[luke warm]

Impact, on Feb 11 2007, 08:30 PM, said:

Regardless of whether a particular group of beliefs is accepted, I find fascinating that highly intelligent persons can differ so greatly in these beliefs without recourse to logic.

i don't quite understand what this means... are you saying that a belief in God is illogical? i know of some apologists who believe that even attempting a logical proof is to be frowned upon... they believe his existence is self-evident, and they make a good case... that aside, i think there is a logical construct that can be built

Quote

If you possess the relevant faith, perhaps you could practise noblesse oblige (from your own viewpoint) with those who do not.

again i'm not quite sure what you mean... i've done nothing (or little) more than answer questions asked of me

al said:

I guess the real answer to the question is none. They all died after having lived with and experienced their relationship with the physical being from Nazareth. What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

you've made several assertions along these lines without attempting a proof... is it because you haven't been asked to defend your assertions? if that's the reason, i so ask

helene said:

When I say that the acceptance of some idea (or the thought process that lead to that acceptance) is "rational", I mean that it is based (to the extent possible) on the generally accepted criteria for "good" science, i.e. Occam's Razor and Popper's criteria, and that it makes use of widely accepted and/or reproducible evidence. The word "rational" is intentionally value-loaded, but not (IMHO) in a moral sense. I have no "obligation" (Plantinga's word) to strive to think rationally.

you say "good science" is that which is widely accepted and/or reproducible... just trying to clarify here, but are you speaking in material terms (i.e. would metaphysical and/or transcendental entities qualify)?

as for having an obligation to think rationally, you can deny that you are under no compulsion to do so, but if that's the case you can hardly criticize anybody for thinking irrationally, don't you think?

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Feb 12 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

al said:

I guess the real answer to the question is none. They all died after having lived with and experienced their relationship with the physical being from Nazareth. What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

you've made several assertions along these lines without attempting a proof... is it because you haven't been asked to defend your assertions? if that's the reason, i so ask

Hi J

Making assertions, moi? Seems like the people who ascribe diety to a humble Jewish rabbi are making the assertions. I guess that having faith is a sort of assertion or at least the assertive part of testifying to that faith.

I make no assumptions but I do confirm that if you support a position that defies both logic and reason then it must be your faith that provides the underpinning of your statements related to that position.

Had we been there, we would know who and what Jesus was. Deepak Chopra is a very sage man that many people feel has a quality of person and an understanding of life that merit adherance to his position. Should he become a guru and after death become larger than life....should we describe his divine nature (the one that we all share but that most misuse, abuse or defuse) as actual divinity (the possession of supernatural powers for lack of a better definition) then a cult of personality could develop and then become a creed for people to emulate. Next, the avaricious and devious will use this to dupe some into "titheing" to an organization that they head and of which they will be the main beneficiary. Sound vaguely familiar? It should.

I find that the perversions that have been brought into this world under the guise of "Christian" philosophy merit only contempt and disavowal.

The transmutation of universal love to brotherly love has a great deal of merit. That we could more perfectly espouse this would provide us with a true paradise on earth and no need for promises of salvation or heaven awaiting.

Respecting your faith and your person as I am sure you do mine, thanks for comtemplating this as that is the first step towards real enlightenment.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 13 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 12 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

al said:

I guess the real answer to the question is none. They all died after having lived with and experienced their relationship with the physical being from Nazareth. What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

you've made several assertions along these lines without attempting a proof... is it because you haven't been asked to defend your assertions? if that's the reason, i so ask

i'd say when you state with authority that "What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon." you are strongly asserting something, and i don't see how you can logically deny it...

Quote

I make no assumptions but I do confirm that if you support a position that defies both logic and reason then it must be your faith that provides the underpinning of your statements related to that position.

well al, you can assert that your assertions aren't really assertions all you want, but i'm pretty sure your posts are the definition of assertions... it's all well and good to defend yours by pointing to ones made by others, but i've never been a fan of the pee wee herman style of debate (i know i am but what are you?)

Quote

Should he (Deepak Chopra) become a guru and after death become larger than life....should we describe his divine nature (the one that we all share but that most misuse, abuse or defuse) as actual divinity (the possession of supernatural powers for lack of a better definition) then a cult of personality could develop and then become a creed for people to emulate.

i'm not familiar with him... are there reports that he has performed miracles? who does he say he is? who do you say he is?

Quote

I find that the perversions that have been brought into this world under the guise of "Christian" philosophy merit only contempt and disavowal.

me too, but i suspect you and i have a different idea of what a christian is

Quote

The transmutation of universal love to brotherly love has a great deal of merit.  That we could more perfectly espouse this would provide us with a true paradise on earth and no need for promises of salvation or heaven awaiting.

man stop sinning, you mean? i agree, if there is no sin there is no need of salvation (assuming that's what you meant)

Quote

Respecting your faith and your person as I am sure you do mine, thanks for comtemplating this as that is the first step towards real enlightenment.

what faith do you have that i'm to respect? and i do truly hope i can attain "real enlightenment," as you have, by contemplating what you've written

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Feb 13 2007, 01:50 AM, said:

you say "good science" is that which is widely accepted and/or reproducible... just trying to clarify here, but are you speaking in material terms (i.e. would metaphysical and/or transcendental entities qualify)?

Not sure what a metaphysical or transcendental entity is. Maybe the Technologist in my lab-mouse alegorism counts as such? I would say that if the existance of the Technologist provides a valid scientific explanation for established real-world facts (such as mouse feces suddenly being removed from the the cage while the mice are sleeping), it's a rational idea (per defintion). But in that case, the Technologist is a physical entity. The fact that the Technologist hasn't been directly observed it not important. Quantum waves haven't been directly observed either.

Winston's God sounds more like something metaphysical or transcendental. As such I think that the predicate "rational" doesn't apply. I might be wrong, though.

Quote

as for having an obligation to think rationally, you can deny that you are under no compulsion to do so, but if that's the case you can hardly criticize anybody for thinking irrationally, don't you think?

Of course I can't critizise anybody for thinking irrationaly. Winston's God sounds (to me) like a very healthy sort of belief and I sometimes find myself envying people who are able to expirience such things. But selling irrational believes as "science", such as I.D., is discusting.

Among spiritually minded people that I know, spirituality seems to stick to spiritual problems (whatever that is - it's hard for me to decipher as I don't know what they are talking about when they use words like "God", "energy", "force", "soul", "spirit" etc.). That's probably fine as long as it makes people feel good and doesn't impair their ability to make rational decisions whenever a such is called for (once I worked at a biodynamic farm. We had to get up in the middle of the night to pick tomatoes because astrological principles said it was the right time. That's an example of an irrational decision made when a rational decision was called for).

[Winstonm]

Quote

Of course I can't critizise anybody for thinking irrationaly. Winston's God sounds (to me) like a very healthy sort of belief and I sometimes find myself envying people who are able to expirience such things

Helene, when you and others start showing your intellect, I realize I am way out of my league trying to post with you guys. As far as my beliefs, the only way to quatify them is personally and over a great deal of time. It is not a scientific quantification. Because the results are non-provable, it is a waste of time to try to convince anyone else of their validity. What led me to my spiritual beliefs was desperation - a quest for personal serenity that superceded all other needs.

As I believe I have expressed before, the basic substance of my beliefs stemmed from the ideas of Al-anon and AA, groups who are used to having members who are either agnostic or atheist. This is the reason AA does not speak of god in their 12 steps, but a higher power - with the teaching that each individual is reponsible for determining his own concept of higher power. It could be a person's own subconcious - but the thrust was to create something, anything, that was greater than self - a voluntary diminishing of arrogance, you might say.

Then you conduct what is essentially a personal experiment - say these exact words, take these actions - without faith or belief - and discover for yourself over time whether your life improves.

All it takes, according to this guideline, is a willingness to investigate.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Feb 14 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

what faith do you have that i'm to respect? and i do truly hope i can attain "real enlightenment," as you have, by contemplating what you've written

Why, faith in humanity, of course, what other kind is there?

btw, striving for enlightenment is not enlightenment just like rhetoric is not proof nor denial.

The nature of man is to know himself (I believe that is one of the tenets of your favourite Son) in order to achieve enlightenment. This implies that the answer lies within, n'est-ce pas?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 09:28 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 10 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you

I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf

I didn't find his arguments convincing.

why not? he has had many debates, and is a worthy foe (some would say feared)

As an interesting aside, I just ran into the following article this morning:

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/j..._the_crypt.html

I don't want to make any comments regarding the validity of Cameron's claims. I have no idea how the scholars that he's working with could conclusive prove whether this "Jesus" is the "Jesus". None the less, I felt that this discovery / movie has some bearing on those claims of Dr Craig's that I found so unconvincing...

More specifically, the core of Dr. Craig's arguement is that the ressurection must be true since there is no other credible explanation for the events in question. I don't believe that Cameron is will be able to make any kind of conclusive proof. However, I do suspect that his explanation may be more credible than positing the existing of a divine being. it will be interesting to see if Dr. Craig persists in using his same probably caluculus in future debates.

[DrTodd13]

All the scholars are mocking this James Cameron documentary. He obviously has an agenda and is trying to push it. The names were very common in that era. Others ossuaries have been found with these same names. You can't prove anything based on the existence of a few common names.

Scholars say that if that family had a tomb it would have been in Galilee and not Jerusalem. Moreover, the family was poor and would not have been able to afford such a tomb.

[Al_U_Card]

But Rabbi's usually had some wealth and the Rabbi's family did have influence in the community. A controversial populist might well be able to get support (both moral and financial) from many interested parties. We won't go into the other issues concerning his siblings etc.