As I expected, you go straight back to square one. All the above fails because of your own argument ...... You cannot provide a proof of those claims without dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion you draw is 100% circular in nature.
Hi ART, It seems then that you are not your typical believer. I don't know what is typical. What people say, and what they actually believe may be quite different. Most believers have a model of a Deity who/which is intolerant. A parent can be quite tolerant and also have rules. Tolerance is not a typical trait of people who's model of an intolerant god/God is set in concrete. Your idea must be of a tolerant god/God...true? I am relieved to know that when they burn me at the stake, you will not be there with more matches and kerosene. Burning someone at the stake is not something I would personally do. Just in case, however, I will test your tolerance levels with my comments. The "relational" (relationship ie. kinship?) type feelings would be *protective* type emotions that may be drawing you into the fray. You used an analogy of a man happy with his wife. Most men will fight for their wives' honor/reputation. You may be doing a similar thing regarding your god/God. He is your friend, after all. Relational would vary according to what type of relation someone preferred. God would be the best friend possible. Or the best master, mother, father, brother, or beloved. I have a model that can maintain this relationship type viewpoint, while diffusing the need to feel you must protect/fight for it. The result is peace. It is radical. In my opinion the model I promote is what Christ was trying to convey, but got stamped out in the battles for political/ecclesiastical power. I can only share it with people who are tolerant. Hard to share anything with people who are not receptive. Maybe there are some models of God - set in faith - that do not bring inner contentment and fulfillment to the faithful. An intolerant God might not promote a feeling of contentment. Tolerance of others might not follow. Again, you must have a tolerant model. Tolerance would follow. I am curious what your model is. God who is perfectly tolerance would be included in my concept of God. Where then do you gather your information from? Information? How did I form my concepts of God? I start with what I love the most, then I imagine that to a perfect condition, and I have that as a concept of God personified. The most of everything good, the most of what I would want in a relational capacity. Loving, joyful, and happy. I have a model that suggests religions can be/are started by galactic bretheren trying to assist mankinds development. As they are advanced and have mastered certain natural principles, they are oft misconstrued to be God/Gods by the uninformed. They do nothing to change this conception, for reasons of their own. And yes, it starts off well, and devolves like a bad thread. Indeed, these threads are a microcosm of the world around us. You may be right, I don't know. I have a reincarnational model that you may not agree with. However, it could help to explain the radical behavior of some people. As an example, some of those who experience the gore of war in one lifetime, will come back feeling an irresistable urge to stage non-violent protests against current wars...for whatever reason. These people understand the futility of violence better than most...having experienced it too much. I have no opposition to the theory of reincarnation. Similarily, many people have been literally burned at the stake, or in many other ways, been persecuted by the intolerance of most religions. Their lives may have been made miserable during a dark age of ignorance and intolerance. I would not be surprised to see these people come back and shout down theists of any stripe (including the occasional tolerant theist). You might find such people in these threads feeling an irresistable urge to *flame* whom they percieve to be persecutors/potential persecutors. Understand that they possess some truth. They understand some things better than others, without really even knowing how or why. They may not be able to articulate it, but they have experienced it. Tolerate them. They are doing us a favor. They are vigilant against the last remaining ditches of intolerance, such as Pres. Bushs' ammendment idea. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If this extends to human behavior, it would be quite a fair system in my opinion if that is the way it really is. It is a sign of the times. Never again will negative religion/superstition have such dominating power over the world's citizens. It will be shouted down before it will be allowed to happen again. You can view it as karmic retribution/balancing that you don't need to take personally. This promotes peace. I couldn't say never again. We are dealing with human beings after all, and our propensity to opt for lower values from time to time.
How do we know what we know? How do we come to hold the ideas that we hold as knowledge? Our interest should lie closer to the conceptual schemes of science than the delusions of psychotics. :-/
You use the word "should" and the concept that values "should" be closer to your concepts and your values. That is your value for yourself, and a value judgment if you extend that to evaluation of the beliefs of others and a suggestion that they "should" practice your belief systems. This is what fundamentalists Christians do all the time, they judge the values of others according to their own personal standards....and have been found historically to persecute and ridicule those who did not agree with their values. You appear to be doing exactly the same thing, judging the beliefs of others according to your own personal belief systems. As such, it would appear that you are a practicing fundamental atheist, and I see little difference between your approach and that of a born again fundamentalist Christian who is judging you for your beliefs.
According to your argument, people are incapable of knowing anything constructed on a relativistic platform God, deeper meaning, faith ,assumptions are constructed on a relativistic platform So no reason for faith Or to make assumption when your argument states both are circular. According to your own argument, both go nowhere.
What is your first assumption? Why do you constantly avoid this question? Are you ashamed to tell us what your first assumption is? I don't state faith has to stay circular, for if I am ultimately correct in my practice of faith, God will free me from the eternal circle of relativistic logic and limited senses and deliver me to absolute logic, absolute senses, and absolute understanding. What I am saying is not that relativistic logic is necessarily wrong, for it could be relatively true and at the same time wrong from a deeper level....just that we cannot know that it is absolutely true, nor can it be tested to confirm it as such. It is an assumed perspective thought to be true, but not proven to be true by anything but itself. It is logically possible that relativistic logic and senses in fact delude man from seeing and understanding a reality that reveal Absolute truth. The possibility exists for me to obtain an absolute status because I am open to it, where someone who would refuse to take a chance to obtain an absolute status by remaining rigid and fixed on relativistic logic and senses never would. If an explorer made a decision to never leave his house, it is quite certain that he would personally never discover anything outside of his house.
According to your argument, people are incapable of knowing anything constructed on a relativistic platform but you then state it is not necessaily that faith has to stay circular. And as soon as you say that, your argument is again worthless. For no longer does anything else have to stay circular , including a NO faith , No God, No deeper meaning , No assumption. Your argument still fails, only it is looking more and more silly the more you protest this type of nonsense ... What I am saying is not that relativistic logic is necessarily wrong, for it could be relatively true and at the same time wrong from a deeper level.... You are in a hole with this but you keep digging deeper and deeper. It is logically possible that relativistic logic and senses in fact delude man from seeing and understanding a reality that reveal Absolute truth. That is your statement based upon your relativistic platform, therefor according to your argument it is circular.... it therfore stands by your own argument and using your own words that... It is an assumed perspective thought to be true, but not proven to be true by anything but itself. --------------------- Faith without relativistic logic is the same no matter what the Faith is in, whether it be God, Pink Pixies, an 'Absolute truth', Or a Faith in No Faith. They all hold the same meaninglessness where there is no relativistic logic. Faith using relativistic logic requires, explanation , evidence, probability of outcome, reasonable assumption...without these they remain the same, whether it be God, Pink Pixies, an 'Absolute truth', Or a Faith in No Faith. The most important questions could ONLY be answered with the senses, intellect and reasoning abilities. Get over it.