RE: Search for Causes
January 8, 2020 at 6:24 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2020 at 7:43 am by The Grand Nudger.)
If you don't believe on account of the reasons you gave, then, fine? Go back and block quote whatever it is you were bullshitting us about so that we know when you misspoke and when you didn't. So that we understand what it is you believe, what it is you actually want us to consider.
I think that it's hilarious that your experience and the experience of others was so important until you realized that this was called naturalistic theism...an idea "unwelcome in churches"...despite it being the prevailing model of belief and evangelism in contemporary christianity. You do it again even as you object, with comments on memory, love, and near death experiences. You go so far as to deem the very mechanism of experience something other than™ and demonstrative*. All of which are expressions of naturalistic theism, welcome or not.
Still, you managed to answer my question, I strongly suspect that you did so accidentally. The difference between us, the variable present in your calculus not present in mine, is your existential faith in god. That's why we can use the same eyes to look at the same world applying the same thoroughly natural process of assessment..and one of us comes up with god, whereas the other does not. The same relationship plays out with religious humanism and naturalism. Both of us look at the same world as they do, with the same eyes, and the same thoroughly natural process of assessment...and since neither of us have an existential faith in humans or nature, we do not see their analogs for divinity. I could even group you in with those two in opposition to what I see, to my own analog for divinity, which the three of you would strongly reject. We all use the strongest values that we indwell as a basis for determining truth, but we do not all share the same set of values. These values have a profound effect on how we perceive the world, and it's in the confluence of these things that rationality presents itself as what might appear (to others) to be craven dishonesty. At worst, regardless of who (if anyone) got it right... it's an effect of fooling ourselves first, and then faithfully and honestly relaying the aftermath of that initial and most successful lie.
Until, I suppose...we hear a word we don't like. Then, at least in your case, immediately proceed to call shenanigans on our own repeated statements. If it helps, the fact that you (and the vast majority of christians) are naturalistic theists doesn't actually mean that you don't believe in, or even that there is no such thing as the supernatural. It only refers to how you predicate your beliefs in such things. What do you ask us to consider when you express those beliefs? You ask us to consider personal experiences and natural observations. It's not on account of magic book that you believe, or that you implore anyone else to believe. That would be a short conversation with no need for observational details. You think that these experiences and observations are true, and indicative of the accuracy of your faith in the articles they describe. "Look at this natural thing, listen to this persons story, it clearly provides evidence for the supernatural, for god!". Do you understand what the term means, now? Do you really think that such ideas aren't welcome in christian churches? The idea that god and the supernatural are manifestly present in the world? That they can be seen, heard, experienced? That you can possess a relationship with them?
I think that it's hilarious that your experience and the experience of others was so important until you realized that this was called naturalistic theism...an idea "unwelcome in churches"...despite it being the prevailing model of belief and evangelism in contemporary christianity. You do it again even as you object, with comments on memory, love, and near death experiences. You go so far as to deem the very mechanism of experience something other than™ and demonstrative*. All of which are expressions of naturalistic theism, welcome or not.
Still, you managed to answer my question, I strongly suspect that you did so accidentally. The difference between us, the variable present in your calculus not present in mine, is your existential faith in god. That's why we can use the same eyes to look at the same world applying the same thoroughly natural process of assessment..and one of us comes up with god, whereas the other does not. The same relationship plays out with religious humanism and naturalism. Both of us look at the same world as they do, with the same eyes, and the same thoroughly natural process of assessment...and since neither of us have an existential faith in humans or nature, we do not see their analogs for divinity. I could even group you in with those two in opposition to what I see, to my own analog for divinity, which the three of you would strongly reject. We all use the strongest values that we indwell as a basis for determining truth, but we do not all share the same set of values. These values have a profound effect on how we perceive the world, and it's in the confluence of these things that rationality presents itself as what might appear (to others) to be craven dishonesty. At worst, regardless of who (if anyone) got it right... it's an effect of fooling ourselves first, and then faithfully and honestly relaying the aftermath of that initial and most successful lie.
Until, I suppose...we hear a word we don't like. Then, at least in your case, immediately proceed to call shenanigans on our own repeated statements. If it helps, the fact that you (and the vast majority of christians) are naturalistic theists doesn't actually mean that you don't believe in, or even that there is no such thing as the supernatural. It only refers to how you predicate your beliefs in such things. What do you ask us to consider when you express those beliefs? You ask us to consider personal experiences and natural observations. It's not on account of magic book that you believe, or that you implore anyone else to believe. That would be a short conversation with no need for observational details. You think that these experiences and observations are true, and indicative of the accuracy of your faith in the articles they describe. "Look at this natural thing, listen to this persons story, it clearly provides evidence for the supernatural, for god!". Do you understand what the term means, now? Do you really think that such ideas aren't welcome in christian churches? The idea that god and the supernatural are manifestly present in the world? That they can be seen, heard, experienced? That you can possess a relationship with them?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
