I love these threads, they bring me hours of entertainment. Just a reminder, all your questions on religion can be answered here: http://www.subgenius.com/ or just start reading here: http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html
I find it strange that Buddhists should pray. The Buddha said: "If a man could eliminate suffering by making offerings, paying homage, and praying, there would be no-one subject to suffering left in the world; because anyone at all can pay homage and pray. But since people are still subject to suffering while in the very act of making obeisances, paying homage, and performing rites, this is clearly not the way to gain liberation" To pray to someone who is on record as saying that he thinks prayer is a waste of time is bizarre.
AXE:"If I were to accept your premise that reason is not a valid tool, then I am forced reject your argument."[/i] "There was no rejection of reason or logic on my part when reason and logic relate to the subject of the material and limited world. I am in favor of the use of relativistic material logic as it relates to that which exists in duality, time and space, and material causality. However, when discussing God, who by definition is beyond anything that is limited in nature. This means beyond time and space, beyond causation, beyond relativistic logic due to His absolute nature. What I am suggesting is that continued use of relativistic logic when discussing God is as useful as application of the sense of smell in trying to understand what it is to hear a symphony." You continue to use these circular arguments, and that is why your argument holds no water. You cannot simply wave a magic wand and define god to be beyond human logic. Who are YOU, god?? I might as well define my three headed purple unicorn on mars to be BEYOND LOGIC, beyond causation, beyond relativistic logic, and it carries no more weight than your god. Since I defined such a beast BEYOND the above, does this mean this mythical beast actually exists??? Of course not. Its is a fiction. It is a fiction on the SAME LEVEL as your god. For anything beyond all of the above, is no different than Sagans mythical, undetectable dragon, in his garage. At BEST, all we can claim, is that the dragon only exists in the mind of the person claiming this dragon exists. AT BEST, all we can claim, is that your god only exists in YOUR mind, who claims he exists. You can define that your god is beyond anything you wish, but as far as any rational person is concerned, there is no difference between this god and sagans dragon. Both equally undetectable by science and reason, and therefore equivalent to nothing more than an empty claim. peace axeman
Exactly the opposite. Intellectual honesty is precisely what makes me reject your argument. Sure I have a choice. But if I CHOSE to accept your contradictory argument, then I WOULD NOT have been intellectually honest. peace axeman
"Man has a choice when to apply the intellect, and when to apply faith. Both are integral aspects of man's personality. Faith in God brings union with God, where intellectualism brings separation from God." So are you in FACT saying that FAITH is the correct tool to discover the truth when it comes to god? If this is the case.... Then HOW do you justify the inconsistencies in such a tool? My previous example clearly shows that faith is impotent in giving consistent results, thus making it no better than a random roll of the dice. If one man FAITHS that HIS god is the ONLY god, and another man FAITHS that HIS god is the ONLY god, and an atheist FAITHS that NO god exists, then this proves that faith is a completely useless tool in determining anything external to ones self. I might as well flip coins to determine truth. peace axeman
"So are you in FACT saying that FAITH is the correct tool to discover the truth when it comes to god? If this is the case.... Then HOW do you justify the inconsistencies in such a tool?" There are no inconsistencies in such a tool, there is inconsistency of application, and improper application of the tool. "My previous example clearly shows that faith is impotent in giving consistent results, thus making it no better than a random roll of the dice." The results of faith are not random, any more than the use of any other tool. It is quite precise actually. "If one man FAITHS that HIS god is the ONLY god, and another man FAITHS that HIS god is the ONLY god, and an atheist FAITHS that NO god exists, then this proves that faith is a completely useless tool in determining anything external to ones self." The tool of faith is the same, in the same way that a hammer could be used to pound a nail, or attempt to drive a screw, or attempt to open a door, etc. Everyone knows that you need the right tool for the right job, and it needs to be used with expertise. "I might as well flip coins to determine truth." Truth is defined as that which doesn't change, and God does not change by definition, so if flipping a coin is a method that reveals God I am in favor of that approach. I have never read of anyone who achieved God via this process, but I cannot rule it out. People are searching for the truth about God, when in fact God is truth. That which is not God, is temporal, limited, and full of relational truths, not absolute truths. Our entire concept of truth exists in a relative sense, which means we understand truth by contrast to that which is false, or its opposite value. God has no opposite value by definition. Some will say there can be no God, but by definition that makes no sense, as God by definition is absolute, eternal, and omnipresent. It is illogical to think God cannot exist, unless one has a concept of God that God is limited, temporal, and relative. God's non existence would depend entirely on a concept of God that is not God by definition. God is supreme, not subordinate to other factors by definition. The closest thing that man can understand about these concepts come in mathematics, with the concept of infinity and the number zero. Zero has no opposite values, and infinity would contain all values. In between zero and infinity, you have relative knowledge, where zero and infinity are both absolutes. People get very hung up on the word God, but fortunately God does not. Call Him the absolute, the eternal, the omnipresent being, the omnipresent intelligence, the omnipresent energy. It matters little. The English language is man's invention. What matters is the understanding of what is relative, and what is absolute, and what tools are necessary and available for man to come to know the absolute, eternal, omnipresent being commonly known as God.
Your statement was either true or false. It was false, because you did have a choice. You claim a false statement is intellectually honest?
Since I defined such a beast BEYOND the above, does this mean this mythical beast actually exists??? Of course not. Its is a fiction. It is a fiction on the SAME LEVEL as your god. For anything beyond all of the above, is no different than Sagans mythical, undetectable dragon, in his garage. At BEST, all we can claim, is that the dragon only exists in the mind of the person claiming this dragon exists. AT BEST, all we can claim, is that your god only exists in YOUR mind, who claims he exists. You can define that your god is beyond anything you wish, but as far as any rational person is concerned, there is no difference between this god and sagans dragon. Both equally undetectable by science and reason, and therefore equivalent to nothing more than an empty claim. peace axeman ___________________________________________ If you were to present this assumed equality between God and a dragon or pink unicorn to a jury in a court of law and the recorded historical evidence from the bible was weighed beside the evidence for the dragon or pink unicorn I wonder what the outcome would be. The recorded testimony of literally thousands of people over several centuries might weigh more heavily than the witnesses for the dragon or unicorn. The astronomical odds against the bibles prophecies being fulfilled as foretold would also tend to lend credence to the accuracy of the witnesses testimony. I think the case for equality would not stand.
AXE:"If one man FAITHS that HIS god is the ONLY god, and another man FAITHS that HIS god is the ONLY god, and an atheist FAITHS that NO god exists, then this proves that faith is a completely useless tool in determining anything external to ones self." "The tool of faith is the same, in the same way that a hammer could be used to pound a nail, or attempt to drive a screw, or attempt to open a door, etc." You dodge the point. You still have not explained why such an inconsistent system is of any value. FAITH is impotent because unlike other valid measuring devices it is capable of giving us completely random results. You may claim that everytime someone doesnt find god with faith that it is because they used the tool incorrectly, but this would be yet another empty claim, because you have no way of proving proper or incorrect use. If you DEFINE improper use as anyone who doesnt find god using faith, then your are just arguing semantics, which makes your argument pointless. I might as well claim that anyone who FINDS god using his intellect is BY DEFINITION not using his intellect correctly. You still have this HUGE problem in your framework which you cant seem to explain away. FAITH, as I have shown, gives completely inconsistent results. I FAITH that god doesn't exist. Using your own argument, you should accept this as truth. The rest of your argument, rests on the ASSUMPTION that god exists in the first place, which you have NOT proven, and therefore makes it fallaciously circular. You continue to use an UNPROVEN entities attributes to support his very existence. Shall I use the supernatural attributes of 3 headed unicorns to support THEIR existence? Nonsense. peace axeman
My statement that I had no choice but to reject your faulty argument is true within the context of being intellectually honest. You love to argue semantics. Of course I had the CHOICE to accept your faulty argument. But this would NOT have been intellectually honest. This is what I mean by I was forced to reject your argument. The word forced in this context does not mean that I did NOT have a choice. It means that there was only one VALID choice if I WERE being intellectually honest. peace axeman