EADD Theology Megathread

[Sammy G]

look up " Reinhard Gammenthaler" on youtube and you will see he makes all his stuff free in public domain

So do a million other religious nutjobs of every stripe. That doesn't lend their claims any more credence though, does it?

Never mind, I'm sure that my colleague will be pleased to know that the major secrets of the religion he was born into have been hidden from him for all these years, and that the truth can be found on Youtube, where he'll learn that he shouldn't have been drinking all these years after all.

Who'd have thought that the internet would topple countless centuries of tradition, eh?

 

[The Liberal Media]

Who'd have thought that the internet would topple countless centuries of tradition, eh?

Welcome to reality

 

[Sammy G]

Reality? It's what you make of it, my son.

That'll be eighty billion rupees, to be paid into my Swiss bank account as a 'voluntary donation' please.

 

[pinkpapaver]

religion is big big business. I'm not religious, i'm holy. :D

 

[pinkpapaver]

There appears to be a direct relationship in that map between Catholicism and opiates.

does that mean I can get in touch with Pope Frank and ask him to refund all the funds I have spent on heroin, as well as the funds i have kindly donated (tax free) to the church of rome? I'd like to think so. I'll accept a nice piece of valuable art or a golden chalice.

 

[Raasyvibe]

the mistake i have made, and that you and derren brown are currently making, is that when it comes to god, spirituality, faith, psychics, supernatural you are looking at it from a scientific point of view. Doing so you will inevitably hit a wall, find no evidence and no claims you cannot dismiss.

lol!

Way to selectively quote me and miss the point entirely.

I think it's impossible to argue with raas because he doesn't actually make a case

Way to judge my post on Cornishmans biased selectivity. If you read my actual post, you'd be able to see the point I was making:

You have to transcend your materialistic rules that you've come to know and push past those boundaries. Stop thinking empirically but philosophically, look for reasons why atheism is given to you as a possibility. Recognise what defies those norms that you've come to know.

As much as I can't stand Russell Brand, and I really can't stand the prat. He actually explains this one better than me in his vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpuCYnFaOCU if you wanna play it.

He says we have: "38% the same DNA wise to a banana, 67% the same as an earth worm, 98% the same as a chimpanzee. "We have to live beyond the dead model of our animal cells", of our urgent primal cells" "We have to be in the apex of evolution" "We can't live in the dead animal cells of urges and acquisitiveness... these are the things we have to transcend". "While we prioritize these material truths over spiritual truths we will live in tyranny, because we're living in an illusion".

"If you align yourself with this force you can be positive and you can be beautiful" "Of course we're all selfish and wanna fuck each other... but if u allow that to govern your life you will not be connected to the things that are important and the things that are true".

Can't believe I'm quoting from that prick. Not only is he somewhat sharing my beliefs but now i'm even quoting from him...ffs....

This is what religion is about - distinguishing between the spirit and the flesh... sometimes though you have to face and fight through your evolutionary background to let the soul emerge.

Reality? It's what you make of it, my son.

.

Since when did Harry Potter become an Indian Mysticism student?

 

[Tangerine Dream]

 

[knock]

No no that's empirical thinking

 

[knock]

look for reasons why atheism is given to you as a possibility. Recognise what defies those norms that you've come to know.

What do you mean, "atheism is given to [me] as a possibility"? Possibilities are only "given" to me in the sense that anything which exists and I am aware of is "given to me"; they are not "given" to me at all.

What do you mean, "recognise what defies those norms that you've come to know"? I'm really not sure how to make sense of this, it looks a bit like "Acknowledge the existence of the supernatural!" - why should I?

This is kind of what I'm talking about when I say you don't make a case. You're not presenting a coherent argument which a rational person could examine and test.

I'll have a look at the rest of your post later, I need to watch the end of the film, Drillbit Taylor, that I'm watching, I keep interrupting it. Hold on.

As much as I can't stand Russell Brand, and I really can't stand the prat. He actually explains this one better than me in his vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpuCYnFaOCU if you wanna play it.

He says we have: "38% the same DNA wise to a banana, 67% the same as an earth worm, 98% the same as a chimpanzee. "We have to live beyond the dead model of our animal cells", of our urgent primal cells" "We have to be in the apex of evolution" "We can't live in the dead animal cells of urges and acquisitiveness... these are the things we have to transcend". "While we prioritize these material truths over spiritual truths we will live in tyranny, because we're living in an illusion".

"If you align yourself with this force you can be positive and you can be beautiful" "Of course we're all selfish and wanna fuck each other... but if u allow that to govern your life you will not be connected to the things that are important and the things that are true".

Can't believe I'm quoting from that prick. Not only is he somewhat sharing my beliefs but now i'm even quoting from him...ffs....

This is what religion is about - distinguishing between the spirit and the flesh... sometimes though you have to face and fight through your evolutionary background to let the soul emerge.






Since when did Harry Potter become an Indian Mysticism student?

 

[Raasyvibe]

I think it's impossible to argue with raas because he doesn't actually make a case

What do you mean, "atheism is given to [me] as a possibility"? Possibilities are only "given" to me in the sense that anything which exists and I am aware of is "given to me"; they are not "given" to me at all.

What do you mean, "recognise what defies those norms that you've come to know"? I'm really not sure how to make sense of this, it looks a bit like "Acknowledge the existence of the supernatural!" - why should I?

This is kind of what I'm talking about when I say you don't make a case. You're not presenting a coherent argument which a rational person could examine and test.

I'll have a look at the rest of your post later, I need to watch the end of the film, Drillbit Taylor, that I'm watching, I keep interrupting it. Hold on.

__________________________________________________________

If you have not seen or experienced anything supernatural, it is only natural to be suspicious of those who claim they have and take a more empirical stance on the subject. I've been there too.

The mistake I have made, and that you and Derren Brown are currently making, is that when it comes to God, spirituality, faith, psychics, supernatural you are looking at it from a scientific point of view. Doing so you will inevitably hit a wall, find no evidence and no claims you cannot dismiss.

From a materialistic point of view, these things are unprovable. To progress your understanding you really have to think outside of the material box that you are in.

So you have found no evidence of souls, no evidence of God or anything supernatural? Don't let your search end here. Instead, let's employ a little philosophy:

Maybe there is a God, but he has deliberately made atheism a real possibility for you to believe in. Because you and derrin brown haven't experienced or found any evidence of the supernatural, doesn't mean it's not there, it could be that God doesn't want you to know of it. He's made atheism appear possible on purpose and wants you to explore it, if you wish.


So then we ask ourselves... Why is God essentially tricking us? Are there philosophical reasons for it?

Yes, yes there are. With 7 billion people on earth, billions of planets, our animalistic evolutionary background... People think there may not be a God. This in turn exposes sin. Simply, if someones being naughty they generally feel if their bad deeds are away from the police they've got away with it.

This now gives them (God, angels), who operate on our world... many choices. It allows them to deal with the sin - they can fate events so that the person can learn the consequence of their sin, and develop from it. Or, if the person is evil in the heart and will not learn, their sin can be used to create heroic and noble human experiencs... for instance a police officer could be fated to deal with the person and save an afflicted person. A relationship is born as the policeman helps an afflicted person; love and trust are developed. (Just an example, im sure you can think of many more)


Do you understand what i'm saying here? With the world how it is... it gives us a real chance to learn and experience good and evil. There is meaning and reason behind God making atheism appear a real possibility.

I think it's quite clear that in my post to Rickolasnice, I was saying there are sound theological reasons why an exploration of atheism for us, could be in Gods will; namingly the tackling of human sin, and exposition of evil that we can express through our given faculties.

Rickolasnice, of course, never took any of it in coz he's biased as hell, against any thinking that opposes atheism.

 

[knock]

I think it's quite clear that in my post to Rickolasnice, I was saying there are sound theological reasons why an exploration of atheism for us, could be in Gods will; namingly the tackling of human sin, and exposition of evil that we can express through our given faculties.

Rickolasnice, of course, never took any of it in coz he's biased as hell, against any thinking that opposes atheism.

I'll grant you that an exploration of atheism could be "God's will". It could also simply be my will too, though. Or Rick's.

You're biased as hell too, Raas.

 

[Raasyvibe]

I'll grant you that an exploration of atheism could be "God's will". It could also simply be my will too, though. Or Rick's.

You're biased as hell too, Raas.

From an epstimological POV: Your will, Rick's will and Gods will are the same. It is Gods will, to give us "free will".

How can I possibly be biased when I was formerly an atheist? When I was on this very board having lengthy discussions with (SHM at the time) and defending atheism? It is my openness on the subject and desire for truth, that has allowed me to progress my understanding, which has lead me to theism.

No bias here. My only concern is discovering thee truth.

 

[knock]

From an epstimological POV: Your will, Rick's will and Gods will are the same. It is Gods will, to give us "free will".

What do you mean, an "epistemological POV"? Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. What is an epistemological point of view? Assuming such an epistemological point of view is a coherent, rational thing, in what way does it require that my will, rick's will and god's will are the same?

How can I possibly be biased when I was formerly an atheist?

Being an ex-atheist doesn't confer impartiality.

When I was on this very board having lengthy discussions with (SHM at the time) and defending atheism?

Changing your mind doesn't confer impartiality.

It is my openness on the subject and desire for truth, that has allowed me to progress my understanding, which has lead me to theism.

No bias here. My only concern is discovering thee truth.

But you come across as someone who's only concern is defending theism, not discovering truth.

 

[Raasyvibe]

What do you mean, an "epistemological POV"? Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. What is an epistemological point of view? Assuming such an epistemological point of view is a coherent, rational thing, in what way does it require that my will, rick's will and god's will are the same?

God gave us free will. That's basic Christian epistemology. So, considering Christian epistemology, we arrive at the point of view: your freedom of will, is Gods will in itself. Do you see?

Being an ex-atheist doesn't confer impartiality.


Changing your mind doesn't confer impartiality.

It shows that I've considered both sides. If I was naturally biased towards theism, I would never have been an atheist for such a time. Religious inclination has never been a case of bias, but of understanding. I will accept it's possible I've developed bias. though I stress my desire has always been for the truth, both as an atheist and a Christian.

Ricko is biased because he has no honest perception on the subject, and blindly rejects anything that opposes atheism. Cornishman is biased because he doesn't read the post properly and selectively quotes, to suit his bias. You are biased because you take the side of the "selective quoter" despite it's erroneousness.

It's not a case of openness towards the subject, but rejecting common sense and neglecting truth for the sake of your pre-dispositional bias.


We'll finish this tomorrow... it's nearly 4:30am and this is really hurting my head now.

 

[knock]

God gave us free will. That's basic Christian epistemology.

What has the source of free will got to do with epistemology? Maybe there is a sense of the word epistemology I am unaware of?

Why don't you just say "It's a tenet of the Christian faith that God gave us free will"?

So, considering Christian epistemology, we arrive at the point of view: your freedom of will, is Gods will in itself. Do you see?

Enough of the "epistemology". It looks like you're trying to make the discussion seem more intellectual than it is, by using big words, when they actually don't make sense.

Are you saying that because God gave us free will, whatever we do is God's will? That presupposes the existence of both God and free will, which are both debatable. It also seems to make a mockery of the idea of sin. Are you suggesting that original sin is God's sin?

It shows that I've considered both sides. If I was naturally biased towards theism, I would never have been an atheist for such a time. Religious inclination has never been a case of bias, but of understanding. I will accept it's possible I've developed bias. though I stress my desire has always been for the truth, both as an atheist and a Christian.

I used to be a "Christian", and now I'm not, so I've considered both sides too. I spent a while flirting with Old Norse mythology. I toyed with Hinduism in the guise of "Krishna Consciousness". I spent several years with the mongrel new-age shamanism of Carlos Castaneda. I learned a lot about Islam from my best pal at school who was a devout muslim, there were times when he almost had me convinced. I had a recent Satanic spiritual awakening while fucked on GBL. I've considered many sides. So by your logic, I must be more impartial than you.

You are biased because you take the side of the "selective quoter" despite it's erroneousness.

Haha! Sorry, I'm entering a discussion that's been going on for months, I've been reading it but I've not been actively engaged, so I'm just responding to what I can, is that selective quoting? What have I done that's erroneous?

It's not a case of openness towards the subject, but rejecting common sense and neglecting truth for the sake of your pre-dispositional bias.

I'm open to the subject. What's common sense? I absolutely reject "common sense" for all but the most "common" of purposes. Common sense is shorthand for "I haven't actually thought about this much but there is some ideology I've picked up which on the surface seems vaguely coherent and it hasn't actually killed me yet".

We'll finish this tomorrow... it's nearly 4:30am and this is really hurting my head now.

No I'm just getting warmed up!

 

[rickolasnice]

Ricko is biased because he has no honest perception on the subject, and blindly rejects anything that opposes atheism. Cornishman is biased because he doesn't read the post properly and selectively quotes, to suit his bias. You are biased because you take the side of the "selective quoter" despite it's erroneousness.

It's not a case of openness towards the subject, but rejecting common sense and neglecting truth for the sake of your pre-dispositional bias.

lol

Pot. Kettle. Black.. twice in one paragraph. Love it.

Everyone is biased. EVERYONE. I just happen to be able to talk logically and rationally.. convey my point in less than 4 paragraphs rambling on about nonsense.. I understood what you were trying to say.. but bear in mind you said yourself: IT MAY BE / IT MIGHT BE.. Why were my may be's and might be's any less possible? Your pretty much making your beliefs up on the spot as you have changed your mind on a few things throughout this thread. But anyway.. I disagree with what you said on the basis it's just a small piece of your imagination which doesn't actually work in the real world.

As for your bolded paragraphs in that quote.. the second one doesn't really run on from the first.. they are essentially saying 2 completely different things..

Throughout this whole thread you have been very careful what bits to reply to not because you think they are more relevant and you don't have enough time or whatever, but because there are some things that you can't answer as the whole thing doesn't fit in your belief system.

So which is right? Matthew, Luke or John?

 

[pinkpapaver]

just out of interest, raas, which christian church do you belong to (if any) there's about 30 000 of them all saying something slightly different about jesus or heaven or whatever.

I was taught at school that god gave us free will (as per the apple in the garden of eden) and other things. doing evil cannot be the will of a loving god, but then a loving god would not have told abraham to kill his own son.

 

[Raasyvibe]

What has the source of free will got to do with epistemology? Maybe there is a sense of the word epistemology I am unaware of?

Why don't you just say "It's a tenet of the Christian faith that God gave us free will"?

Epistemology is the rules and theology of the religion, therefore I was using appropriate wordage, biatch.

EDIT: OK Google says it's the "Theory of knowledge", behind the religion. Sounds about the same

EDIT x 2: OK Wiki says: "Epistemology (Listeni/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ from Greek ἐπιστήμη - epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος - logos, meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which any given subject or entity can be known.

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification."

Seems it's more to do with the empirical validation of the religion, rather than the actual theology.


awwww nuts, I've been using the word incorrectly for the past few years. Do I have egg on my holy face now.



As for the rest of the posts you'll have to wait until Monday, i'm a very busy bee this weekend.

 

[knock]

I look forward to Monday I just hope I have the energy to respond to your, no doubt, detailed reply. I may have to take 3mg of ethylphenidate.

 

[ShopperCheck]

There is no spoon.