everything and those things don't.   How is it the same? 

I'm just writing this because everyone focuses on Bible God and I just want to see if anyone will make me change my mind about my version of god.  For questions like "how do you think without a brain?" the answer is "I don't know" but that doesn't convince me that it's impossible.  
 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sounds like you found what

Sounds like you found what you want to believe in so why are you here.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Sounds like

robj101 wrote:

Sounds like you found what you want to believe in so why are you here.

Are you saying these forums are specifically for people who have not found what they want to believe in yet?  I'm here for some sort of "Atheist vs Theist" discussion.   I said discussion rather than debate because obviously none of this this is in any way an argument for the existence of a god.  If I'm arguing anything it's merely that belief in a god doesn't necessarily make the believer irrational.   I don't think I'm irrational because of it.

Also, I was a Christian for most of my life up until about early 2011.   During my de-conversion process I was reading a lot of atheist stuff.   I considered myself an agnostic atheist during that time and the god the theist part of me believed in (and the one I now believe in more, enough to consider myself an agnostic theist rather than an agnostic atheist) is a deity who has nothing whatever to do with Christianity, any holy books or any revealed religion.

I don't think that a non-Christian, panentheist conception of god gets enough press so I wanted to start some kind of discussion about it.   It seems like a lot of the atheist vs theist debate is really an atheist vs Christian debate.   However, this is understandable since Christianity is the world's largest religion.  

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:I don't think

nebula wrote:

 


I don't think that a non-Christian, panentheist conception of god gets enough press so I wanted to start some kind of discussion about it.  

 

          You are the fourth panentheist to post here.  Only one of them wasn't a complete asshole ( ie, Eloise ) She was very intelligent, very educated and pleasant to deal with.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:   I don't

 

              double post !!!

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

     You are the fourth panentheist to post here.  Only one of them wasn't a complete asshole ( ie, Eloise ) She was very intelligent, very educated and pleasant to deal with.

I predicted a shit storm in my forecast for starting this thread and so far I've got "Why are you here you complete asshole?".  

I've just read some of Eloise's posts and I agree; she's rational, intelligent, and a theist.  Now I feel better about it.   At least a non-Christian, theist point of view is represented on here.          


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:ProzacDeathWish

nebula wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

     You are the fourth panentheist to post here.  Only one of them wasn't a complete asshole ( ie, Eloise ) She was very intelligent, very educated and pleasant to deal with.

I predicted a shit storm in my forecast for starting this thread and so far I've got "Why are you here you complete asshole?".  

I've just read some of Eloise's posts and I agree; she's rational, intelligent, and a theist.  Now I feel better about it.   At least a non-Christian, theist point of view is represented on here.          

What the hell does this have to do with a dead pop star?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote: I predicted a

nebula wrote:

 

I predicted a shit storm in my forecast for starting this thread and so far I've got "Why are you here you complete asshole?".  
         

 

  Sorry, I worded it poorly.  I didn't intend to imply that you were an asshole.  My bad.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What the hell

Brian37 wrote:

What the hell does this have to do with a dead pop star?

Sorry for that title.  I was awake all night and a little loopy from being tired.  Because of what I was writing about, the song "I'm a Believer" came to mind and that led to Davy Jones.  I thought I would just put that as a little dedication or something.  But now I see he wasn't even the Monkee who sang that song.   It was Mickey Dolenz. 

So I AM an asshole!

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Sorry, I worded it poorly.  I didn't intend to imply that you were an asshole.  My bad.

OK thanks.  You did say "them" rather than "you."  My bad.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I grock what you're saying.

I grock what you're saying.  I'll see your "Stranger in a Strange Land" religion and raise you my "Lord of the Rings" religion... My precious...  

Pantheists define god to create a tautology.  Then point to said tautology to prove that god exists.  For example if I said that I define pink elephants as spit bubbles, and then use that to prove that I spit pink elephants... I'm self consistent, but still irrational.  

What's the point of calling everything "god", we already have a name for it, we call it everything... I really don't see the purpose of the redundancy.

As for the rest of the spirit stuff...  my answer to that is NO it doesn't exist, and now you have to show me evidence why your belief is rational. 

And if you go on "gut feeling" then why not Christianity or Islam or Scientology? they have just as much evidence as you.

Welcome to the forum otherwise.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey OPIE

Hey OPIE,

You sound like a pretty huge whimp. I'm just saying. Whimp Tuesday.

Please give me physical evidence of the following:

A=C; B=A; C=B

Or perhaps give me physical evidence of Euclid's Parallel Postulate.

While this may be show via demonstration, I cannot be proven via physical proof. To say you need physical proof is to completely discount all of kinds of mathematics.

Empiricism is false and is a failed philosophy of knowing. It is impossible to know via "physical evidence." Many atheists would even agree with me. Thus the only way to know is via Sola Scriptura all else is probable.

Thus the evidence for God is the Evidence of Scriptural theorums which flow from it's axioms. The evidence is a demonstrations of what we would expect to find not for support, but for demonstration.

Part of your problem OPIE, is evidently, you were trained in a public school as a yout. Public schools are only there to help our children become good atheists, other then that it has absolutely no value to education or society.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey OPIE,

You sound like a pretty huge whimp. I'm just saying. Whimp Tuesday.

Please give me physical evidence of the following:

A=C; B=A; C=B

Or perhaps give me physical evidence of Euclid's Parallel Postulate.

While this may be show via demonstration, I cannot be proven via physical proof. To say you need physical proof is to completely discount all of kinds of mathematics.

Empiricism is false and is a failed philosophy of knowing. It is impossible to know via "physical evidence." Many atheists would even agree with me. Thus the only way to know is via Sola Scriptura all else is probable.

Thus the evidence for God is the Evidence of Scriptural theorums which flow from it's axioms. The evidence is a demonstrations of what we would expect to find not for support, but for demonstration.

Part of your problem OPIE, is evidently, you were trained in a public school as a yout. Public schools are only there to help our children become good atheists, other then that it has absolutely no value to education or society.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

    Shut the fuck up, troll.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I grock what

Ktulu wrote:

I grock what you're saying.  I'll see your "Stranger in a Strange Land" religion and raise you my "Lord of the Rings" religion... My precious...  

Pantheists define god to create a tautology.  Then point to said tautology to prove that god exists.  For example if I said that I define pink elephants as spit bubbles, and then use that to prove that I spit pink elephants... I'm self consistent, but still irrational.  

What's the point of calling everything "god", we already have a name for it, we call it everything... I really don't see the purpose of the redundancy.

I can see that point if you're talking about naturalistic pantheism, but that's not what I believe.   I'm a panentheist or maybe even an idealist monist pantheist.  Maybe you're saying that because of this comment I made:

"In the spirit world, the question of whether or not god exists is irrelevant.   It's like asking, "does everything that exists exist?"

Never mind that.   I retract it.   This is what I believe though:   In the spirit world, there are religious people and there are atheists and there is a conscious deity that everyone lives "inside of" and this deity doesn't care what anyone believes.  It's so far beyond everyone that there is no way it can reveal itself or have any type of communication with anyone.  I think it's somewhat similar to the relationship we have with bacteria and cells that live inside our bodies but different in the sense that god is able to perceive the world through every bit of matter and life form and conscious entity, i.e. spirit, which are all parts of its "body" whereas we are only able to perceive the world through our senses.

Ktulu wrote:

As for the rest of the spirit stuff...  my answer to that is NO it doesn't exist, and now you have to show me evidence why your belief is rational. 

And if you go on "gut feeling" then why not Christianity or Islam or Scientology? they have just as much evidence as you.

Welcome to the forum otherwise.

The specifics of what I believe is only speculation and isn't as important as the general belief that there is "something there" or there is a "greater meaning to it all".   I will see your LOTR religion and raise you one original trilogy Star Wars religion (naturally free of midichlorians).   The Force was inspired by Joseph Campbell who (I think) believed that when we say "god" it's only a metaphor for something we have no ability to understand, an agnostic or ignostic view, and I think this is the most rational of all.  All anyone can do is assign probabilities to whether there is a god or not.  I think when you start narrowly defining that god (i.e. the Bible's God, the Quran's Allah, etc.) it becomes a lot easier to assign probabilities.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
  nebula wrote:The

 

nebula wrote:

The specifics of what I believe is only speculation and isn't as important as the general belief that there is "something there" or there is a "greater meaning to it all".   I will see your LOTR religion and raise you one original trilogy Star Wars religion (naturally free of midichlorians).   The Force was inspired by Joseph Campbell who (I think) believed that when we say "god" it's only a metaphor for something we have no ability to understand, an agnostic or ignostic view, and I think this is the most rational of all.  All anyone can do is assign probabilities to whether there is a god or not.  I think when you start narrowly defining that god (i.e. the Bible's God, the Quran's Allah, etc.) it becomes a lot easier to assign probabilities.

The majority of us here are what we like to call "agnostic atheists".  Meaning that I do not believe in any one god or gods that humans pray/worship/kiss ass to, but I entertain the possibility that we are imperfect beings with limited understanding and knowledge, therefore, as you said, can only assign probabilities.  This is actually one of my favorite thinking exercises.  I even entertained an axiom that goes a little something like "The probability of certainty is indirectly proportional to the size of the reference frame."

Therefore, a god would require a frame of reference as vast as the universe, the probability of any one statement being certain is infinitely low.  The one thing I can be absolutely certain of is "Cogito ergo sum", anything after that you simply increase the frame of reference, and therefore decrease the certainty, hence the probability Smiling.  That being said, with the knowledge that i have gained so far, and within my paradigm, the probability of a god existing so small as to be non existent for all pragmatical reasons.

Everything is relative, and everything is a matter of perspective Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:The majority of

Ktulu wrote:

The majority of us here are what we like to call "agnostic atheists".  Meaning that I do not believe in any one god or gods that humans pray/worship/kiss ass to, but I entertain the possibility that we are imperfect beings with limited understanding and knowledge, therefore, as you said, can only assign probabilities.  This is actually one of my favorite thinking exercises.  I even entertained an axiom that goes a little something like "The probability of certainty is indirectly proportional to the size of the reference frame."

Therefore, a god would require a frame of reference as vast as the universe, the probability of any one statement being certain is infinitely low.  The one thing I can be absolutely certain of is "Cogito ergo sum", anything after that you simply increase the frame of reference, and therefore decrease the certainty, hence the probability .  That being said, with the knowledge that i have gained so far, and within my paradigm, the probability of a god existing so small as to be non existent for all pragmatical reasons.

Everything is relative, and everything is a matter of perspective 

Good point Ktulu, however.. the reference frame is increasing over time.

As the reference frame increases, the probability of truth in any one statement may also increase. If you limit your knowledge to that which you have gained so far, your reference frame cannot increase, and like you said, you will never know for certain.

Why limit yourself in seeking further knowledge when the indefinite gain of knowledge may show the probability of a god existing to be contrary to your prior understanding?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote:Good point Ktulu,

ax wrote:

Good point Ktulu, however.. the reference frame is increasing over time.

As the reference frame increases, the probability of truth in any one statement may also increase. If you limit your knowledge to that which you have gained so far, your reference frame cannot increase, and like you said, you will never know for certain.

Why limit yourself in seeking further knowledge when the indefinite gain of knowledge may show the probability of a god existing to be contrary to your prior understanding?

I meant the axiom in a epistemological sense.  Of course the frame of reference increases over time, but when you make a logical proposition your frame of reference is already defined by the laws of logic.  The axiom is not to mean that you shouldn't expand your frame of reference, for fear of losing certainty, but rather that 100% certainty is not possible, save for "cogito ergo sum".  Lest you define the frame of reference.  It is more of a subtle attack on absolutes rather than a life philosophy. 

I am perfectly fine with not having 100% certainty, theists have an issue with that, therefore god.  It is more alluding to "the more you know, the less you know".  Meaning that as you increase your frame of reference, you should in theory, be aware of more possible configurations, therefore assign less probability to any given proposition.

Try to fit that into your sum of all purpose theory Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
hello

Hello,

I think the guy was a Chrisitian? I'm not sure what he proclaimed? He was english so maybe Anglican but I have no idea. If he was that's fantastic.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I meant the

Ktulu wrote:

I meant the axiom in a epistemological sense.  Of course the frame of reference increases over time, but when you make a logical proposition your frame of reference is already defined by the laws of logic.  The axiom is not to mean that you shouldn't expand your frame of reference, for fear of losing certainty, but rather that 100% certainty is not possible, save for "cogito ergo sum".  Lest you define the frame of reference.  It is more of a subtle attack on absolutes rather than a life philosophy. 

I am perfectly fine with not having 100% certainty, theists have an issue with that, therefore god.  It is more alluding to "the more you know, the less you know".  Meaning that as you increase your frame of reference, you should in theory, be aware of more possible configurations, therefore assign less probability to any given proposition.

Try to fit that into your sum of all purpose theory Smiling

Hm, I will meditate on this.