Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

Well, I certainly suspect that before I was and after I'm gone the Good still IS - my ego is not big enough to assume otherwise. I always found Plato to be interesting but I don't equate the Ideas with God, however it is telling that you have just allowed for the timeless, absolute and unchanging (traditional descriptions of God). And, you're right: there is no evidence for .........or against:+}

What is the case is that people in different times and places all discerned the Good. We both propose different reasons for this - neither of which are provable.

Main product or by-product makes no difference: in the atheist position, it is the result of evolutionary development. And sure it's real (never said it wasn't) - it is just not a decision to love, it is an instinctual action, a response not to the other but to one's internal program dictated by evolution. Love for the materialist atheist is a reaction - not a choice. That makes it real........but less.

No, the serious religious thinker presents a belief and follows with an 'argument' or an explanation. It is you who demands scientific evidence, continually conflating science with religious or philosophical belief.

[thormas]

Exactly, I'm improving on Shakespeare :+}

Not only the atheist values science but, still, to paraphrase William, 'there is more in heaven and earth than materialist, atheistic scientists ever allow.'

Why 'insert' God? We don't.......rather, it is discerning that there is and must be that which is ontologically and logically prior to all that is. Such insights are found in the religious scientists and answer the fatal flaws of atheism.

Again, you are too much the literalist and continually miss the art, the poetry. The Birth of Venus: Love is a goddess, Love is from the divine, and it 'lands' on the shore where man lives; it is a divine gift to the human. I'll take it. It is not that there is your universe of god and goddesses but that love itself is transcendent. You must really move away from your literalist interpretation of religion: it is a losing position since the serious religious thinker is not a literalist or an old time theist and, among other things, understands myth is not meant to be taken literally.

God is indeed beyond the scope of the sciences since the objects of their study are the things of the universe - and God is no thing (see Hart's quote above). God doesn't exist as a belief, rather the religious man believes that God IS (i.e. Being). Again, your language betrays your misunderstanding: God does not exist as the unversed does, God is the very possibility that anything exists (and is continually sustained) at all.

"Nevertheless?" ......so you accept that you are prejudice against religious scientists? Well, that is telling itself. And you assume that there is an either/or: either scientific methodology or religious belief - yet the 'Subject' of religion is not the object of science and it has been shown that some scientists can hold more than one thought in their mind :+}

Actually I am not misrepresenting the argument and I even used your words, 'by-product' of evolution. However, you still don't talk about the nature of such 'genetic love' as you would discuss our digestion system. Yet both are part of our evolution and make-up. If it is not discussed at all, while digestion and sex are discussed (however not during either act), then it is hidden, avoided. However, there is some light: you have said love is chosen :+}

I accept that you say that you don't 'glimpse' the transcendent - thus the atheist is left with the materialistic position where life is ultimately meaningless. What purpose and fulfillment the atheist states life has, is an illusion (or delusion) since, as admitted, it matters not to the universe: if that person was or never was, it would not matter a bit. Also, no deities, only the ONE :+}

You are right, it is but a glimpse, through a glass darkly, for man cannot fathom that which is God in it's entirety. For the religious man, there is no 'somewhere,' - only that IT IS Emmanuel :+}



Note: I hasten to add that, given the Christian position, I think the reality is that the life of the atheist is not meaningless and their love of others is not less ........ I simply think the way the atheist, materialist understands and explains life and love - is nonsensical: when brought to its logical conclusion their explanation results in the meaninglessness of everything in a universe that neither notices them or 'cares.' I believe that the lives of all humans beings are meaningful and their love, any such human love, is both real and transcendent.

[Tassman]

Well, I certainly suspect that before I was and after I'm gone the Good still IS - my ego is not big enough to assume otherwise. I always found Plato to be interesting but I don't equate the Ideas with God, however it is telling that you have just allowed for the timeless, absolute and unchanging (traditional descriptions of God). And, you're right: there is no evidence for .........or against:+}

The “Good” will still exist ONLY among these who are alive to discern it; it doesn’t exist as an objective fact in and of itself – only as generated by humans. The 'Good' comes from within, and is part of human nature.

What is the case is that people in different times and places all discerned the Good. We both propose different reasons for this - neither of which are provable.

Except that “Good” in previous eras was not the same as what we consider “Good” today. It has evolved and has varied to a degree from culture to culture over time.

Main product or by-product makes no difference: in the atheist position, it is the result of evolutionary development. And sure it's real (never said it wasn't) - it is just not a decision to love, it is an instinctual action, a response not to the other but to one's internal program dictated by evolution. Love for the materialist atheist is a reaction - not a choice. That makes it real........but less.

Love between people in its various forms would not exist at all if not for the evolution of the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals. And they do this via attachment and bonding with others. This is the foundation of ‘love’, affection and empathy among ALL the higher social creatures.

No, the serious religious thinker presents a belief and follows with an 'argument' or an explanation. It is you who demands scientific evidence, continually conflating science with religious or philosophical belief.

Any “argument” without convincing supporting evidence cannot be shown to be true. Theology is grounded in alleged revelation and philosophy has no mechanism to arrive at a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusion. Only science can arrive at verifiable truths.

[Tassman]

Exactly, I'm improving on Shakespeare :+}

AHEM

Not only the atheist values science but, still, to paraphrase William, 'there is more in heaven and earth than materialist, atheistic scientists ever allow.'

There's a difference. What is understood by scientific research is factual as opposed to philosophical speculation.

Why 'insert' God? We don't...

But you DO “insert” God – unnecessarily.

....rather, it is discerning that there is and must be that which is ontologically and logically prior to all that is. Such insights are found in the religious scientists and answer the fatal flaws of atheism

“Such insights” are NOT “insights” because they answer nothing. They are unverified speculation. And atheism is simply a non-belief in gods – it is not a belief- system with flaws – “fatal” or otherwise.

Again, you are too much the literalist and continually miss the art, the poetry. The Birth of Venus: Love is a goddess, Love is from the divine, and it 'lands' on the shore where man lives; it is a divine gift to the human. I'll take it. It is not that there is your universe of god and goddesses but that love itself is transcendent. You must really move away from your literalist interpretation of religion: it is a losing position since the serious religious thinker is not a literalist or an old time theist and, among other things, understands myth is not meant to be taken literally.

You are assuming that the artist is motivated by awareness of the “Transcendent moments in human life”, whereas the artist is motivated by his creative impulses. It is YOU reading into such works as the Botticelli what you want to see. Far form "transcendent love I would have thought the 'Birth of Venus' was more about more carnal lust.

God is indeed beyond the scope of the sciences since the objects of their study are the things of the universe - and God is no thing (see Hart's quote above). God doesn't exist as a belief, rather the religious man believes that God IS (i.e. Being). Again, your language betrays your misunderstanding: God does not exist as the unversed does, God is the very possibility that anything exists (and is continually sustained) at all.

The key word being “possibility”, as opposed to probability, which assuredly it is not. I guess with this sort of argument you can end up with any “possible” God you want to have, i.e., one of your own creation.

"Nevertheless?" ......so you accept that you are prejudice against religious scientists? Well, that is telling itself. And you assume that there is an either/or: either scientific methodology or religious belief - yet the 'Subject' of religion is not the object of science and it has been shown that some scientists can hold more than one thought in their mind :+}

It was you that put forward scientists supporting theism, I merely made the point that the majority of them don’t.

Actually I am not misrepresenting the argument and I even used your words, 'by-product' of evolution. However, you still don't talk about the nature of such 'genetic love' as you would discuss our digestion system. Yet both are part of our evolution and make-up. If it is not discussed at all, while digestion and sex are discussed (however not during either act), then it is hidden, avoided. However, there is some light: you have said love is chosen :+}

Love between people in its various forms is chosen certainly. But without the evolved behaviors of attachment and bonding with others underpinning it ‘love’ would not exist at all.

I accept that you say that you don't 'glimpse' the transcendent - thus the atheist is left with the materialistic position where life is ultimately meaningless. What purpose and fulfillment the atheist states life has, is an illusion (or delusion) since, as admitted, it matters not to the universe: if that person was or never was, it would not matter a bit. Also, no deities, only the ONE :+}

A mere “glimpse” of a purported reality is insufficient to give life meaning unless you are reading into it what you subjectively WANT life to be. This is wish-fulfillment. Personally, I do not need a “glimpse” of imagined transcendent deities to provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment in my life via loved ones, family and friends and the pursuance of personal interests.

You are right, it is but a glimpse, through a glass darkly, for man cannot fathom that which is God in it's entirety. For the religious man, there is no 'somewhere,' - only that IT IS Emmanuel :+}

“Man cannot fathom that which is God” at all outside his imagination, because there is no good reason to assume such a Being even exists outside of the minds of our species.

Note: I hasten to add that, given the Christian position, I think the reality is that the life of the atheist is not meaningless and their love of others is not less ........ I simply think the way the atheist, materialist understands and explains life and love - is nonsensical: when brought to its logical conclusion their explanation results in the meaninglessness of everything in a universe that neither notices them or 'cares.' I believe that the lives of all humans beings are meaningful and their love, any such human love, is both real and transcendent.

One does not need a hypothetical deity to believe that the lives of all human beings are meaningful and their love real. We have evolved via Natural Selection the capacity for empathy because recognizing the pain and hurt in others stops us, for the most part, from harming them. Unless our empathy is broken in some way, it helps us avoid killing each other and allows us to value life”.

[thormas]

Actually, it is a bit more nuanced when talking about the Good. Simply by reading history, it is obvious that the Good was discerned by others before us, the world over and across time; it is discerned in the present; and, it is only logical then to say it will also be discerned in the future. Is there something to be discerned or is it generated by humans? If the latter - generated by evolution that impacts all humans - it should be universal, yet it is not as evidenced by a reading of history and lived experience. That it is the former - not evolved and universal but often times missed or ignored, seems to be the better explanation to explain our common experience. Is it objective in that it transcends man, yes - but it is also interactive and is to be 'taken up' by man. So it does seem to be 'timeless, absolute and unchanging' and it is beyond evidence.

This would take a longer conversation. At first glance, it does seem that some particulars of what is or is not good are seemingly not the same but then what exactly are we talking about? Slavery? indeed some thought it was fine but not all free men and certainly not those enslaved. War? same answer. Lying, stealing? Of course one can rationalize any behavior, but certainly many have and continue to think it is wrong (including some who do the stealing or lying) and certainly all whom have been victims think it is not good. And and on. Plus it could be argued that many who have supported slavery, war, the appropriation of the lands of others. etc. were those 'in power' and put their own interests before the Good - whereas so many others knew and longed for the Good. I hold that the Good is that which is to be discerned and internalized by man.

I do not reject evolution, rather I accept it's reality (as previously discussed). I agree that our human evolution is essential, however I hold that love is more than you say. No one loves who does not first receive love, each of us must be given love by another. Of all who give it, none own it, all must initially and continually receive it. If no man or woman owns it, yet all men and women need it......then by definition, love transcends all who love. We give what we don't own, we give what we stand in need of, we give more that we are, more than is ours: this is Transcendence. Love in the human is different in degree (and perhaps kind) than in other social creatures.

Still you demand that religious belief submit to scientific methodology - yet, as has been said many times, it does not :+} Furthermore, it is safe to say that the serious religious thinker has a vastly different take on revelation than you. It appears that you rely on science to know everything, yet others find that science is inadequate with knowing and understanding that which is most important in human life. Again, at base, it has no answer to "What does it mean?"

[thormas]

It seems that you are contradicting your own argument.

If the good is that which is generated by humans, a product (as you say) of 'human nature' and our shared evolutionary process then it seems, logically, that the good so generated and part of our nature should be the same, i.e. universal - yet you then say that is not always so.

However, it the Good is that which is (to be) discerned, then it follows logically that some might not discern it, discern it only partially or even ignore what is discerned. Thus the Good when discerned is consistent in human experience, yet some men and women miss or choose to ignore the Good, thus we have slavery, war, stealing, etc.

[thormas]

]

Still, Hamlet can be applied to science: as has been shown science cannot even answer: "What does it mean?". They cannot answer this basic question about which men ponder and hope.

God is not inserted rather one believes God IS.

The scientist who also believes 'in God' can and does offer insights. Their insights are just as valid as the insights of the atheistic scientist concerning, for example mind, consciousness, materialism, etc. These are not the same as gravity or evolution, the jury is still out and scientist are at odds.

Venus actually encompasses love, beauty, fertility, desire, sex, etc. ............unless you understand all of these as only carnal lust :+} However, again there is the artist and the one who beholds the art and my interpretation is valid, perhaps more valid that seeing only lust.

Actually what is meant by 'possibility' in this instance is that God is 'that which allows all to be," for the possible to become actual. And, there is np probable unless that which is possible is 'made actual.'

Actually you dismiss those scientists who believe in God as lesser. Again a generalization and prejudiced. It is not an either/or situation with a scientist who believes 'in God,'

Again, a breakthrough: love is a choice. Therefore we are not bound to our genetics or merely products of evolution like a tree, a dog or a the rest of the universe. Unless you now say that a tree chooses when to shed it leaves, a dog when to mate, or the universe how many planets and stars to create. Man is Unique.

A glimpse of the Transcendent, immanent in creation, is more than enough :+} For the atheist to assert that they glimpse (and have ) true meaningfulness is their illusion.

Sure man can fathom some of both what God is not and a touch of what God IS. And there are good reasons to assume that God IS....the atheist simply disagrees as the religious man disagrees with what the atheist fathoms.



Again, it is evident that the atheist position, given that very position on everything but in particular on materialism, mind, consciousness and despite their protestation that this or that is meaningful to them ..........concludes in utter and ultimate meaninglessness given their very beliefs. Any meaning is not simply fleeting, it is nothing. And that is depressing, too depressing for most human beings if it were shared (which it isn't) and actually believed. No matter the evolutionary process and natural selection, no matter evolved empathy, no matter if we kill or don't kill, no matter if one really values live and another values it less..........if all is material, if mind/consciousness is merely of the physical/material........such meaning is delusion: is simply doesn't matter, it never did, it never will. This is not the position of the religious man.

[Tassman]

It seems that you are contradicting your own argument.

Not at all.

If the good is that which is generated by humans, a product (as you say) of 'human nature' and our shared evolutionary process then it seems, logically, that the good so generated and part of our nature should be the same, i.e. universal - yet you then say that is not always so.

Your false assumption seems to be that “The Good” is absolute and unchangeable - somehow floating around in the ether awaiting humans to tap into it and ‘get it right’. It’s not. Nor have 2,000years of Christian morality demonstrated the :GOOD" to be absolute and unchangeable

What is deemed “good” is simply how humans have behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history. Demonstrably it has evolved and varied from culture to culture over time by people of ALL religions and none..

However, it the Good is that which is (to be) discerned, then it follows logically that some might not discern it, discern it only partially or even ignore what is discerned. Thus the Good when discerned is consistent in human experience, yet some men and women miss or choose to ignore the Good, thus we have slavery, war, stealing, etc.

Indeed, we have had slavery (justified via scripture by Christian slave owners) and war (often in the name of God, e.g., the Crusades or the Christian Conquistadors) and etc. Human values have changed over the millennia and so has the concept of the “Good”.

[Tassman]

Actually, it is a bit more nuanced when talking about the Good. Simply by reading history, it is obvious that the Good was discerned by others before us, the world over and across time; it is discerned in the present; and, it is only logical then to say it will also be discerned in the future. Is there something to be discerned or is it generated by humans? If the latter - generated by evolution that impacts all humans - it should be universal, yet it is not as evidenced by a reading of history and lived experience. That it is the former - not evolved and universal but often times missed or ignored, seems to be the better explanation to explain our common experience. Is it objective in that it transcends man, yes - but it is also interactive and is to be 'taken up' by man. So it does seem to be 'timeless, absolute and unchanging' and it is beyond evidence.

At NO time in history has the “Good” been discerned by an entire society, because it has evolved and varied throughout history. And nor can you point to one moment where society has reached agreement about what constitutes the “Good”.

This would take a longer conversation. At first glance, it does seem that some particulars of what is or is not good are seemingly not the same but then what exactly are we talking about? Slavery? indeed some thought it was fine but not all free men and certainly not those enslaved. War? same answer. Lying, stealing? Of course one can rationalize any behavior, but certainly many have and continue to think it is wrong (including some who do the stealing or lying) and certainly all whom have been victims think it is not good. And and on. Plus it could be argued that many who have supported slavery, war, the appropriation of the lands of others. etc. were those 'in power' and put their own interests before the Good - whereas so many others knew and longed for the Good. I hold that the Good is that which is to be discerned and internalized by man.

People of faith can read the bible so that virtually any perspective on current issues will find some support in the bible. Because much of the bible can be made to reinforce what the society of the day believes at any given period of history. And what the society of the day believes at any given period of history about what constitutes the “Good” has varied greatly over time. There is NO "Good" which is to be "discerned and internalized by man".

I do not reject evolution, rather I accept it's reality (as previously discussed). I agree that our human evolution is essential, however I hold that love is more than you say. No one loves who does not first receive love, each of us must be given love by another. Of all who give it, none own it, all must initially and continually receive it. If no man or woman owns it, yet all men and women need it......then by definition, love transcends all who love. We give what we don't own, we give what we stand in need of, we give more that we are, more than is ours: this is Transcendence. Love in the human is different in degree (and perhaps kind) than in other social creatures.

Not at all. “All who love” are responding their evolved instincts for attachment and bonding with others. This is the foundation of love, affection and empathy and is a survival mechanism for a social species such as us.

Still you demand that religious belief submit to scientific methodology - yet, as has been said many times, it does not :+} Furthermore, it is safe to say that the serious religious thinker has a vastly different take on revelation than you. It appears that you rely on science to know everything, yet others find that science is inadequate with knowing and understanding that which is most important in human life. Again, at base, it has no answer to "What does it mean?"

No. I demand that religious belief give good reason to be accepted it as authoritative other than what various people subjectively believe according to their particular interpretation of their various holy books or gurus.

[Tassman]

Still, Hamlet can be applied to science: as has been shown science cannot even answer: "What does it mean?". They cannot answer this basic question about which men ponder and hope.

It is an invalid question grounded in an assumption of “meaning”.

God is not inserted rather one believes God IS.

You are inserting your personal belief that “God is”.- whatever that means.

The scientist who also believes 'in God' can and does offer insights. Their insights are just as valid as the insights of the atheistic scientist concerning, for example mind, consciousness, materialism, etc. These are not the same as gravity or evolution, the jury is still out and scientist are at odds.

The only “insight” a scientist who also believes 'in God' can offer is based upon his personal subjective beliefs – not science.

Venus actually encompasses love, beauty, fertility, desire, sex, etc. ............unless you understand all of these as only carnal lust :+} However, again there is the artist and the one who beholds the art and my interpretation is valid, perhaps more valid that seeing only lust.

The argument you are putting forward is that art encompasses a “glimpse of the transcendent”, which I’m denying. An artist is motivated by creative impulses which arise in his material brain - with subjects ranging from portraits, landscapes mythology to carnal lusts and abstract design.. The same applies to the composers of music and choreographers of ballet.

Actually what is meant by 'possibility' in this instance is that God is 'that which allows all to be," for the possible to become actual. And, there is np probable unless that which is possible is 'made actual.'

God allowing “all to be, for the possible to become actual” is an unevidenced theological assertion, nothing more.

Actually you dismiss those scientists who believe in God as lesser. Again a generalization and prejudiced. It is not an either/or situation with a scientist who believes 'in God,'

Once again, the only “insight” a scientist who also believes 'in God' can offer is based upon his personal subjective beliefs – not science.

Again, a breakthrough: love is a choice. Therefore we are not bound to our genetics or merely products of evolution like a tree, a dog or a the rest of the universe. Unless you now say that a tree chooses when to shed it leaves, a dog when to mate, or the universe how many planets and stars to create. Man is Unique.

Man is NOT unique but he is (at present) the most intelligent species around – at least on this planet. And, as such, unlike a tree or dog, man is programmed by genes and environmental pressures, which greatly affect his decision-making processes.

A glimpse of the Transcendent, immanent in creation, is more than enough :+} For the atheist to assert that they glimpse (and have ) true meaningfulness is their illusion.

One can equally argue that “a glimpse of the Transcendent, immanent in creation” is a delusion.

Sure man can fathom some of both what God is not and a touch of what God IS. And there are good reasons to assume that God IS....the atheist simply disagrees as the religious man disagrees with what the atheist fathoms.

You are assuming, without good reason, that God exists. which explains why the "atheist simply disagrees".

Again, it is evident that the atheist position, given that very position on everything but in particular on materialism, mind, consciousness and despite their protestation that this or that is meaningful to them ..........concludes in utter and ultimate meaninglessness given their very beliefs. Any meaning is not simply fleeting, it is nothing. And that is depressing, too depressing for most human beings if it were shared (which it isn't) and actually believed. No matter the evolutionary process and natural selection, no matter evolved empathy, no matter if we kill or don't kill, no matter if one really values live and another values it less..........if all is material, if mind/consciousness is merely of the physical/material........such meaning is delusion: is simply doesn't matter, it never did, it never will. This is not the position of the religious man.

I think it sad that you consider life without some form of religious escapism, to be meaningless. I don’t.

[thormas]

Your position contradicts itself: on one hand, man is a product of his genetics, of evolution and the good is 'generated by man' ........yet you then argue that the good is not consistent across humanity even thought it is generate by men who share the same evolution. Seemingly, you believe cultural differences overwrite man's common evolution. Yet history argues against this for across time and geography we see an amazing 'sameness' in human beings - that transcend culture. Thus the good generated by man should share this sameness but it does not in your position.

My position is much more reasonable. The Good is not generated by man rather the Good or the Way of Life (ala Christianity) can be discerned by man and internalized/embodied (actually the more it is, the less man needs the law to instruct him). However it is also the case that man being free (and not simply a product of evolution) can choose against the Good or he may not discern the good or do so only partially. The 2000 years of Christianity has indeed shown that the Way, the Good is consistent (Love has always been that Good) - although it is also the case that not all who called themselves Christian understood or followed the Good, some, too many at times, even going against it.

My position recognizes that man is more than his genetics, that the Good is not the creation of man. My position recognizes socialization and culture but still asserts that man is more than a product of either them or his genetics, that man is free (relatively not absolutely), and that the Good is consistent throughout creation. Indeed as you have said, even the animals are genetically programmed to care for their own, the flower only has life when it is warmed by the sun and turning to it, opens and it is Love (the highest Good) that makes or breaks the world and humanity. This is known, oftentimes it is forgotten or ignored, but Love is the be all and end all. I don't believe the Good floats in the ether or anywhere else, again it is immanent in creation :+}

I appreciate your knowledge of scripture but not your understanding. I have never believed that simply because it is 'in the Bible' that it is God's word or true - I am not a literalist but again it appears that you are :+{

[thormas]

I have already allowed both for the the differences among cultures/societies and those among individual men and women in those societies.
And of course there are examples of societies or groups who agree on the Good. Again I give you Christianity over 2000 years. Simply because its members sometimes don't fully see or live it does not mean that society and its members do not agree on the Good (who is God). So too those who followed Confucius, 500 years before Christ and the Buddha in his time even to the present, adherents of other world religions and even the USA as a society, across a continent agrees on the Good - although as obvious and as so very human, they disagree on both some particulars and implementation. So too does I assume Australia since it persists and thrives even with hiccups :+} The only group that might be falling apart are the scientific community since they can't even agree on mind, materialism, consciousness, etc.

Again the scriptures, really? Of course people read it differently: look how you yourself misunderstand it and its intention (see above).

We have spoken about your take on love, one that is depressing in itself, not shared with the most important people (revealing in itself) and at odds with the experience of most people - who do not accept that love is merely an instinctual response (like a herder dog......herding).

I have not argued that my or any religious position is or must be authoritative. All are free to accept or not. I have simply presented my belief and provided some explanation around it.

What is presented as authoritative is the materialistic, atheistic position which insists that all is material, there is no mind (except produced by the physical brain) and that love is an instinctual response. And if you don't agree but choose a religious belief instead, you are told you believe in fairies, fables, myths and things floating in the ether. I have not condemned anyone, called no one a heretic or made a judgement that any will burn if they don't accept the 'authority' of my position:+}

[thormas]

Again we disagree but I am comforted that Shakespeare agrees with me :+}

Actually there are a number of books by scientists who use the same science to dispute other scientists about materialism, mind, consciousness, etc. (I refer you to Amazon).

Of course art and poetry are creative and can each give us a glimpse of the transcendent - some artists and poets intend this and in these and other cases (even where it might not have been intended), the one who experiences the art or the poetry can glimpse 'beyond' himself, beyond the merely physical. Your position on art enslaves man to the material, painting him as incapable of seeing, of soaring, 'beyond' the mundane to experience more. Again, this is not the common experience of most of us.

Of course religious belief is 'unevidenced' ..........that's why its belief :+}

Again you are at odds with most of your fellow men and women who believe the man is unique. Materialist atheism is just one depressing misstep after another at odds with most of us. Of course we're talking about our planet and the present situation (and some of hope that there are other unique beings). So you said man is not unique but he is 'unlike' trees and dogs, so he is sort of a one-off (i.e. unique:+} So close........you're almost there: man is unique, unlike dogs and trees, and, although you did say man is programmed, you added that man is only affected (i.e. influenced) - not determined by genetics/evolution........ just a bit more to say man is (relatively) free to be. And free to be means man is open-ended: his 'past' (genetics and evolution) is not (absolutely) determinative, it is not his all; man's future is open and he can transcend the mundane, the material and .........be.

At least you didn't disagree that the atheist position is illusion :+} So, in spite of what you say about science, your position about the meaningfulness of life from the atheistic position is as much a belief, unknown, without evidence as any religious position.

There are good reasons to believe that God IS (see above) and simply the atheist disagrees, whereas the religious man disagrees with the atheist belief or non-belief :+{

You retreat to a failed argument against old time theism that I have previously commented on. The serious religious thinker does not believe God IS to fulfill wishes and has no need for escape from anything.



The only thing most men and women want to escape from is the utter meaninglessness of the atheist position that confines us to the material, that limits our horizon to the physical, that does not consider us unique and is incapable of understanding that we are and can be more than our programming, more than matter, more than the limits atheism places on us.

[Tassman]

Your position contradicts itself: on one hand, man is a product of his genetics, of evolution and the good is 'generated by man' ........yet you then argue that the good is not consistent across humanity even thought it is generate by men who share the same evolution. Seemingly, you believe cultural differences overwrite man's common evolution. Yet history argues against this for across time and geography we see an amazing 'sameness' in human beings - that transcend culture. Thus the good generated by man should share this sameness but it does not in your position.

No contradiction. All variations of social behavior are grounded in the behavior required to exist as an evolved social species maintaining a cohesive community.. It's a survival thing.

My position is much more reasonable. The Good is not generated by man rather the Good or the Way of Life (ala Christianity) can be discerned by man and internalized/embodied (actually the more it is, the less man needs the law to instruct him). However it is also the case that man being free (and not simply a product of evolution) can choose against the Good or he may not discern the good or do so only partially.

Your position is NOT reasonable at all. It is based on the utterly unevidenced assumption of the existence of “The GOOD” and the attributed notion that that this can be “discerned by man and internalized/embodied” by man. Whereas, it is Man that formulates what is “Good” in the first place, not your hypothesized God.

The 2000 years of Christianity has indeed shown that the Way, the Good is consistent (Love has always been that Good) - although it is also the case that not all who called themselves Christian understood or followed the Good, some, too many at times, even going against it.

Your claim that 2000 years of Christianity has shown that the ‘Way’ is blatantly contradicted by the demonstrable fact that so-called Christian values have always been consistent with the ever-evolving social values of the day. Many of which we NOW recognize to be unacceptable.

My position recognizes that man is more than his genetics, that the Good is not the creation of man.

No, your position is a bald assertion that man is more than his genetics. There is absolutely no sound reason to assume that we are more than the evolved physical activity of the brain and that at death we perish.

My position recognizes socialization and culture but still asserts that man is more than a product of either them or his genetics, that man is free (relatively not absolutely), and that the Good is consistent throughout creation. Indeed as you have said, even the animals are genetically programmed to care for their own, the flower only has life when it is warmed by the sun and turning to it, opens and it is Love (the highest Good) that makes or breaks the world and humanity. This is known, oftentimes it is forgotten or ignored, but Love is the be all and end all.

GOOD is has only been consistent throughout nature according to the social structures of the era. It is only relatively recently that community support and cooperation was extended from tribalism and nation-states to the whole word as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I don't believe the Good floats in the ether or anywhere else, again it is immanent in creation :+}

What is GOOD is decided by us based upon our evolved social values and needs as a cooperative community. It does not exist separate from us.

I appreciate your knowledge of scripture but not your understanding. I have never believed that simply because it is 'in the Bible' that it is God's word or true - I am not a literalist but again it appears that you are :+

The long history of wicked Christian behavior – Crusades, Conquistadors, Inquisitions, slavery, denigration of women and witch-burning etc.– were frequently justified by scripture is the point. You may not be a literalist, but many Christians are.

[Tassman]

I have already allowed both for the the differences among cultures/societies and those among individual men and women in those societies.
And of course there are examples of societies or groups who agree on the Good. Again I give you Christianity over 2000 years. Simply because its members sometimes don't fully see or live it does not mean that society and its members do not agree on the Good (who is God). So too those who followed Confucius, 500 years before Christ and the Buddha in his time even to the present, adherents of other world religions and even the USA as a society, across a continent agrees on the Good - although as obvious and as so very human, they disagree on both some particulars and implementation. So too does I assume Australia since it persists and thrives even with hiccups :+} The only group that might be falling apart are the scientific community since they can't even agree on mind, materialism, consciousness, etc.

Christianity over 2,000 years has been no better nor worse than the society that believed in it. Any religion adopted by a given society reflects the social values of the day, not the other way around.

Again the scriptures, really? Of course people read it differently: look how you yourself misunderstand it and its intention (see above).

The holy books of any given religion can be made to reinforce what the society of the day believes at any given period of history.

We have spoken about your take on love, one that is depressing in itself, not shared with the most important people (revealing in itself) and at odds with the experience of most people - who do not accept that love is merely an instinctual response (like a herder dog......herding).

You (and the nameless “important people you agree with) seem to find reality depressing. Attachment and bonding (love) is the instinctive reaction to our evolution as cooperative social animals. Although more like our fellow primates than “herder dogs”.

I have not argued that my or any religious position is or must be authoritative. All are free to accept or not. I have simply presented my belief and provided some explanation around it.

Nonetheless believers consider scripture to be authoritative. And you DO assume the existence of a deity. .

What is presented as authoritative is the materialistic, atheistic position which insists that all is material, there is no mind (except produced by the physical brain) and that love is an instinctual response. And if you don't agree but choose a religious belief instead, you are told you believe in fairies, fables, myths and things floating in the ether. I have not condemned anyone, called no one a heretic or made a judgement that any will burn if they don't accept the 'authority' of my position:+}

Except that there is no verifiable evidence that the universe is anything other than material.