(October 9, 2026 at 6:17 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: The God in the Bible kills children, supports slavery, and demands worship. If that's not evil, what is?

Three accusations, not one argument.

Let's start with your first claim: God kills children.

Are you arguing that killing a child is morally wrong under every circumstance, or that God has no moral authority to take human life?

Be precise. They're two different claims, and I want to know which one you're prepared to defend.

@emjay

I’d say that when it feels like we’re doing something that we aren’t (and possibly cannot) and we credit that feeling with causal abilities it cannot or does not possess we’ve already entered the realm of magical thinking. Of mundane superstition. Maybe none of the items we’re referring to are superstitious or supernatural but, in that event or hypothetical…the effect very much is and could not be otherwise. If , for example, we cannot choose in the manner described then we are not operating our attention. We are not doing..with mindfulness exercises…what we think we are. It is not working the way we say or feel that it is. There’s a profound disconnect between our experience and reality.

As far as whether or not mindfulness can produce a reduction in those effects..clinical studies say it can…but also that it can increase them. This isn’t a case of it just working better or worse but the same actions producing entirely opposite effects. Which is to say that there’s something about the patient or the patients circumstances that actually accounts for symptom reduction or increase - not the mindfulness practice itself.

As far as a zen experience and describing things that way…I have to point out that it’s of an entirely different experiential character. It’s a flow state - there are lots of ways to get there. The sensation that you are not separate from the universe. That you are not directing action - just acting, and acting in a synchronized way with that “exterior” world. That’s not actually what’s happening…mind you…but that’s the experience. In truth…at least according to fmri scans…your brain is actually more in control. More in itself and less out there. More active in those specific regions…less active in attentive regions. So you fell like you have less or none of something you’re actually juiced up on.

@silas vane
Oh joy, moral apologetics. Who could have ever guessed that was the next stop. Fine, though…go with gods perfect moral goodness. In that light, why do you have trouble thanking god for killing or failing to prevent a killing. Either way it must be a good thing….right?

(October 9, 2026 at 5:56 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 8:20 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You've repeated your original accusation instead of answering my question.

How did you establish that God killed the person?

Repeating a claim isn't evidence for it. Either demonstrate how you reached that conclusion or acknowledge that you haven't established it.

To be fair,  the deity in the bible is depicted as killing indiscriminately, even a global genocide, so it "has form" if you will, however leaving that and much more aside for now, maybe you can clarify this much, do you believe anything happens without your god's will?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

(October 12, 2026 at 7:22 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 5:56 pm)Sheldon Wrote: To be fair,  the deity in the bible is depicted as killing indiscriminately, even a global genocide, so it "has form" if you will, however leaving that and much more aside for now, maybe you can clarify this much, do you believe anything happens without your god's will?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

Epicurus' argument rests on an assumption you've yet to establish: that a God who is both willing and able to prevent evil must therefore prevent all evil.


Why?
Being able to prevent something doesn't automatically establish an obligation to prevent it.

Furthermore, God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others, without approving of those actions or being morally responsible for them.

Now demonstrate why God's failure to prevent evil necessarily makes Him either powerless or malevolent.

Until you establish that connection, quoting Epicurus is a brain-dead move. You're borrowing someone else's conclusion without establishing the reasoning that makes it true.

Silas Vane Wrote:Show me where I argued that God doesn't heal people because "He's being mysterious."

You won't find it. You've invented an argument, attributed it to me, and then attacked it. That's a textbook straw man.

You said that we cannot understand the mind of God, which means that he is mysterious, so spare me from playing the victim fallacy, clown.

(October 12, 2026 at 6:33 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(September 9, 2026 at 8:23 am)Angrboda Wrote: One of the points which has always confused me is why they view humans and God as morally unequal, that God's subjective view counts for more than mine.

You're assuming God's moral judgment is just another subjective opinion, no different from yours.

That's like a student claiming their understanding of a subject carries the same authority as the teacher's simply because both have opinions.

How does having your own opinion make your judgment equal to God's moral authority? 
Or, 
How can a person with limited knowledge and understanding claim their judgment is equal to that of God, who knows everything?

In Christian theology, God's judgment has authority because He is the source of the moral standard, not merely someone expressing an opinion about it.
His authority rests on three claims:

1. Creator: God is the source of human existence and the moral order.
   
2. Omniscience: God knows every fact, intention, consequence and circumstance.
   
3. Perfect goodness: God's nature is perfectly good, so His judgments are not corrupted by ignorance, prejudice or wrongdoing.
   

The critical distinction: Knowing everything makes God's judgment fully informed. Being perfectly good makes it morally trustworthy. Being the source of the moral order establishes His authority.
A student may disagree with a teacher, but disagreement alone does not establish equal knowledge or expertise.
Likewise, disagreeing with God's judgment does not establish that His moral authority is equal to yours.
This is the Christian position. The next question is whether the opponent can demonstrate that God's moral judgments are merely subjective opinions.

Moral authority is not a form of knowledge and stems from ontological facts, not mental ones. Thus this is a false analogy.

(October 12, 2026 at 6:39 am)emjay Wrote: As far as I'm concerned it reliably and directly reduces anxiety and rumination, just essentially by changing the subject of your focus, simple as that really. Labelling 'fear arising', and moving your attention back to your meditation or mindfulness object(s) so to speak, is a very different experience than getting sucked into that fear, and it, in my opinion, does reduce fear, in the moment, just by virtue of not feeding it... of not getting sucked into it, or less so.

This is a theory or hypothesis. That it seems like common sense to you does not make it true. Your defense of it rests on two fallacies, post hoc ergo propter hoc and appeal to common sense. Since your conclusions about mindfulness rest on fallacies, your conclusion that this is what is happening in mindfulness is invalid, it isn't reliably true. You need actual support for your reasoning, not this crap.

(October 12, 2026 at 7:28 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 6:33 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You're assuming God's moral judgment is just another subjective opinion, no different from yours.

That's like a student claiming their understanding of a subject carries the same authority as the teacher's simply because both have opinions.

How does having your own opinion make your judgment equal to God's moral authority? 
Or, 
How can a person with limited knowledge and understanding claim their judgment is equal to that of God, who knows everything?

In Christian theology, God's judgment has authority because He is the source of the moral standard, not merely someone expressing an opinion about it.
His authority rests on three claims:

1. Creator: God is the source of human existence and the moral order.
   
2. Omniscience: God knows every fact, intention, consequence and circumstance.
   
3. Perfect goodness: God's nature is perfectly good, so His judgments are not corrupted by ignorance, prejudice or wrongdoing.
   

The critical distinction: Knowing everything makes God's judgment fully informed. Being perfectly good makes it morally trustworthy. Being the source of the moral order establishes His authority.
A student may disagree with a teacher, but disagreement alone does not establish equal knowledge or expertise.
Likewise, disagreeing with God's judgment does not establish that His moral authority is equal to yours.
This is the Christian position. The next question is whether the opponent can demonstrate that God's moral judgments are merely subjective opinions.

Moral authority is not a form of knowledge and stems from ontological facts, not mental ones.  Thus this is a false analogy.

I agree that knowledge and moral authority are different things.
You claim moral authority comes from facts about existence.
So what facts establish that your moral judgment has the same authority as God's?

(October 12, 2026 at 7:27 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Silas Vane Wrote:Show me where I argued that God doesn't heal people because "He's being mysterious."

You won't find it. You've invented an argument, attributed it to me, and then attacked it. That's a textbook straw man.

You said that we cannot understand the mind of God, which means that he is mysterious, so spare me from playing the victim fallacy, clown.

You're confusing two entirely different claims.
Saying humans cannot fully comprehend God's mind is not the same as claiming God refuses to heal people because He's mysterious.
One concerns the limits of human knowledge. The other claims to explain God's actions.
You made that connection, not me. Now demonstrate how one logically establishes the other.
Or is constructing straw men and throwing insults the extent of your debating ability?

(October 12, 2026 at 7:33 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 6:39 am)emjay Wrote: As far as I'm concerned it reliably and directly reduces anxiety and rumination, just essentially by changing the subject of your focus, simple as that really. Labelling 'fear arising', and moving your attention back to your meditation or mindfulness object(s) so to speak, is a very different experience than getting sucked into that fear, and it, in my opinion, does reduce fear, in the moment, just by virtue of not feeding it... of not getting sucked into it, or less so.

This is a theory or hypothesis. That it seems like common sense to you does not make it true. Your defense of it rests on two fallacies, post hoc ergo propter hoc and appeal to common sense. Since your conclusions about mindfulness rest on fallacies, your conclusion that this is what is happening in mindfulness is invalid, it isn't reliably true. You need actual support for your reasoning, not this crap.

I really am sorry about that Kali Ma stuff, if that's still angering you. I didn't know what it meant and I still don't, I didn't mean any offence by it.

As to this do I just have to amend my 'claim' to include the word 'my'.. as in 'my experience of it, rightly or wrongly, is that it reduces my negative feelings like anxiety, anger etc, when applied, which is not always'. If you don't want anything to do with mindfulness, then that's your call obviously, just as it's my call to do it in my case if I think it's beneficial for me, which I do. IOW you do you, and I'll do me.