For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
wbthacker – “But atheism has already met that burden of proof by debunking every scientific claim purported to prove God exists. We know the universe wasn’t created in six days, which was the old ‘scientific’ theory, and that adding gods to cosmology creates more problems than it solves. We understand that human nature evolved, rather than being an image of God. We recognize randomness for what it is.”
What science has done is to develop a finer grain of detail to illustrate what was previously mostly intuitive and metaphorical understanding.
It is atheists (not scientists) that now interpret the intuitive and metaphorical versions as debunked.
Though the examples you present above represent a more modern and satisfying storyline, they do not actually debunk God.
Your ideas about God have not evolved along with your understanding of the mechanics of reality.
I don’t know who needs to prove what to whom. But as Kevin Osborne has been trying to say, codifying this silly list of attitudes about atheists, only serves to ramp up the “Us v.s. Them” mentality that it pretends to rise above.
Thus obscuring our inherent Freedom to actually Understand.
brmckay – “Though the examples you present above represent a more modern and satisfying storyline, they do not actually debunk God.”
wbthacker – “Correct; they only debunk the God that the creators of all modern faiths believed in. The god who created the Earth in six days, performs observable miracles, and once flooded the entire globe has been debunked.
What remains is a god who has been carefully defined to be unscientific, in response to centuries of such debunking. Being an unscientific claim, I don’t need any evidence at all to reject it, nor do I need to feign respect for it. You know this intuitively; it’s why you don’t respect Jehovah, Allah, Odin, and Zeus equally. I have as much respect for your belief in God as you have for someone’s belief in Santa Claus, and for exactly the same reason.”
Actually, I respect the effort. Knowing full well that conception of a thing is not the thing itself.
As someone who understands the process of refinement; The evolutionary nature of spiritual development. I have the sense to pick it up, look at it, put it down and move on. Trusting in reason AND intuition. Recognizing provisional attainment along the way.
That Existence is, in Truth, Infinite Singularity. This is the pole star.
brmckay – “Actually, I respect the effort.”wbthacker – “But that’s not what I asked. I respect the effort of the people who developed the theories of phlogiston and the epicyclic orbits of the outer planets. But they were wrong, so I don’t respect the theories themselves, nor anyone who still advocates them today. So I think you’re prevaricating. Do you respect all gods equally?”
brmckay – “Why don’t you just tell me what we would learn if I let you back me into that false corner?”
wbthacker – “I’m just trying to determine if you have any way of dismissing ideas as false or useless.”
On a personal level I do it all the time.
We choose moment by moment based on our evolving understanding and current quality of intention.
I have given an example above by choosing not to — lend credence to the idea of “gods” among other “gods”.
Or, in advocating an understanding of the “Bigger Picture” that does not depend on ideas of the “supernatural”.
I also choose to not go along with the obvious (to me) blindness of dismissing God from my consideration of existence and self.
So, I have been co-operating with you already.
On the other hand there is technique at work that employs cultivation of “equanimity”. As in the meditative exercises of: “Not This Not This” or “Hold no opinions for or against”.
This is the science of spiritual practice.
But if you are already in opposition, it will not be understood as such.
brmckay – “I also choose to not go along with the obvious (to me) blindness of dismissing God from my consideration of existence and self.”
wbthacker – “And I choose not to go along with the obvious (to me) blindness of including God in my consideration of existence and self. I find fulfillment in eliminating false ideas from my weltanschauung and trying to illuminate for others the dehumanizing trap that most modern religions have become. I see it as a kind of emancipation from fraud and manipulation, which inhibits ‘our inherent Freedom to actually Understand’ as you put it.
You are clearly already free from that kind of religion. Your beliefs seem like gibberish to me, but they are clearly yours, harmless, and don’t seem to make you a puppet of anyone. So enjoy them with my best wishes.
Almost fair enough. Thanks.
Though it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if you kept the process of “gibberish” decipherment open ended.
If it is merely a matter of unfamiliarity with the genre that makes it gibberish, it would be a shame to waste the opportunity and the effort that has been expended.