Discussion with SilverScorp83

How do we know that there are not 100s of worlds like ours out there with different Gods, Messiahs and religions or that what we think we see isnt just a back drop for the Truman show?

“If a drug addict talks about a person-sized ant talking to him, how long do we have to wait before science grows to include that aspect of reality?” Bad analogy again. In actuality, the medical profession doesn’t care about the fact that a drug addict sees a huge ant. They care that it’s a sign of drug addiction and the harmful effects drug addiction has. Now if the giant ant is…

…interferring with the person’s life, then there’s reason to get rid of it, or teach the person how to control the hallucination. The same with auditory hallicinations of schizophrenics. A psychologist isn’t going to try to fix the hallicinations if they aren’t dangerous or distressful. If they don’t interfere with normal functioning, why get rid of it? More importantly, if by some chance…

…the hallucinations actually benefit the person in some way (as a method of stress reduction for example), as religion can many times do for it’s followers, there’s certainly no reason to get rid of it. The whole concept of danger and distress is why we try to help people with psychological disorders, not simply because it sounds absurd to us.

“Why do you think there is an ‘external reality’ – and why do you think that religion has any access to that reality?” Because I subjectively feel it there maybe? I don’t know. As long as I don’t let my belief in the supernatural interfere with how I view the observable world, why does it matter if I think there might be something else out there or not? Why do you think that everyone must…

…follow the same thought processes as you do, or their thought process is wrong? Reason is great and all, but there’s so much in the Universe we don’t yet understand, how can one say anything is wrong? The discovery of germs revolutionized how we think about medicine. Who’s to say another revolution won’t come and it will show a random group of people previously thought wrong to be right?…

…No one can say that. So how can you tell someone that how they think about something for which we have no other method of study, that they are wrong? It’s arrogant and presumptuous. Let them have their beliefs. If it interferes with how they function in reality, as it does for many, then address that. But don’t attempt to tell them something as subjective as religion is wrong.

“So, we don’t know about the Universe outside of the *observable*…why not just admit that we don’t know?” Because we as humans want to know and speculate. You don’t have to follow a religion if you don’t want to. You can proudly proclaim that you don’t know, and no one should challenge that (though they do). But if you don’t know about “external reality”, you can’t know someone else is wrong.

RYN: Sorry for the delay. Anyway, if one accepts the thesis that God is the foundation of reality, it’s not a hard leap to make to believe also that He is the foundation of morality. Thus, following God becomes the very definition of a moral choice.

There’s a big difference between scientific knowledge/laws and the feelings created by art. THAT was a bad analogy.

“Bum: If one accepts the thesis that God is the foundation of reality….” But how would we know that? Because He told us? Let’s say He told us that…why should we believe Him? Because He doesn’t lie? Because He’s moral? Or have we come full circle yet?

Ok, Bum, do you really have a solid foundation on where you stand on anything you talk about? Are you just trying to make others think? Both?

ryn on peter’s diary: As someone who opposes a Dept of Education and federal control of education, I support state or local control of education. I believe locals know better what the kids need that DC bureaucrats or the NEA.

I agree with the above noter.Is this diarys pourpose to a) destroy other peoples faith, b) make them think deeply, or c) hate your guts? Or is it d) all of the above? I have noted you before, and you seemed like a jerk, but even the jerks can be transformed. What do you belive in? What do u stand 4? It seems you rely on science for your facts not your belifs. You stand for nothing. In fact,

spiritually, you aren’t standing on anythin. Nothing solid. God is solid. Try standing with Him for a while and see how you do.

RYN: That whole “foundation of reality” thing is part and parcel with this whole Supreme Deity business. Monotheism doesn’t really work without that. It’s rather broad if you want it to get into why God exists in the first place, but suffice it to say that it’s a bit of a logical contradiction to say that a Supreme Deity exists without being, well, supreme.

We’re talking about moral philosophy/theology here, not whether God exists in the first place.

Where do morals come from? You could say that they are taught to us. well then, who taught it to the first person? Or, they might just be imbeded in us from…the Creator?

read this in scorp’s diary “I haven’t really found many theists willing to state that God is a belief based on their feelings and has no bearing on physical reality.” – why not just feelings but reasons too, many a philosophical work written on the matter – also, you’re forgetting here that for theists it is not the physical that takes priority, so why try so hard to make them hold to it …

“why not just feelings but reasons too, many a philosophical work written on the matter – also, you’re forgetting here that for theists it is not the physical that takes priority, so why try so hard to make them hold to it … [djenve]” Philosophical arguments for the existence of God all fail miserably…by physical I mean to try and distinguish between …

… the existence of the “idea of God” (which I agree clearly exists), and “God”. Same with heaven, souls, etc. Believers very much do think it’s important that God *actually* exists, and heaven…