My true genius

[wesfau2]

Pathetic. 

My opinion of the book is pathetic?

You're better than that, Spanish.

[Kaos]

My opinion of the book is pathetic?

You're better than that, Spanish.

The book itself I found pathetic.  Didn't finish it, however.  

It's like anything else.  If you choose to have a position you can find evidence or create justifications to convince yourself (and others) you are right.  

The book was a painful read and I quickly realized that Russell really had nothing to say.   (* Point of clarification.  Is it really a book? I tend to think it isn't).

To me the core of Christianity is faith.  Maybe that's simplistic, but without that you have nothing. I'm not like some, I don't believe every syllable in the Bible is exactly as it was intended to be and you must hew strictly to the Word.  But you do have to have faith that a higher being exists and for that reason your life has purpose and meaning.  

Would have been easy for God to write down specifically what was to be done and not.  But He didn't.  You're guided by parables which, as we've seen, can have vastly different interpretations depending on who is doing the interpreting and what agenda they may have.  That's the essence of the faith.  You're supposed to figure it out.  Or not.  And it has to mean something to you or its worthless.  

That's an entirely different discussion, though.  I just didn't find a lot of insight in Russell's writings (at least as far as I got).  Looked to me like he'd made up his mind and was reaching for/stretching for justifications to validate it.  Being convinced of something doesn't make you right.  Him or me.  

[The Prowler]

The book itself I found pathetic.  Didn't finish it, however.  

I stopped reading after that.  I didn't finish reading the book but it was pathetic....

"It's better to be thought a fuckin' dumbass than to open your cockhole and remove all doubt" - some dude named Socrates from "Da Skreets".

[Vandy Vol]

This is a completely different topic, so I hesitate to respond...but I fail at self control.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether Russel made up his mind and then reached for justification or not.  However, to me, stating that you must simply have faith is making up your mind without justification.

Now, don't misunderstand me; I'm not someone who mocks, chastises, berates or otherwise demeans someone for being religious.  I'm personally not religious, but it doesn't bother me that other people are.  I don't go out of my way to question anyone's beliefs, but if it comes up in discussion, then I have no problem with asking questions and making points.

To me, saying that faith is the first and most important step for religion is no different than Russell choosing a position before justifying the position.  Afterall, having faith that a higher being exists is coming to a conclusion based not upon any justification, but rather mere faith.

I do recognize at the end of your post that you point out that being convinced of something does not make either of you right.  So I do realize that you're not claiming with absolute certainty that your faith is the correct conclusion.  Nonetheless, my point is that you refer to Russell's work as lacking insight because it came to a conclusion first and then attempted to "find" justification second.

That is what occurs when you require faith in a higher being before anything else.  Any justification you attempt to find in scripture is based upon the assumed premise that a higher being exists; that premise wasn't justified before moving on to subsequent teachings.  Thus, having faith lacks insight just as much as Russell's writings.

[Kaos]

This is a completely different topic, so I hesitate to respond...but I fail at self control.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether Russel made up his mind and then reached for justification or not.  However, to me, stating that you must simply have faith is making up your mind without justification.

Now, don't misunderstand me; I'm not someone who mocks, chastises, berates or otherwise demeans someone for being religious.  I'm personally not religious, but it doesn't bother me that other people are.  I don't go out of my way to question anyone's beliefs, but if it comes up in discussion, then I have no problem with asking questions and making points.

To me, saying that faith is the first and most important step for religion is no different than Russell choosing a position before justifying the position.  Afterall, having faith that a higher being exists is coming to a conclusion based not upon any justification, but rather mere faith.

I do recognize at the end of your post that you point out that being convinced of something does not make either of you right.  So I do realize that you're not claiming with absolute certainty that your faith is the correct conclusion.  Nonetheless, my point is that you refer to Russell's work as lacking insight because it came to a conclusion first and then attempted to "find" justification second.

That is what occurs when you require faith in a higher being before anything else.  Any justification you attempt to find in scripture is based upon the assumed premise that a higher being exists; that premise wasn't justified before moving on to subsequent teachings.  Thus, having faith lacks insight just as much as Russell's writings.

I think I said that.  

I didn't get anything out of it.  it seems to me to be a sad and pathetic existence to have nothing but the now.  His work offered no insight to me.  

What you may or may not get out of it is up to you.


FWIW, I started this thread as a self-deprecating joke at the expense of my own perceived ego. Read that quote, it made me laugh in the context of this place, thought it would make a good avatar.   Figured it would get one or two responses. 

Not sure how we ended up here.   

[Vandy Vol]

I think I said that.  

I didn't get anything out of it.  it seems to me to be a sad and pathetic existence to have nothing but the now.  His work offered no insight to me.  

What you may or may not get out of it is up to you.

More or less.  I believe what I was focusing on was the "lack of insight" comment.  While you did refer to the fact that being convinced of something doesn't make it true, and while that comment was explicitly applied to both you and Russell, the lack of insight portion was presumably only attributed to Russell.  Probably just a misinterpretation on my part, because I now realize that we both attempted to express the same sentiment, as is evidenced by your reply.

At any rate, I don't personally feel comforted by the assumption of something better.  It's probably how my mind works, but I'd rather have objective knowledge of something.  Having faith that there is something more than the now doesn't actually give me knowledge of whether there is anything other than the now; it's just an assumption which is the equivalent of wishful thinking.

That's how I view religion.  Don't get me wrong; it's often bothered me that I can't come to a definitive conclusion as to whether a higher being exists.  I'd much rather know than be left without that knowledge.  Regardless, I don't personally find comfort in assuming or hoping for the best by means of faith.  I understand that many do, but it's just not for me.

[Vandy Vol]

FWIW, I started this thread as a self-deprecating joke at the expense of my own perceived ego. Read that quote, it made me laugh in the context of this place, thought it would make a good avatar.   Figured it would get one or two responses. 

Not sure how we ended up here.   

Jokes are the path to the dark side.

[AUChizad]

This is a completely different topic, so I hesitate to respond...but I fail at self control.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether Russel made up his mind and then reached for justification or not.  However, to me, stating that you must simply have faith is making up your mind without justification.

Now, don't misunderstand me; I'm not someone who mocks, chastises, berates or otherwise demeans someone for being religious.  I'm personally not religious, but it doesn't bother me that other people are.  I don't go out of my way to question anyone's beliefs, but if it comes up in discussion, then I have no problem with asking questions and making points.

To me, saying that faith is the first and most important step for religion is no different than Russell choosing a position before justifying the position.  Afterall, having faith that a higher being exists is coming to a conclusion based not upon any justification, but rather mere faith.

I do recognize at the end of your post that you point out that being convinced of something does not make either of you right.  So I do realize that you're not claiming with absolute certainty that your faith is the correct conclusion.  Nonetheless, my point is that you refer to Russell's work as lacking insight because it came to a conclusion first and then attempted to "find" justification second.

That is what occurs when you require faith in a higher being before anything else.  Any justification you attempt to find in scripture is based upon the assumed premise that a higher being exists; that premise wasn't justified before moving on to subsequent teachings.  Thus, having faith lacks insight just as much as Russell's writings.

I too am hesitant to comment, as I have no desire to get into the most controversial of topics (although surprisingly to this point, this is the most level headed argument I've seen from Kaos in a while).

But I wanted to say exactly that. Although I would even go a step further and say that Russell's argument (and any atheist argument) is exactly the opposite of what you're accusing it of, where belief in God is in fact doing exactly that. Russell starts at zero. That no supernatural powers exist. He then tries to find rational evidence to support that there in fact exists a God, and comes to the conclusion that none of these arguments hold water.

[Kaos]

More or less.  I believe what I was focusing on was the "lack of insight" comment.  While you did refer to the fact that being convinced of something doesn't make it true, and while that comment was explicitly applied to both you and Russell, the lack of insight portion was presumably only attributed to Russell.  Probably just a misinterpretation on my part, because I now realize that we both attempted to express the same sentiment, as is evidenced by your reply.

At any rate, I don't personally feel comforted by the assumption of something better.  It's probably how my mind works, but I'd rather have objective knowledge of something.  Having faith that there is something more than the now doesn't actually give me knowledge of whether there is anything other than the now; it's just an assumption which is the equivalent of wishful thinking.

That's how I view religion.  Don't get me wrong; it's often bothered me that I can't come to a definitive conclusion as to whether a higher being exists.  I'd much rather know than be left without that knowledge.  Regardless, I don't personally find comfort in assuming or hoping for the best by means of faith.  I understand that many do, but it's just not for me.

I thought I said it didn't offer insight to me.  That is all I meant.  I got nothing out of it.  

I'm an intelligent person (at least I say I am, fuck what anybody else thinks).  I'm also analytical and very skeptical by nature.  I'm a "show me" person.   As you've seen from my stance on the hiring of Chizik, I need to be convinced of something before I'll accept it.  

That's what makes the faith part extremely hard for me.  I spent a lot of time asking questions that couldn't be answered, searching for things that weren't there, trying to find pieces to the puzzle.  It was a frustrating search.  I've had some horrific unexplainable things happen to me, things that made me question the existence and validity of everything I thought I knew.  

I eventually came to realize that there are no definitive answers.  You have to answer the questions for yourself, you have to believe what you believe.  That's where peace comes from.  

Despite what you see around here and the misguided psychoanalysis I'm completely at peace.  Oh, I have work issues and I get worried about my kids and I get pissed in traffic or whatever, but peace is what it's all about.  

I don't know how it works for you or anybody else, but that peace only comes with faith for me.

[Kaos]

I too am hesitant to comment, as I have no desire to get into the most controversial of topics (although surprisingly to this point, this is the most level headed argument I've seen from Kaos in a while).

But I wanted to say exactly that. Although I would even go a step further and say that Russell's argument (and any atheist argument) is exactly the opposite of what you're accusing it of, where belief in God is in fact doing exactly that. Russell starts at zero. That no supernatural powers exist. He then tries to find rational evidence to support that there in fact exists a God, and comes to the conclusion that none of these arguments hold water.

Okay, I understand that. 

But the very essence of faith is the belief in something that can't be proven.  If you can prove something exists, what faith does it take to believe it is there?

[Townhallsavoy]

Okay, I understand that. 

But the very essence of faith is the belief in something that can't be proven.  If you can prove something exists, what faith does it take to believe it is there?

Exactly. 

And the apostle Paul teaches that in the New Testament.  It all comes down to blind faith.  You either choose to believe or you don't. 

That's why debates over the existence of God are pointless.  Eventually, science will come up with answers to your claims.

[Kaos]

Exactly. 

And the apostle Paul teaches that in the New Testament.  It all comes down to blind faith.  You either choose to believe or you don't. 

That's why debates over the existence of God are pointless.  Eventually, science will come up with answers to your claims.

It comes down as well to what you experience. 

If you can look at the things that happen in your life and still believe that you are in control or that everything is a series of fortunate conicidences, that's your call.  I personally can't do that. 

It's also my belief that the more we know and understand about science, the closer we come to reaching the conclusion that there is no other conclusion. The only answer that possibly remains is that God must exist.

I'm not one to refute science.  In fact, I think scientific proof and Biblical history go hand in hand.  The two ideas are not at odds, but in conjunction.

Everybody reaches their decision point at different times and for different reasons.  When it comes to religion or the reasons for my faith, I'm willing to share them with anybody who wants to know. But I also know that you can't force that on anybody. 

[The Prowler]

It comes down as well to what you experience. 

If you can look at the things that happen in your life and still believe that you are in control or that everything is a series of fortunate conicidences, that's your call.  I personally can't do that. 

It's also my belief that the more we know and understand about science, the closer we come to reaching the conclusion that there is no other conclusion. The only answer that possibly remains is that God must exist.

I'm not one to refute science.  In fact, I think scientific proof and Biblical history go hand in hand.  The two ideas are not at odds, but in conjunction.

Everybody reaches their decision point at different times and for different reasons.  When it comes to religion or the reasons for my faith, I'm willing to share them with anybody who wants to know. But I also know that you can't force that on anybody. 

my thoughts exactly.  But I do wonder what is God...exactly?  I know that, that question can probably never be answered, only opinions.

[Kaos]

my thoughts exactly.  But I do wonder what is God...exactly?  I know that, that question can probably never be answered, only opinions.

It's more than we can figure out, I think. 

If you asked me to put a definitive answer to it, though, I'd say that God isn't a "being" as we understand physical being.  God is knowledge.  All knowledge. Infinite knowledge.  As in the answer to every question you've ever had.  When you're no longer here, what sustains is the essence of what you really are, not the shell you allow people to see. 

The more you start thinking about it, the more confused you get though.  You either see what you see and develop a belief based on that or you decide that there's nothing there and develop your processes on that basis. 

For me?  Life would be a sucking black abyss if there was no hope that a greater purpose existed.

Yeah, I realize that a lot of what the early church developed was intended to control people and I know that organized religion, as a whole, has the tendency to stray into expedient doctrine -- promote what serves you best. But I also live by the idea that the church doesn't define me, I define the church.  And I don't mean that in a self-centered way.  I go to church to be exposed to other people who believe along the same lines as I do, to hear scholars discuss their interpretation of the Bible and out of a sense of community/fellowship.  But what I do and how I act toward others (this board notwithstanding) says more about the church than the church doctrine says about me.   I get that the doctrine is important.  I don't do the evangelical emotion-based thing.  I need rationality, I need a minister who is educated and can discuss the issues rather than one who podium pounds and sweats me into hell. 

Ahhh.. but that's enough.  Religion is intensely personal.  Needs to stay that way.  Not up to me to tell a Baptist he doesn't get it, or for a Baptist to tell me I'm not going to make it because I've never been dunked (which happens).   Not for me to tell a Jew, Muslim, Budhist, Taoist, Mormon or any other what they should believe.

[Vandy Vol]

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide what is going to be the object of your faith?  If you can prove neither the existence or the nature of a higher being, then how do you choose a specific concept of a higher being in which to have faith?  There are a multitude of beliefs concerning deities, ranging from the humanized figures of your present day religious organizations to the more abstract definitions similar to what Kaos described.

[Kaos]

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide what is going to be the object of your faith?  If you can prove neither the existence or the nature of a higher being, then how do you choose a specific concept of a higher being in which to have faith?  There are a multitude of beliefs concerning deities, ranging from the humanized figures of your present day religious organizations to the more abstract definitions similar to what Kaos described.

You have to figure it out for yourself.  I know that's a somewhat vague answer, but I've always thought that if you opened your mind and your "heart" so to speak and looked without and within, the answer would come to you. 

I consider myself a Christian because I believe that those of us who believe were given a path to God in that faith. Unlike most (I think) I'm not willing to say that there are no other paths.  It's part of my belief system that my path is the "best" path, but I can't wrap my mind around the concept that the God I believe in would close the door to millions of souls who were raised differently, never had the opportunity to study other faiths or had never been exposed to the information I have. 

As this pertains to Russell, it was just my impression that he started from the wrong place.  He wasn't looking for God, he was looking for reasons to prove God doesn't exist.  That's easy to do.

I can't see God, I only hear God in my head, I can't touch God but when I look back at my life and consider the chain of events that led me to where I am today I can't help but see God's hand guiding me at the most critical junctions.  When I've made mistakes, it's because I tried to do things on my own without help. When I turn my life over to God and listen -- and I know that sounds simplistic -- but my decisions are better.  It's like the wind.  I can't see it, touch it or hear it  but I can see, feel and hear the affect it has on everything around it.

[Godfather]

I love God, I love my wife, I love my family, and I love my friends...I have a good life and I am happy...why fuck with the formula.

[wesfau2]

I don't care what anyone believes.  I don't care if your God is a goat-raping serpent that feasts on infants...as long as you aren't pushing your shit on me and you aren't hurting anyone.

[Saniflush]

I don't care what anyone believes.  I don't care if your God is a goat-raping serpent that feasts on infants...as long as you aren't pushing your shit on me and you aren't hurting anyone.

What the fuck is the matter with you?


Bah does not always mean no.

[GH2001]

I don't care what anyone believes.  I don't care if your God is a goat-raping serpent that feasts on infants...as long as you aren't pushing your poop on me and you aren't hurting anyone.

And thats what sucks wes. Most Christians ARE NOT like that and don't push it. Its just the few that decide to get all judgmental and holy roller on everyone ruin the face of the whole religion for all of us. Its the Vocal Minority > Silent Majority thing. I'm in the latter. Look at those kooks who protest funerals out of Topeka, KS. Some would have you believe all Christians are like that. Its a convenient argument anti-religious figures have used for years to paint the entire religion with a broad brush. And it sucks.