Just got banned from Christian Forums

[Sorginak]

Hell, by the time I was 15 years old, I'd already lived a decade and a half!

I get it, I'm old.

Shall I recount how I walked a mile in the snow each morning to get to school?

[Mike Cl]

Hell, by the time I was 15 years old, I'd already lived a decade and a half!

Wow!  You were ahead of me!

[Mike Cl]

Shall I recount how I walked a mile in the snow each morning to get to school?

Yeah, me too!  And it was a real pain in the summer!

[Unbeliever]

I get it, I'm old.

Shall I recount how I walked a mile in the snow each morning to get to school?

Was it uphill both ways?

[Sorginak]

Was it uphill both ways?

In my day, youngin's had more respect for their elders.

[St Truth]

I have experienced paranormal stuff, and know other people who do, but that is not why I know G-d.  I don't suppose G-d, I don't believe G-d.  I know G-d, but I don't understand G-d ... and don't think I ever will. 

I've told you about my friend whose mother is into some New Age cult and he believes in fairies. I've been to his house and his mother showed me a huge book with the title 'Fairyology' and it was only Volume 1. She was really loony and made it seem like if you have a thick book on something, that thing has got to exist. I asked her what made her believe in fairies. She said the same thing you did. She didn't just believe in them or just think they exist; she KNOWS they exist. But I'm more polite with adults when I'm talking to them in person. I didn't tell her, 'Fine! You can say you know they exist till you're blue in the face but that's not answering my question. I asked you WHAT made you believe in fairies.' She did not tell me the reason for her belief and it's the same with theists. They all know there is no valid reason. If they say it, they will only expose themselves to ridicule.

Knowing G-d doesn't make me comfortable or satisfied.  Philosophy is where you deal with ambiguity and paradox, but St Truth isn't interested.  There are other pre-cognitive experiences, other than peak experiences (like a runner high, or a mountain climber high), some rather adult.  Sometimes peak experiences are like catharsis ... and that is something very close to religious experience (see Aristotle on Poetics or William James).  My last catharsis was almost a year ago ... a temporary psychotic break.  My last peak experience was just a few weeks ago, attending a theatric comedy for the first time in many years.  Knowing G-d is like reading the Rhyme Of The Ancient Mariner ... and getting it.  The poem didn't have a happy ending.

I find it hilarious that intelligent people can interpret God's existence when they have a rush of endorphins. Feeling that strange warmth when reading a poem has nothing to do with God. Scientists can show the part of the brain that lights up and gets worked up when you read a poem or listen to a great piece of musical composition. To postulate God for such a feeling is nonsensical and absolutely silly. I'm surprised nobody says he sees God when he has his first sexual experience because the brain also lights up when that happens. My New Age friend will probably affirm the existence of fairies when that happens.

Besides, St Truth, emotional health is better than cognitive brilliance, anyway. 

Surely you will agree with me that my emotional health is much better than most people's?  You said this of yourself: 'My last catharsis was almost a year ago ... a temporary psychotic break.'  I have never had even a millisecond of a psychotic break, whatever that means. You are wrong to think that people who have such emotional upheavals are healthier. No, speak to any psychiatrist and he will tell you that people like me are the most stable and sane. People who see God or some supernatural animal or claim to experience them can hardly be said to be psychiatrically sound. Yes, I agree with you that emotional and mental health is very important.

I have never before considered that mental issues may be the reason for a belief in God and this is very plausible. I don't know what you mean by a psychotic break but if I were you, I'd see someone about it.  I've sometimes heard religious people who say that God said this to them and God said that to them. I always thought they meant it as a metaphor for they THOUGHT of something and since it's in line with their religion, they say God told them that. It has never occurred to me that they might really have heard an audible voice. This is symptomatic of schizophrenia in which the hearing of voices is a diagnostic symptom.

It is people who are important, more important than any god, more important than any other idea we might have.

Of course. Any atheist will be happy to tell you that people are more important than God and you'll do well to throw God into the dustbin, as the icon at the top of this page so ingeniously illustrates.  We may of course keep God as a part of our culture but we must be very clear in our minds that going through a cultural ritual is not the same as accepting in our heads the existence of a cultural mythological figure.

For the record, you still have not explained what made you believe in God's existence apart from getting a reaction from reading Coleridge's poem but it's not rational to say ergo, God exists. You agree with me that a belief in God is totally irrational, illogical and absolutely unsupported by any reason or evidence?

[St Truth]

One would think St. Truth would have gotten over being banned from that Christian forum already. 


Sheesh.

I've got over it. It's just that every time I write something disparaging of religion, I have this urge to delete it because of the strict rules of Christian Forums and then I realised, hey, I'm in a place that won't ban me for saying anything that I can rationally defend. It's like leaving a dungeon. So I talk about it. It's not that I can't get over it. It's an expression of relief. You have to go there to experience it. There are different camps (the Bible-has-spoken camp, the God-spoke-to-me-this-morning camp, the philosophy-says-God-exists camp, the God-loves-ME camp, etc) and they all agree at one point - that God is real and damn anyone who dares to oppose that. Leaving CF is like emerging from a madhouse. You can't help but talk about it.

[Baruch]

I find that my relationship with my wife leads me to become more 'human', not divine.

Your choice of words is different, but we have the same meaning.

[trdsf]

In my day, youngin's had more respect for their elders.

Hell, in my day, elders were dead half the time they got to my age.

[Baruch]

"My New Age friend will probably affirm the existence of fairies when that happens." ... 100 years ago there was a certain drink, called the "green fairy", a kind of absinthe ... perhaps that could be the origin of that belief? ;-)

Irrational = prejudicial usage.  I don't consider "rational" to be necessarily positive, or "irrational" to be necessarily negative.  I have been completely honest with you, but you take advantage of that to be "overly bold" in your choice of words to me, as often happens on the Internets.  That isn't very diplomatic of you.  Things are as they are, and I can see them only as I see them, being an individual, not a mere disembodied spirit.  To be an embodied spirit, an individual, is a great mission, and we must make of it what we can, while we can.  Think of yourself as an mysterious actor, identity unknown, who is playing the part of yourself (not just the particular projection you make on the Internet).  Put your best foot forward, or break a leg on this post-modern stage.  You are only in Act I ... I am in Act III, nearly time for my exit.

Unlike most people here, I would be curious and polite about your "fairy-believing" acquaintances.  I find people to be interesting, hence my interest in anthropology and psychology.  But I don't think less of people, just because they are different.  I don't think you have anything to fear from these particular people ... they are probably harmless.

[St Truth]

"My New Age friend will probably affirm the existence of fairies when that happens." ... 100 years ago there was a certain drink, called the "green fairy", a kind of absinthe ... perhaps that could be the origin of that belief? ;-)

Irrational = prejudicial usage.  I don't consider "rational" to be necessarily positive, or "irrational" to be necessarily negative.  I have been completely honest with you, but you take advantage of that to be "overly bold" in your choice of words to me, as often happens on the Internets.  That isn't very diplomatic of you.  Things are as they are, and I can see them only as I see them, being an individual, not a mere disembodied spirit.  To be an embodied spirit, an individual, is a great mission, and we must make of it what we can, while we can.  Think of yourself as an mysterious actor, identity unknown, who is playing the part of yourself (not just the particular projection you make on the Internet).  Put your best foot forward, or break a leg on this post-modern stage.  You are only in Act I ... I am in Act III, nearly time for my exit.

Unlike most people here, I would be curious and polite about your "fairy-believing" acquaintances.  I find people to be interesting, hence my interest in anthropology and psychology.  But I don't think less of people, just because they are different.  I don't think you have anything to fear from these particular people ... they are probably harmless.

What you construe as 'overly bold' is your own interpretation which is incorrect. I actually feel very sorry for you. You are obviously a highly intelligent man but you shackle yourself with the yoke of irrational belief. When I say 'irrational' I mean it with all my heart. If I use a different word, I would be dishonest. But you think the word 'irrational' is prejudicial.

I will give an analysis of why you view my words from such an angle.

In today's world, it's considered inappropriate to make judgement of any sort. My dad told me about this. If a child makes a grammatical mistake, parents are usually loth to correct him or to tell him he's wrong. This reluctance to pronounce a judgement is pervasive in our society and it affects everyone. Even grammarians who write books on grammar nowadays are reluctant to say that a sentence is wrong when it's obviously wrong. Rather, they will say it's 'highly informal' when they mean something is ungrammatical.

This namby-pamby approach to a mistake is what will ruin our civilisation. I'm grateful that my parents were more old-school. When I made a mistake in my speech, I would be corrected and if I repeated the mistake, the correction would be harsher in tone. Because of this, I had a head-start when compared with my classmates who were brought up without any correction. Even in something as basic as the language we use, I'm years ahead of them.

But this reluctance to make any judgment is beneficial to those who are religious and are struggling to give some semblance of intellectual dignity to their belief. They know their belief is irrational. But they will chide you if you tell them religion is irrational. You will be thought of as prejudiced. They will say, as you do in your post, that 'rational' isn't always positive and 'irrational' isn't always negative. But we humans can't function without any value judgment. Some things are correct, some are wrong. Some are rational, others are irrational. I don't like this blurring of meaning and of values because I really believe it's not an honest thing to do. We make judgment calls all the time and it is needful.

Religion is irrational and that is negative. You must deal with it because it's the truth.  You can't pretend everything is neither rational nor irrational and neither true nor untrue. That is not reality.

I really feel sorry for intelligent people who accept God in their heads because they have no choice but to come up with strange ideas such as your statement that 'rational' does not equal positive and 'irrational' does not equal negative. I'm sure you can be greater than Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris if you gave up the religious baggage and apply your superior brain to the truth of atheism.

I have thought long and hard about religion and I have seen how theists and atheists think and I have St Truth's Ultimate Creed which goes like this. Bear in mind that I'm still a Christian and an altar boy. Wait, I haven't formulated the words of my Creed yet but roughly it should sound like this:

Atheism is the most logical and sane position any man can take. Any form of theism or religion or any belief in the supernatural or the spiritual has differing gradations of illogicality and insanity, depending on how much it departs from the atheistic ideal. The more it diverges from atheism, the more illogical and insane it is bound to be.   Illustration:  An atheist who does not believe in God but who believes in ghosts and the supernatural has some measure of illogicality and insanity, the severity of which is dependent on how much he has departed from the atheistic default. 

I am persuaded that St Truth's Ultimate Creed must be correct. But if it can be shown rationally to be wrong, I will amend my Creed.

Truth is not subjective and there is no alternative truth. Any departure from truth is falsehood. I remain, Sir, the one and only...

St Truth

[Baruch]

Zealotry doesn't lead to good things.  And epistemological fundamentalism is a form of zealotry.  Like Pontius Pilatus said ... "What is truth?".  Don't judge others, or you will have no excuse when they judge you (CF).  That is the universal mistake made by secular folks, they ask "What is truth" not "Who is truth".  They also think B&W and in universal terms.

If you review all my 16K+ posts, you would know that I can bite ... but I am gentle with your age group.  Men my age have no excuse for their delusions, so I will jibe them, but it would be cruel to do that to youth.  I am sure you will be an interesting person, in a few more years.  Continue to develop and you will arrive there.

[St Truth]

Zealotry doesn't lead to good things.  And epistemological fundamentalism is a form of zealotry.

Zealotry is usually in the domain of the religious. The origin of the word 'zealot' comes from the apocalyptic zealots who wanted to free Israel of Roman rule. It has always been applicable only to religious zealots. It's only recently that it's extended to other people. But the truth is zealots are usually super religious.

I am rational and I value reasons and rational thought. A zealot, on the other hand, does not. You can't argue with a zealot. A zealot won't give reasons for his beliefs. I am always asking for reasons. It would be ludicrous to call me (an evidence-based, rational, reason-centred person) a zealot.

Like Pontius Pilatus said ... "What is truth?".  Don't judge others, or you will have no excuse when they judge you (CF).  That is the universal mistake made by secular folks, they ask "What is truth" not "Who is truth".  They also think B&W and in universal terms.

I will judge others and they can judge me too. Every rational person judges people. That is what reason is for. When we talk to someone, we size him up. We judge him. Every intelligent person does this. When someone makes a statement, any intelligent person is sure to evaluate the statement and judge it. Only an unthinking person would fail to evaluate statements, arguments and propositions.

Pontius Pilate probably didn't say that. The Gospels are hardly to be relied upon. Just because some Christian legend makes Pontius Pilate ask what truth is doesn't mean we should do the same. I really don't follow your thoughts at all. If Pilate doesn't know the truth, that's his problem. You shouldn't embrace it as your problem too. It's certainly not my problem. I know what truth is and I know what falsehood is.  A good example of a falsehood is - God/fairies/pixies/unicorns exist. That's a good example of what truth is and what falsehood is. Pilate doesn't know. You agree with him which means you don't know what truth is. But I know what it is.

Of course, I acknowledge that I'm still young and there are things I don't know. Perhaps God does exist but I haven't examined all the evidence and reasons. That is why I asked you and other believers for the reason for a belief in God. But nobody offers a valid reason. So how am I to conclude? Obviously, that God's existence is false. Until I am given cogent and convincing reasons for God's existence, a rational reasonable man like me must hold the view (at least for the moment) that God's existence is false.

I will review my conclusion when I am given valid reasons. Until then, God is a lie.

If you review all my 16K+ posts, you would know that I can bite ... but I am gentle with your age group.  Men my age have no excuse for their delusions, so I will jibe them, but it would be cruel to do that to youth.  I am sure you will be an interesting person, in a few more years.  Continue to develop and you will arrive there.

I don't mind if you bite and give reasons at the same time.  Do you see why religious people can't persuade intelligent young people to believe in God? They don't offer any reason. Atheists, on the other hand, are happy to offer copious reasons. Whatever Christians may say about Dawkins, I love his books. He engages me with his intellect. I despise religious books which only appeal to the emotion. The only attraction Christianity holds for me is the cultural part and the music. It makes me feel emotionally good.  But I can differentiate feelings from facts.

Let's be honest. When two persons talk, they can only engage each other intellectually and rationally. You can't speak spirituality to another person. It's got to be rational. An irrational conversation is not possible between two sane persons. You can't call me a zealot if I insist on a rational conversation. I'm just being human.

If you think carefully over what I have said, you will realise that I'm not being provocative; I'm merely truthful for I really am...

St Truth

[Mike Cl]

Your choice of words is different, but we have the same meaning.

I like that.

[SGOS]

I will judge others and they can judge me too. Every rational person judges people. That is what reason is for. When we talk to someone, we size him up. We judge him. Every intelligent person does this. When someone makes a statement, any intelligent person is sure to evaluate the statement and judge it. Only an unthinking person would fail to evaluate statements, arguments and propositions.

Everyone judges.  Many are even aware of it.

Making judgments is probably one of the most fundamental survival mechanisms in evolution, and it occurs at all levels of intellect.  At higher levels of cerebral development, evolution gives the human species and unintended extra capacity to make incredibly stupid judgments beyond that of the lower mammals.  So extra capacity has both advantages and disadvantages.  Evolution has not had enough time to sort out the disadvantages of higher capacity because abundant consciousness has only been around for a few million years.  Evolution is still working on this unintended consequence, so to speak.

I think you are on the right track, but I do question what you expect to find in a Christian forum.  There is nothing new under the sun in Christianity.  Today, it suffers from the same irrational approaches to problem solving that it did two thousand years ago, and religion in general is still as irrational as it was when the Egyptians ran the world.  And in all my 70 years I have never seen a new religious perspective.

OK, you're 15, and I can certainly understand you needing answers to some of the biggest philosophical theoretical questions that have ever been proposed by man and con-men.  Christian forums have been answering these theoretical questions with the same illogical explanations that I was introduced to in Sunday school 65 years ago.  And the methodology has not changed.  It's still irrational answers to irrational questions.  And when you're 40, you will have gained nothing from a Christian forum that you won't have encountered at work, on the street, from cashiers at the grocery store, or books written by theologians.  But it's good that you examine the answers, and even better to examine the questions, because an irrational question is an immediate set up for a trip into Alice's Wonderland.  Just don't waste too much of your precious time and energy on it.

You're on track, but maybe ease off a bit, and don't feel so compelled to make sense out of the unintelligible nonsense, even though it's being shouted out from every street corner, which seems to be how mankind uses all this extra cerebral capacity and the unintended consequences he has been given.  Sure, man has made some stunning achievements, mostly from a few handfuls of very gifted men, some even thrown out of church for their gifts to mankind.  But most humans shout nonsense, even though we consider ourselves to be the cutting edge of evolution.