Herbert W. Armstrong, cult or Christian

[Born_again]

Anyways, the two of us (me and the psychologist that is) entered into a little bit of a discussion on our shared perspectives, and ultimately agreed that simply dismissing the concept of God was at least as ignorant and arrogant as presuming to understand the nature and purpose of God.

Did you find it necessary to add that wayward interjection, steven lloyd? As it happens, I'd rather conclude that two grown men(of professional status?) sitting there massaging each others delusions reeks most eminently of ignorance and arrogance. Your cognitive dissonance may be more burdensome than you would like to admit, and the clock is ticking!

[steven lloyd]

Anyways, the two of us (me and the psychologist that is) entered into a little bit of a discussion on our shared perspectives, and ultimately agreed that simply dismissing the concept of God was at least as ignorant and arrogant as presuming to understand the nature and purpose of God.

Did you find it necessary to add that wayward interjection, steven lloyd? As it happens, I'd rather conclude that two grown men(of professional status?) sitting there massaging each others delusions reeks most eminently of ignorance and arrogance. Your cognitive dissonance may be more burdensome than you would like to admit, and the clock is ticking!

:137: huh ? someone peeing in your cheap whisky again BA ?

[Born_again]

simply dismissing the concept of God was at least as ignorant and arrogant as presuming to understand the nature and purpose of God.

So are you going to enlighten us as to how two guys with a shed-load of degrees actually arrived at such a rationalisation? Astonishing! Go on, I'll humour you ...... let us in on your bipartisan philosophical wizardry that led you to that conclusion.

Did it involve anything evidence based? FAIL!!

Did it involve anything rational? FAIL!!

Did it involve logic? FAIL!!

Did it involve objective observations? FAIL!!

Did it involve a hypothesis for causal or observable phenomena? FAIL!!

I'm sorry, steven lloyd; but you have asserted that the default condition for the lack of a belief in god/s is one of ignorance and arrogance. I would reasonably beg to differ. Pray tell me how it is so?
Keep fighting it, Buddy. Go and have another look at the lecture that Soulra posted about schizotypal personality. If the cap fits ......... well the answers are all there and you still choose to eschew them.

So, next time you and your psychologist buddy wish to start labelling people ignorant and arrogant because they have followed the criteria above(even any or one of); try and be a little more introspective as to who is ignorant and arrogant.

I look forward to your rebuttal. :127:
Good luck!

[steven lloyd]

simply dismissing the concept of God was at least as ignorant and arrogant as presuming to understand the nature and purpose of God.

So are you going to enlighten us as to how two guys with a shed-load of degrees actually arrived at such a rationalisation? Astonishing! Go on, I'll humour you ...... let us in on your bipartisan philosophical wizardry that led you to that conclusion.

I really don’t know why you’re so threatened by this BA or what is so hard to understand about the above statement. It makes no assertion whether God exists or not, but only recognizes that simply dismissing an idea that can neither be proven or disproven is equally as ignorant and arrogant as presuming to have understanding of its nature and purpose.

I can completely understand, and even support, your objections to Christian fundamentalist extremism and the threats it, like all forms of extremism, represent. But the average person with spiritual beliefs or who pursues spirituality is no threat to you or anyone. What is it you and soulra are so afraid of? Perhaps the fact your children, as you say, hang out with a church crowd bothers you more than you’re willing to admit.

[RR24K]

There is world out there that is full of people who are on both sides of this those with beliefs in(god/higher power etc etc) and those who do not. There is no right or wrong side to this, to those who would say otherwise. That is their opinion and they have that right to that. TMO

[steven lloyd]

There is world out there that is full of people who are on both sides of this those with beliefs in(god/higher power etc etc) and those who do not. There is no right or wrong side to this, to those who would say otherwise. That is their opinion and they have that right to that. TMO

Exactly


EDIT TO ADD: As long as those beliefs (or lack of) don’t detrimentally threaten, affect or influence the freedoms or rights of others (spiritual or non-spiritual, theist or atheist) by promoting rigid thinking, intolerance (including open and generalized ridicule), ignorance and hate.

[Born_again]

If you had read what I wrote carefully you would have understood that I made no mention whatsoever to my position on 'other' peoples beliefs, so there is no need to bring that up in this context.

My ire was pricked by steven lloyds base assertion that people who have disqualified belief in a metaphysical entity are ignorant and arrogant. This simply is not justified in any way, shape or form. I do take this personally, as I am usually quite assiduous in the methodology that helps me determine fact from fiction, whether we are talking about science, everyday issues or the unexplained. To be labelled as ignorant and arrogant because I do not have a default 'god did it' to explain the unexplained is wholly absurd, and rather offensive to say the least!

Noteworthy would be the fact that steven lloyd chose to question whether Soulra and I are "affraid" of 'something(?)', whilst completely evading a response to my question. It matters not that my dismissal of god/s myths forms the basis of my argument, but rather the methodology employed to arrive at my dismissive conclusion.
He apparently, in collusion with a psychologist, arrived at the conclusion that somehow those that have likely employed the same methodology as me to dismiss a god-like metaphysical entity are ignorant as well as arrogant. How so? If I am missing a step I would greatly appreciate any help to enhance my method of critical thinking, because I do not desire to be labelled as ignorant and arrogant for giving critical examination my best effort.

It makes no assertion whether God exists or not, but only recognizes that simply dismissing an idea that can neither be proven or disproven is equally as ignorant and arrogant as presuming to have understanding of its nature and purpose.

I fully understand this argument, steven lloyd, and I would fully endorse its position, scientifically speaking. However, what you fail to mention is that no-one has EVER put forth a credible hypothesis for peer review and rigorous examination to support the position that "an idea that can neither be proven or disproven" warrants merit. We have already covered this ground elsewhere, and your position has not advanced one iota.

http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p377833
Again we arrive at the inevitable shun and run tactic. Simplistic you charge. Well if it's that simplistic why is it that you and others have such a difficult time in coming forward with a simple hypothesis for the existence of a god? Or do you feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that most of us Atheists are not as closed-minded as would benefit you in debate? There are thousands of the world's greatest minds out there just waiting for someone to put a half-*bleep* hypothesis together so that they can get to work on it. They are waiting....and waiting...and waiting!
Peter Higgs put forth a hypothesis so fantastical that even the Pope would have laughed at it, had it been in one of the gospels. The scientific community dismissed it out of hand initially until Higgs persisted and reworked his hypothesis to a point where it had to be investigated scientifically. His 'unprovable' theory of 'something as of yet to be determined' was given scientific air-time, and where has that led us to now? Bingo! You got it.
So I believe that "belief in the existence of God and belief in science are mutually exclusive ideas" do I?
Maybe if you weren't so crop-happy with your quoting that would have been plain for all to see with regards to mutually exclusive ideas, wouldn't it?

Your charge is without validity, and remains so to this day. Considering the flock of billions has a vast armoury of creative thinkers to draw upon; do you not find that it is rather strange that there has not thus far been a single submission of a hypothesis to support "dismissing an idea that can neither be proven or disproven" in the context of metaphysical entities?

Again, I'd like to ask you:

Go on, I'll humour you ...... let us in on your bipartisan philosophical wizardry that led you to that conclusion.

Did it involve anything evidence based? FAIL!!

Did it involve anything rational? FAIL!!

Did it involve logic? FAIL!!

Did it involve objective observations? FAIL!!

Did it involve a hypothesis for causal or observable phenomena? FAIL!!

Simple "yes" or "no" for each of the above would suffice, thank you.

[steven lloyd]

If you had read what I wrote carefully you would have understood that I made no mention whatsoever to my position on 'other' peoples beliefs, so there is no need to bring that up in this context. My ire was pricked by steven lloyds base assertion that people who have disqualified belief in a metaphysical entity are ignorant and arrogant.

Actually, you got defensive BA, but that’s all right. I understand it really bothers you that you can’t change other people’s beliefs or opinions through the weak (but possibly your best?) use of ridicule and mockery.

A belief there exists a Power greater than ourselves that cannot be understood (that some might call God) cannot be examined or proven by scientific method. Interestingly enough, it cannot be disproven by scientific method either so your little game of questions at the end of your post are irrelevant. The same goes for logic. Although it has been attempted many times, the ultimate logical conclusion arrived at by thinkers much greater than you or I is that the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven by logical reasoning either. The question here then, is why do you let it bother you so much?

Outside of extremist religious belief interfering with education, political freedom, etc., (a threat that exists from many extremist sources, even outside of religion) if one person quietly decides to pursue spiritual meaning in life, why is it so important for you to challenge or mock and ridicule that? Again, what are you so afraid of (you don’t even seem to have the courage to be honest enough with yourself to ask yourself that question?)?

[quote="Born_againhttp://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p377833
Again we arrive at the inevitable shun and run tactic. Simplistic you charge. Well if it's that simplistic why is it that you and others have such a difficult time in coming forward with a simple hypothesis for the existence of a god? [/quote]

It is simplistic to presume that a person cannot believe in the existence of God and believe in scientific knowledge (including evolution) at the same time. Such a position demonstrates extremely limited understanding of the almost infinite different degrees of understanding that exist. Belief in spiritual meaning, a universal consciousness, something called God or the Creator or whatever is not a hypothesis. It is a personal belief and something that is tested through personal experience. However, to assume that someone who holds such a belief must also lack the capability of intelligent reasoning (as you and soulra have both often done) demonstrates how simplistic your understanding is. To compound that with ridicule and mockery demonstrates both ignorance and arrogance.

I am really not concerned or threatened by the idea there are people who do not believe in the existence of any form of “metaphysical entity” as you like to describe it (a very limiting term but at least one you probably understand). I am not concerned or threatened by the idea there are people who do believe in something we could call God, but whose understanding of that concept and the way they integrate into their lives differs than mine - as long as they are not trying to infringe upon my rights or the rights of others, or using their belief to promote hate and intolerance.

My spiritual beliefs are no threat to you BA, and to respond with mockery and ridicule, or desperate attempts to reduce such beliefs to scientific experiment simply betrays how threatened you are – for whatever reason. You have no idea how complex and diverse people’s understandings can be, and you would rather judge than try to understand. That is both ignorant and arrogant.

[Born_again]

My spiritual beliefs are no threat to you BA, and to respond with mockery and ridicule, or desperate attempts to reduce such beliefs to scientific experiment simply betrays how threatened you are – for whatever reason. You have no idea how complex and diverse people’s understandings can be, and you would rather judge than try to understand. That is both ignorant and arrogant.

Would it thus be OK if I did the same with a psychologist?

Anyways, the two of us (me and the psychologist that is) entered into a little bit of a discussion on our shared perspectives, and ultimately agreed that simply dismissing the concept of God was at least as ignorant and arrogant as presuming to understand the nature and purpose of God.

Classic steven lloyd! Good to have you back; and firing on all cylinders, seemingly! Let me check.......

Victim card - check!
Evasiveness - check!
Fear card - check!
Defying logic with logic -check! :eyeballspin:
Straw man - check!
Irrelevance - check!
Creativeness - check!
Disingenuous - check!
Ridicule card -check!
Cognitive dissonance - check!
Hypocrisy - check!
Base appeals to garner support - check!
Authoritative positioning - check!
Intellectual brow beating - check!

You really crack me up, steven lloyd. :dyinglaughing: Your pontifications are merely risible, ..... and you've got to love the way you try to vilify me by pitting me against the masses. Let's not forget that it was YOU that unjustly made charges of ignorance and arrogance in the first place, and that I had the audacity to challenge your call. Sadly you have done little or nothing to back your assertion, but quite the contrary. You whine incessantly about being ridiculed and mocked by others, but really we are simply exploring a rather curious streak of masochism that you wear as a trait.


Hmmm.....something is missing in the check list, ....... oh yeah, derailment. Fear not: that'll come next!

[Boda]

Steven Loyd why are you so convinced that science can never prove the existance of god(s)? There are religions that claim god has been on earth, there are religions that claim god is coming to earth soon. Why do you assert that science will never prove existance of god(s)? Do you feel that the real god would'nt leave any physical evidence on earth after he was here? Or are you that confident that the real god is not the one predicted to appear? Or is it just a lack of faith in science?



Edited once to correct spelling.

[I Think]

Boda, I think all of those who doubt the popular theistic claims, are quite prepared to accept scientific proof of a deity, and may be ready to accept substantial scientific evidence thereof, which may fall short of absolute proof.

However in the absence of such proof, I and others continue to operate on the premise that the existence of a god or gods, as described in popular religions, is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.

This is not to say that belief in such god(s) is not something to be considered, especially since socialogically, churches have had, and continue to have a significant impact on society. Many of us consider that the impact of these religions does considerable damage to the population as a whole.
Of course some would argue that churches do some good things, such as funneling money to the disadvantaged etc.

You seem be smitten with the idea that there is a 'real god', where is your scientific evidence, peer reviewed, supporting such an idea?.

[Mr Danksworth]

:thewave:
Another thread successfully derailed!

Worldwide Church of God is 'christian' and a cult. It can be both at the same time.

[Boda]

Boda, I think all of those who doubt the popular theistic claims, are quite prepared to accept scientific proof of a deity, and may be ready to accept substantial scientific evidence thereof, which may fall short of absolute proof.

However in the absence of such proof, I and others continue to operate on the premise that the existence of a god or gods, as described in popular religions, is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.

This is not to say that belief in such god(s) is not something to be considered, especially since socialogically, churches have had, and continue to have a significant impact on society. Many of us consider that the impact of these religions does considerable damage to the population as a whole.
Of course some would argue that churches do some good things, such as funneling money to the disadvantaged etc.

You seem be smitten with the idea that there is a 'real god', where is your scientific evidence, peer reviewed, supporting such an idea?.

Nibs,
I have no evidence scientific or other of a god(s). Your assumtion I am smitten with any god(s) is mistaken. I hope I have'nt aided in this topic being derailed as B_A predicted is a typical response by some to his questions. I've just wondered numerous times why Steven being the educated person he is has stated repeatedly that science can not prove the existence or nonexistence of god(s)? Doe's he assume that science will never gain more knowledge than what is available currently?
Or what am I missing?

[steven lloyd]

Sadly you have done little or nothing to back your assertion, but quite the contrary.

Wow. I wish I could say that I’m amazed at how time after time you completely miss the point being made, but really I’m not surprised at all. So desperate to turn this into a contest over the question of whether God (or something that could be called God) exists or not. So threatened by the idea that there are people (many of whom demonstrate a much higher level of cognitive functioning than you do) who believe that He/She/It does. I hope you don’t mind (actually, I don’t care whether you do or not), but I’m going to use your last few posts in my offender group tomorrow as examples to demonstrate how strong people’s psychological defence mechanisms can be.

You whine incessantly ...

:dyinglaughing: Ah, the irony is truly priceless. Carry on.

[steven lloyd]

Steven Loyd why are you so convinced that science can never prove the existance of god(s)?

That is my personal position right now. I could be wrong.