Uh what other explanation is there than one which our reason can grasp?

10/25/2006 9:50:35 PM

ummm... forgive me, but few, if any metaphysical explanations are understandable...

10/25/2006 10:51:45 PM

Maybe not to you.

What kind of metaphysics have you been reading?

10/25/2006 10:59:07 PM

maybe god is ambiguous so we can all find him in our own way. my $00.02

10/25/2006 11:14:10 PM

well, when I google the definition to "metaphysical," it pretty much says "not comprehendable"...

10/25/2006 11:37:17 PM

Uh we're talking about two different things.

I'm talking about philosophy, and you're talking about the "X-Files." There are two very different definitions of metaphysics. I'm using the academic definition. Am I supposed to put any weight on your argument when you're hung up on the pop sci-fi definition?

10/25/2006 11:39:06 PM

ummm. I don't know about you, but I am talking about it from the realm of how something we don't understand interacts with our universe. there's nothing "sci-fi" about that.

this is precisely why I say that your ears are closed.

10/25/2006 11:53:34 PM

Oh I see what you're saying -- that the soul is a supernatural thing, and that therefore we cannot understand it.

You have to understand, when you misuse the definitions of words, you invite a misunderstanding.

Yeah, the interaction problem is a big one. Why should it be immune to scrutiny? Why should somebody who asserts the existence of a soul get away without explaining anything about how it might actually interact with the world?

10/25/2006 11:59:50 PM

Free will is a tricky one, I'll grant. As best as I can briefly describe it in my drunken state, the analogy is that of the laws of the state.

Technically speaking, when physical possibility allows, we can kill whoever we want. The state cannot a sufficiently determined and able person from doing so. All it can do is set up incentives/penalties regarding murder. Likewise, people can do whatever they are physically able to do according to the Judeo-Christian concept of free will, but God offers His own package of incentives/penalties (His direct command, intercession in events, the rules in the Bible, whatever).

Obviously enough the law of the state (and its manifestations, such as police presence, jail, etc) makes it highly unlikely that I'm going to shoot somebody, but, at the end of the day, I still can go and do just that. Likewise, God (and His manifestations, such as changes in my environment, the threat of hell, whatever) makes it highly unlikely that I'm going to shoot somebody, but, at the end of the day, I still can.

That description is probably lacking. I'm inebriated.

10/26/2006 3:09:16 AM

No, it's not so bad ... but what we were discussing about free will is the possibility of undetermined human decisionmaking.

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 7:19 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2006 7:19:22 AM

The concept of free will becomes a lot easier to handle when you don't believe in one all-knowing being.

10/26/2006 7:35:02 AM

And even then I wouldn't see it as a show stopper.

So if I understand this correctly, this is more of a free will versus destiny/fate question?

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 7:44 AM. Reason : -]

10/26/2006 7:39:13 AM

Wouldn't a belief in fate/destiny imply a belief in some being knowing the future?

10/26/2006 7:43:17 AM

You'd think so.

10/26/2006 7:49:37 AM

I don't think it's the idea that some being knows the future. It's the idea that the future is determined in some way or another. This doesn't mean that some intelligent agent does the determining -- things can be determined by laws of nature (the usage of this word is more closely tied to the doctrine of determinism).

10/26/2006 8:16:47 AM

Sometimes particles can swerve for no reason, therefore we have freewill.

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2006 2:32:24 PM

No reason, or no presently identifiable reason?

10/26/2006 2:37:05 PM

In my Epicurean BS answer, it was definitely meant as no reason whatsoever.

Spending 4 years around philosophy people, then graduating, moving to chapel hill and spending time around classics (ancient studies) people perhaps I've grown too used to being able spout off greek & roman philosophies & expecting everyone to identify the philosopher & get the humor.

10/26/2006 3:23:26 PM

I get the humor of a lot of old philosophy, but we'd probably laugh for different reasons

10/26/2006 6:39:14 PM

Quote :

"Name something that you can 'prove' and I'll use that logic to show that there is never a way to prove or disprove it"

The campus blender version of this discussion has become what logic can and can't do.

http://www.campusblender.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=243396

10/28/2006 10:39:20 AM

The soap box over there is even worse than here. ouch.

10/28/2006 1:17:41 PM

Most recent post by someone over there



I think substituting for Yahweh, different gods from other religions & older religions, makes one better able to objectively discuss supernatural beings objectively without being focused on what they were trained in sunday school every week for years and years. While the spaghetti monster might have the same effect, it’s not always the best way to draw one into discussion.


A god like Apollo makes a better comparison without people feeling you're just trying to be hostile... even if its at the risk of being called a mythology dork.

[Edited on October 31, 2006 at 8:06 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2006 8:00:30 AM

What counts as a legitimate religious experience? Did any of the polytheistic Greek or Romans have one?

11/6/2006 1:25:08 PM

There are temples that outdate christianity by a thousand years.

11/13/2006 1:42:59 PM

And ones in Japan older than those. Point?

11/14/2006 12:57:54 AM

^^ everyone knows all of the great greek thinkers pretty much ignored everything to do with the greek "religion".

11/14/2006 1:01:28 AM

Quote :

"maybe god spirituality is ambiguous so we can all find him in our own way. my $00.02"

Religion forums all end up being:

1. philosophical masturbatory sessions
2. circle-jerks between people of the same beliefs
3. inane arguements between catholics/protestants, christians/muslims
4. christians believing atheists or agnostics to have no morals

11/14/2006 5:31:55 PM

Here's that sketch based of time, location, and other descriptions of what Jesus probably actually looked like, if he is a real historical figure and not just myth.

11/18/2006 11:18:15 AM

Is religion good for society? Science's definitive answer: it depends
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=D27BB754-E7F2-99DF-3E2F8A28942743F5&ref=rss

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 7:47 PM. Reason : just passing along a tidbit]

11/18/2006 7:47:36 PM

this forum is greatly needed.

11/20/2006 2:49:41 PM

The Soap Boxers really need to invade the Richard Dawkins forum: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php Joining another forum may be sacrilege, but this is a great one for the discussion of religion from the atheist point-of-view.

11/21/2006 4:19:31 PM

All the problems with fate & freewill, with evil, with all the supernatural vs science, it all goes away and is just like every other older religion (mythology) and foreign religion, which we believe all to be false, and Jesus/Yawheh start to make sense as a literary character the same way all the others do.

11/22/2006 6:38:28 AM

Jesus didn't have sideburns

11/22/2006 11:34:58 PM

he also had blue eyes and fair skin

12/3/2006 1:25:29 PM