Theists, What Do You Get Out of Religion?

[Godscreated]

Really, how?

GC

It uses the same devices, borrows the same language, features mythological creatures such as sea dragons, gods who talk to people and intervene in warfare and daily life, and have children, I mean the list could go on. There's no difference between the Bible and other myths except that you're familiar with it and haven't looked at it with the same objective, critical eye you (hopefully) would when reading Homer, or Egyptian poetry, or Akkadian epics, etc... at least that wouldn't appear to be the case.

Prove what I believe is a myth, tell me you have proof, if you do not then shut up.

GC

---

Here we go again... See y'all in about 80 pages.

Not this time until they can supply me with proof I'm not responding.

GC

[dyresand]

Prove what I believe is a myth, tell me you have proof, if you do not then shut up.
GC

Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources--Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus too common to be coincidence.

[robvalue]

You are demanding an unfalsifiable claim be proved false. It's impossible to do so.

It's an argument from ignorance, again, as usual. Do theists really not give a shit about logical fallacies?

Any unfalsifiable claim is as good as any other.

Supernatural mind bees made the universe yesterday, giving us memories and evidence to make it seem much older! Can you prove me wrong? No. Should you take this as proof that I am right? No. But if you think you've made a valid argument, then you have to accept my argument too, or else you are engaged in special pleading.

Gonna be doing logical fallacies on my blog. You need to learn about them theists or you're just coming at us with guns that constantly jam because they are shit and broken.

[h4ym4n]

Thank you, there's no myth to it though, God's responsible for my turn around not me, and I'm extremely thankful. Created for me is true, God looked down through history and saw my needs, supplied those things I needed to chose

GC

That sounds awesome GC.

When do you think its going desire to turn me around and supply me with the things I will need to choose like it did with you GC?

Or does it already have my future already planned out and My life is progressing exactly as it has planned for me.

---

[Mister Agenda]

When alternatives result in paradoxes and unsolvable dilemmas that means the proposed solutions are inadequate, incomplete, or down right false. The first alternative is that neither the thermostat nor the cheetah engage in goal-seeking behavior. The second alternative is that both the thermostat and the cheetah engage in goal-seeking behavior.
The first alternative posits that the cheetah is without intention. Anyone, but the most strident eliminative materialist, can see that that is false.
The second is false because it attributes mental properties to the thermostat. A panpsychist would argue that this may not be entirely false. And I am open to considering this a real possibility, but the current state of that theory is very inadequate.
The solution to the problem lies in recognizing the difference between essential and accidental properties. The goal-seeking behavior of the cheetah is an essential part of being a cheetah because the final end of any living thing is to live and thrive. It could not do if intentional behavior were removed. In contrast to this, the function of any artifact, like a thermostat is an accidental property of its composition. Any apparent goal-seeking behavior by the thermostat is derived from a person that has an intended goal in actuality.

You left out the part where you demonstrate that an ontological naturalist cannot ascribe intention to the cheetah and not to the thermostat. And that seems to be a very peculiar use of the term 'accidental property' when talking about thermostats, since 'seeking' a particular temperature is an intended property, but you do not seem confused on the issue otherwise.

Really? LOL! It should be obvious. What is the meaning of a rock? Or a waterfall? Or a caterpillar?

It depends on the person ascribing the meaning. Those things (and pretty much anything) can mean different things to different people.

The meaning of things come from recognition of the ideas they instantiate or some correspondence with those ideas. To understand this, you must know a little something about the problem of universals, as conceived by Plato, refined by Aristotle, and perfected by the Schoolmen. Plato observed that part of what allows us to identify universals from particulars is that the particulars, to greater and lesser degrees, all manifest the same form. But Plato imagined these as forms as distinct entities, which was problematic for several reasons, primarily because forms multiply without restraint. Aristotle observed that forms, while real, don’t float around in some separate realm, but are always embodied. While this was an improvement, comparison between particulars to determine a common form is only really possible by referring to an infinite series of super-universals above the universals. The Scholastic solution accepts that forms are embodied but that the intellect perceives the idea of the form by means of abstraction. However the idea of a form must exist in potential before it can be actually manifest in the intellect. In order for something to move from potential to actuality it must do so by means of something already in act. Thus the idea must exist in full actuality. And since God is the only being that is fully in act, the perfect form of any idea must already be in His intellect.

And if a person is not a Platonist, this is not persuasive at all.

Duh! I said as much earlier. What is at issue is why we have that capacity. Having that capacity is inconsistent with ontological naturalism.

That's an assertion. I see no reason why ontological naturalism would keep people from assigning meaning to things. What is it in onotologial naturalism that requires people assigning meaning to be a paradox?

You say that for the ontological naturalist the apparent intentional behavior of human beings is an illusion, but that does not seem to be a necessary consequence. It sounds like you are conflating it with the position that there is no such thing as free will.

I can see your point. Determinism logically follows if the physical universe is causally closed. That leaves no obvious demarcation points for the ?

Quantum mechanics allows for effects without causes, so the universe does not seem to be 'causally closed' or entirely determined. Nothing happens to a particle to cause it to decay. Nothing happens at planck distances to cause virtual particles to appear. Indeterminacy is the why, but not the cause.

It seems to be a pattern of yours that when someone holds a position that you have trouble parsing, you always conclude that they are contradicting their own position rather than considering that you may not fully understand their position.

That is always a possibility. If so, I only do so when the topic is the mind-body connection, and I like to believe I have a pretty good grasp of the main theories. The reverse is much more likely. I make constant reference to and use the terms of neo-Scholastic philosophy, which is, as you say, hard to parse.

Not to mention, only convincing to someone who buys into neo-Scholastic philosophy. Maybe you should start a thread to educate and persuade us that it is valid before trying to convince us of the conclusions to which it leads you.

[h4ym4n]

Thank you, there's no myth to it though, God's responsible for my turn around not me, and I'm extremely thankful. Created for me is true, God looked down through history and saw my needs, supplied those things I needed to chose

GC

That sounds awesome GC.

When do you think its going desire to turn me around and supply me with the things I will need to choose like it did with you GC?

Or does it already have my future already planned out and My life is progressing exactly as it has planned for me.

---

Half my life is over GC. How much longer will I need to wait until it supplies me with what it gave you to choose?

[Tonus]

Half my life is over GC. How much longer will I need to wait until it supplies me with what it gave you to choose?

Maybe god already did, and you missed it!

Maybe you need to wait a bit longer. God is patient!

Maybe you said the wrong thing at the wrong time and god wrote you off!

Maybe you can provide more details and I can invent a scenario where they fit! That's the key to apologetics, IMO. Anything and everything is proof for god. Square peg and round hole? The Mallet of a Thousand Conveniences is up to the task!

[robvalue]

God designed me so that I would not even notice his attempts to communicate with me.

Who is the douche in this scenario? Who deserves punishment?

And why is an omnipotent God so shit at things?

[Homeless Nutter]

Jesus told me once, that his plan for me involves becoming the first ever victim of lethal marijuana overdose (you can't prove that he didn't, so shut up). He HAS NOT supplied me with what I need, though. I'm begging to think he's a lousy dealer... I should have called Jose...

[robvalue]

I just noticed something. God only helps when people act as though he doesn't exist.

For example, if you stay at home and just wait for God to heal your illness, usually he won't. But if you act like he's not there, and go to the doctor, he will! More often.

If you wander around not paying attention, eventually you'll get hit by a car. But if you act like he's not there and carefully look where your are going, he will look after you and you don't get hit so much!

If you sit around praying to God on your own for food each day, the chances of it coming you are slim and you'll probably eventually starve. But if you act like he is not there, go out and do a job, earn money and buy food, he provides food!

So...

God loves atheists.