Head/Head debate advertizement

[acapiz]

Religion is Conscious Human Suicide Yes/No


I wish to debate with a person who .

.Absolutely believes in God
.Absolutely believes that they have a purpose under their God.

After that I would hope for a person who would strongly challenge my non-religious view of my reality.

I do not care if this takes forever and I would request alternate postings of a reasonable length. I am not in a position to be choosy. If you qualify and you are willing then you are 'up', if you are first. I am not easy to debate with, I have been told. I would even let you post first. That's how confident, I am. You need to make a request on the Head to Head Request Sub-forum to set these wheels in motion.
Good Luck, because you will need it.
Thanks Handshake

[acapiz]

Hi Di,

it looks like you have a hobby that I don't want. Simple as. We have no contention for debate between us. Why would you want an explanation for what you see/feel/touch etc, especially if it is totally obvious from your/our actions that we would not be able to assimilate the afore mentioned explanation. Why doubt your senses and instincts? Would it be useful for an ant in a school yard to understand the curriculum, NO. (the timetable maybe but not the curriculum)

Divine Insight, I seriously do not want to delay you in your progress with your book or your research and I have been thinking of giving the forum a rest for a few months because of the cyclical nature of the exchanges between theists and non theists. I will probably withdraw my head/head request. I will be otherwise occupied. Good Luck and Thanks. acapiz

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 3 by acapiz]

I take exception to one statement (for the moment):

You will remain a 'Definite Agnostic' until such time as the pressure comes on and then you will morph into thin air by saying that you are a lapsed Agnostic.

Is this intended to mean about the same as "There are no Atheists in foxholes" (which is demonstrably false) or "When things get tough you will become religious" (which is equally false)?

When the "pressure comes on" some of us rely upon our own ability and that of allies in the real world – rather than resorting to belief that supernatural entities will intervene or affect outcomes (or that they will not). Thus, we have no motivation to become "a lapsed Agnostic" (or a "lapsed Non-Theist" in my case).

The pressure HAS been on and I had no inclination whatsoever to even think about supernaturalism. Instead, I focused on the issue at hand and dealt with it to the best of my ability (sometimes with a support structure, sometimes without).

[Divine Insight]

You will remain a 'Definite Agnostic' until such time as the pressure comes on and then you will morph into thin air by saying that you are a lapsed Agnostic.

By the way, if I am ever forced into a situation where I have no choice but to abandon agnosticism on the question of the true nature of reality and confess that I actually know the truth, no one would be happier at that moment than myself.

I would love to know the truth of reality. Even if that truth turns out to be that it's nothing more than a pure mechanical materialistic accident. To even know that this is truth, and actually understand how we can know that it is true, would be extremely satisfying.

I suspect that even if that is the truth of reality there is probably no way that we could never know it for certain.

So yes, I would love for anyone to convert me with confidence from being agnostic to being gnostic. That would be absolutely wonderful. No matter what the ultimate truth might be. Knowing the truth for certain would be better than not knowing.

So yes, I would love to be "gnostic" on the question of the true nature of reality.

To the best of my knowledge there are no humans who are gnostic on that question. Although there are apparently many people who believe they are.

[acapiz]

This is a very simple term to apply to you, DI, ie 'lapsed agnostic'.

You constantly refer to 'reincarnation' and yet you also constantly insist that you nothing about its nature. How can you state that either your science or your intuition supports a thing that you skirt around but refuse/are unable to describe? I might as well say that the stripes on my jumper suggest my favourite number and then ask you to find the number. This is guesswork at best and is in fact, little different than most theism.

[Divine Insight]

You constantly refer to 'reincarnation' and yet you also constantly insist that you nothing about its nature.

I have never claimed that I know nothing at all about its nature. On the contrary I can know at least as much about the nature of reincarnation as I can know about the nature of my current incarnation. (which isn't much I might add).

How can you state that either your science or your intuition supports a thing that you skirt around but refuse/are unable to describe?

Who said that I was unable to describe it? And what do you require as an "description"? I can describe my current physical incarnation too, but that doesn't explain it.

I might as well say that the stripes on my jumper suggest my favourite number and then ask you to find the number. This is guesswork at best and is in fact, little different than most theism.

I'm not asking you to believe in reincarnation. Therefore based on your analogy here you would be in no position to be asking me to find your favorite number.

In fact, sticking with your analogy here, for you to reject my intuitive notions of reincarnation would be equivalent to me suggesting that you have no favorite number.

If you have a favorite number suggested to you by the stripes on your jumper then who am I to say that you don't? Asking me to guess what that number might be is silly. How in the world would I know?

[acapiz]

If I was starving on a deserted island, would it be prudent of me to insist on cutlery?, DI. Why not just take the food and eat it. Why not deal with matters in hand and if these considerations,( ie breaking the coconuts) is proving to be over challenging, why on earth would I proceed to produce silver? Isn't if folly on our parts to have such allusions to grandeur, based on our savagery to date? I hope you get the analogy. Have you any idea why we torture ourselves with each other, DI. You have me thinking of restraining orders. (I am seriously thinking about giving this place a break, but not because of you.)

[acapiz]

I have withdrawn my debate offer, due to pressing time constraints. Thanks to all who considered this thread, DI, in particular. I'll be back, (most likely)

[Divine Insight]

You have me thinking of restraining orders.

Oh for crying out loud.

You seem to be out to bully anyone who has the slightest mystical or spiritual inclination, and then you're going to scream foul when they object to your secular extremism.

If anyone needs a restraining order it might be the theists and mystics.

Although, as I have already stated earlier, I can certainly understand your sentiment when it comes to evangelists and proselytizers. I just don't see the point in beating up on everyone who even remotely considers a spiritual or mystical essence to reality. What's wrong with that?

Who is it hurting to ponder these possibilities?

It's not like I'm beating down your door trying to shove snake oil down your throat. If you're convinced that reality is a purely mechanical materialistic freak accident by all means believe it.

I personally don't see where that worldview is either satisfying or explanatory. Even if it's true it's still just as utterly absurd and weird as anything else, as far as I can see. Although maybe not quite as blatantly contradictory as some mythological dogmas. But it's certainly not an explanation for anything. After all, where did the accident come from? What existed that had an accident?

Something truly strange is going on no matter what.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 18 by Divine Insight]

Your post here is worth starting an interesting thread over, DI.

I think some people's temperaments are such that any non-naturalistic ideas are going in the trash, while others believe in fairies and stuff their whole lives. Neither of these are pathological, it's what one concludes and then acts out on that causes the problems if there are going to be any.

What harm is there in willingly contemplating (much less believing) metaphysical ideas? Is there harm? We all know that beliefs have behavioral results, however subtle.

So are there some beliefs that cause more harm than good? That's what I'm wondering.

I'm noticing more than ever a constant background 'noise' promoting Faith and Belief (of the Christian variety). I work in the homes of my patients and just using their toilet has me reading prophesies from the book of Jeremiah on the shower curtain. Encouraging things like faith in a power greater than yourself is . . . everywhere. It is "Hallmark" in it's ubiquity

I worry about our children being conditioned from an early age to NOT abandon their magical thinking. We have adults elected into offices of power and authority that say things like "A woman's body will prevent pregnancy if she is legitimately raped" (Todd Akin). It doesn't matter WHAT his religious affiliation is (as if we need to ask). It doesn't get any stupider. And how is it that a grown man can come up with something so bottomlessly stupid (much less say it out loud, in public)?

I'll tell you why. Reason and rational thought are outright prevented sometimes.

All the folks who stepped in as apologists for Akin's stupidity are really better examples of the stupidity than Akin. Picture several white middle aged Republican men in expensive suits, explaining that women's bodies secrete a 'substance' that kills sperm deposited during a rape; or the trauma of rape 'disturbs' the hormones and processes so that pregnancy is rare from rapes.

Unless they are trying to suicide via stupidity, Acapiz, it looks to me like they are cognitively diseased. Does a lifetime of religious or ideological fundamentalism literally destroy the human intellect or what?

Anyway, that's my example showing how extreme forms of faith-based religion causes (what appears to be) brain damage.

So what about more liberal contemplation of metaphysical things? Johnmarc tried to start a discussion about Progressive Christianity, and I couldn't decide where I stood. Progressive Christianity (or Wicca, or Islam or whatever) seems utterly harmless, if not a bit daft sometimes, but what's the harm in it? I still don't know.

What one believes doesn't just promote behavior, it promotes the world view. All incoming data are filtered through beliefs and assumptions, and come out utterly changed by them.

Do religious ideas, even the most progressive ones, make a person vulnerable to coming up with Akin's-style absurdity? I sincerely wonder, and include myself in this mix.

How many people genuinely understand there is a difference between believing something true and believing what makes them feel good (superior, chosen, powerful, not gonna die, safe n' secure, set apart from the riff raff)?

The irony is that reliance on faith can and does lead persons away from what is true. Just ask a devout Muslim if he or she thinks the Christian's faith in Jesus is guiding them to truth (or vice versa). Faith prevents us from EVER agreeing on our human basics. It prevents us from even wanting to cooperate or explore what is different or challenging -- lest that faith be undermined.

Maybe early humankind did benefit from reliance upon faith, what with our totally complex brains and flat-out ignorance, until our civilization stabilized enough to actually begin discovering how it all works.

But to continue to idolize faith (or oh gawd, the Bible!) in this 21st century looks a lot like pouring gasoline on a fire. What are wars about in this day and age? Religion, still religious wars, or religion-mediated wars (the US won't leave us alone, so Allah said jihad them). Workin' hard to keep Iran from being capable of nuking Israel? We should NOT have to be babysitting dangerous religionists in the 21st century!! Ooh, I'm having a hot flash . . .

[Divine Insight]

Your post here is worth starting an interesting thread over, DI.

Yes, this topic does deserve some attention. However, I'm not sure which forum would suit it best.

What harm is there in willingly contemplating (much less believing) metaphysical ideas? Is there harm? We all know that beliefs have behavioral results, however subtle.

I think this all depends on what is being believed. And on how a person actually considers their "belief". After all, some people are capable of understanding "faith" for what it truly is. Faith is not the same as "belief" actually. It's more like wishful thinking.

Perhaps it's the bastardization of "faith" into thinking a person actually "knows" something that causes many religions to become negative and potentially harmful?

So are there some beliefs that cause more harm than good? That's what I'm wondering.

I am passionately convinced of this. The "Jealous God" religions teach people to believe that there exists a jealous God who hates everyone who refuses to worship him in very specific ways, and obey directives and commandments in particular doctrines. Religions like these are highly divisive and ultimately end up causing people to hate others who don't believe in their God, even though they have falsely convinced themselves that they actually "love" these people they hate.

I'm noticing more than ever a constant background 'noise' promoting Faith and Belief (of the Christian variety). I work in the homes of my patients and just using their toilet has me reading prophesies from the book of Jeremiah on the shower curtain. Encouraging things like faith in a power greater than yourself is . . . everywhere. It is "Hallmark" in it's ubiquity

Christians in the USA are up in arms waging a war with science and atheists. And yes, the stronger atheism becomes the more active Christian proselytizing will become.

I worry about our children being conditioned from an early age to NOT abandon their magical thinking.

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in a supernatural essence to reality. Where the problem lies is when that belief is firmly couples to a "Jealous God Religion" where the children are taught that if you don't believe in a very specific God and dogma you will be damned (and deservedly so). If the the child believes this they they are going to believe that it's true for everyone who doesn't believe in the God they were taught to believe in.

We have adults elected into offices of power and authority that say things like "A woman's body will prevent pregnancy if she is legitimately raped" (Todd Akin). It doesn't matter WHAT his religious affiliation is (as if we need to ask). It doesn't get any stupider. And how is it that a grown man can come up with something so bottomlessly stupid (much less say it out loud, in public)?

This is a case in point. This is nothing more than extreme religious arrogance by someone who thinks that their specific beliefs must be true for everyone. This is a "child" who was taught that a certain boogieman God will condemn him to hell if he doesn't obey and uphold a particular dogma. It's a "Boogieman God".

I'll tell you why. Reason and rational thought are outright prevented sometimes.

All the folks who stepped in as apologists for Akin's stupidity are really better examples of the stupidity than Akin. Picture several white middle aged Republican men in expensive suits, explaining that women's bodies secrete a 'substance' that kills sperm deposited during a rape; or the trauma of rape 'disturbs' the hormones and processes so that pregnancy is rare from rapes.

It's the "Boogieman God Syndrome".

Anyway, that's my example showing how extreme forms of faith-based religion causes (what appears to be) brain damage.

But this is more than simply a "faith-based" religion. This is an example of derogatory brain-washing by a cult that demands that their hateful God rules the universe.

Where do we draw the line between mere "faith-based" beliefs, and cults that spread derogatory brainwashing?

I personally think we should reject any and all religious dogmas that are based on "Jealous Gods". After all, jealousy is supposed to be an evil sin anyway. So any God who is jealous is an evil demon.

So what about more liberal contemplation of metaphysical things? Johnmarc tried to start a discussion about Progressive Christianity, and I couldn't decide where I stood. Progressive Christianity (or Wicca, or Islam or whatever) seems utterly harmless, if not a bit daft sometimes, but what's the harm in it? I still don't know.

There can really be no such thing as "Progressive Christianity", the very concept is an oxymoron. And the reason is simple. The only information we have about Jesus comes from the New Testament Gospels, and those gospels do not allow for the beliefs of "Progressive Christianity".

Any form of "Christianity" necessarily leans back on the Bible. For example, it's meaningless to believe in Jesus as "The Christ" without also believing that Jesus was the virgin born demigod Son of Yahweh. Therefore to pretend that Jesus can be "The Christ" without standing on the shoulders of Yahweh is a grossly misplaced notion. Jesus has no feet of his own to stand on. Jesus is nothing without Yahweh. Especially in terms of being "The Christ".

"Progressive Christianity" would be better renamed "Progressive Jesus-ism" where thy actually renounce that Jesus was "The Christ" and instead just claim to follow his moral teachings, for whatever reasons.

What one believes doesn't just promote behavior, it promotes the world view. All incoming data are filtered through beliefs and assumptions, and come out utterly changed by them.

Do religious ideas, even the most progressive ones, make a person vulnerable to coming up with Akin's-style absurdity? I sincerely wonder, and include myself in this mix.

Well, don't forget, even "Progressive Christianity" is necessarily tied to the chain and ball of the Old Testament God. This is why it fails. It might be inviting to think of creating a "NEW" religion based just on Jesus, but that's not really possible because the only information we have about Jesus are the Gospels that demands that Jesus is special precisely because he is supposedly "The only begotten Son of Yahweh".

There is no way to separate Jesus from Yahweh. And even if there were a way to do this, then he would no longer be "The Christ". He would no longer have the authority to offer anyone everlasting life, etc.

How many people genuinely understand there is a difference between believing something true and believing what makes them feel good (superior, chosen, powerful, not gonna die, safe n' secure, set apart from the riff raff)?

The Bible is the guilty party here. And this of course include the Qur'an. It is the texts in these books that claim to have direct knowledge from God. And they clearly claim to "Speak for God". People who claim that the Bible isn't really the "Word of God" aren't paying attention. The Bible claims to speak for God. Period.

It's a dangerous religion precisely because of this. Any religion that claims to speak for God should be highly suspect.

There are, however, other religions that don't claim to speak for God at all. And typically those religions are var less violent (at least in terms of their religious beliefs).

The irony is that reliance on faith can and does lead persons away from what is true.

But when it comes to the "True Nature of Reality" we don't know what truth is. Therefore it's meaningless to say that we can be lead away from what is true. At least on this larger issue of the true nature of reality.

Just ask a devout Muslim if he or she thinks the Christian's faith in Jesus is guiding them to truth (or vice versa). Faith prevents us from EVER agreeing on our human basics. It prevents us from even wanting to cooperate or explore what is different or challenging -- lest that faith be undermined.

Most of these people do not have "faith". What they actually have is a guilt complex that they have been brainwashed to believe that if they reject the religion they were taught is the "Word of God" they will be punished, and it will be entirely their own fault for having "rejected" God and failing to believe.

These are dangerous brainwashing cults being spread in the name of "religion".

Maybe early humankind did benefit from reliance upon faith, what with our totally complex brains and flat-out ignorance, until our civilization stabilized enough to actually begin discovering how it all works.

I don't think that having faith in unknowable things is necessary. I would merely argue that it doesn't always need to lead to derogatory things. It's unfortunate that we see such extremely derogatory examples in things like Christianity and Islam.

Obviously faith-based dogmas can be dangerous. I won't argue against that.

But here's an analogy for you.

All knives are dangerous. They can all be used to kill and maim. So should we demand that there are no knives just to avoid this negative aspect of knives? Of course, not. Some people know how to use knives for constructive and productive purposes. There's nothing wrong with knifes innately. It all depends on who is using them and how they are using them.

Some thing with faith in supernatural beliefs. Christianity and Islam are simply faith that has fallen into evil hands. The Bible and the Qur'an are evil books precisely because they teach immoral things in the name of God. And they falsely convince people that they speak for God when in fact they clearly do not.

But to continue to idolize faith (or oh gawd, the Bible!) in this 21st century looks a lot like pouring gasoline on a fire. What are wars about in this day and age? Religion, still religious wars, or religion-mediated wars (the US won't leave us alone, so Allah said jihad them). Workin' hard to keep Iran from being capable of nuking Israel? We should NOT have to be babysitting dangerous religionists in the 21st century!! Ooh, I'm having a hot flash . . .

Yep, it's the Bible and the Qur'an that are at the root of religious evils.

Toward this end I think we should be renouncing any and all religions that claim to be based on a "Jealous God", and especially any religions that claim to "Speak for God".

Those are the dangerous religions that bastardize "faith" into something dangerous and derogatory.

For me, Christianity is the greatest irony in that they use Jesus as their pasty to spread hatred toward non-Christians in the false name of "love".

IMHO, it's the most perverted religion in the world.

At least Islam retains the original "Jealous God" and just claims that he hates anyone who doesn't worship him.

Christianity and Islam basically ruined the concept of spirituality for everyone. They have bastardized it into something truly hateful that they claim to be spreading in the name of "love".

These are the most disgusting religions mankind has ever invented, IMHO. And I personally feel that they were both copied from the idea of Zeus as the God of Gods. Yahweh is nothing more than a jealous male-chauvinistic Zeus on steroids.

They have destroyed the very concept of "Spirituality".

They are a prime example of how faith-based beliefs can go terribly wrong and actually become something extremely dangerous and derogatory to humanity in general.

It actually upsets me because these hateful Abrahamic religions have ruin the very concept of spirituality for everyone. The Christians have turned Jesus into a hateful monster that they use to condemn anyone who refuses to worship and support their cult. It's truly sad, and very depressing.

How people can believe that they were created by such a hateful monster is beyond me. I don't see where there is anything positive in it.