Does God Exist

Homepage Forums Small Talk Does God Exist

This topic contains 56 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Simon Paynton 6 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 57 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9544

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    his subjective opinion

    – that’s why I like him – he analyses things in an interesting way, leaving me to think about it in a new way, but I don’t have to agree with him.

    For example, his concept of God, acting “as if” God exists, and the Word of God, make a good organising framework for some real things.  If the Logos pretty much equates to reality, and the love of God to the pressure to thrive, then we have truth and love, the components of wisdom.

    Logos

    #9545

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Simon, an interesting way or an asinine way?

    Acting as if god exists is acting in the belief  a dictator created a stage in which suffering is unavoidable.  Believers are motivated to act in their interest to avoid punishment and attain salvation. In other words the pawn acts not out of good conscience but selfishly.  It is not a surprise so many theists are expecting atheists to rape, murder and pillage.  Is there any doubt that the nonbeliever who contemplates her actions and makes best decisions she can based on reason, compassion and empathy is taking a more noble path?

    Or am i mistaken for assuming the christian god? Oh wait, the spineless jelly fish won’t be boxed in.  Is it one of the myriad of Hindu gods he assumes? Yeah maybe the monkey god ameliorates or improves on our nature? If only we can superimpose a fantasy of the monkey god we can scratch our ass in public and fling feces at those who have come to close.

    #9546

    .
    Participant

    At the start JP says that he “acts as if God exists” while not explaining what he means by God

     

    I took that to mean that he’s basically an agnostic. Doesn’t really know but maybe sways a little towards yeah it seems like there’s something but I don’t know what. I derived that from his words also because I’m deeply familiar with his professional work which has informed why I derived that from what he said.

    He claims that the question “does not work on multiple levels of analysis” but leaves it at that. Another BS statement. What analysis of it has he done?

    He’s talking about it from a clinical psychologist’s perspective. He’s I’m sure done ALL of the different levels of psychological analysis! It’s not that hard!

    He immediately then talks about the “divinity of Christ”…

    Notice how he didn’t say he believes it but he’s saying, “If that’s what you’re talking about then from a symbolic perspective – yes” …

    He is very careful with his words. Notice he never said it is what HE believes. He was honestly trying to avoid the question but sort of had to answer it. I think that he doesn’t want to be boxed in because he’s intelligent enough and humble enough to admit he DOESN’T know. And that’s one thing I love. He sees that there is some wisdom in the symbolism and the stories, and he sees how some of the morality we derive from the stories can help us understand our own lives, but he honestly views the world like a real scientist and he has a deep understanding of statistics science. He also from what I can tell understands our behavior from a biopsychosocial standpoint which is spot on. And the way he expresses this in his lectures is absolutely brilliant. He’s NOT a theologian and that’s why he doesn’t want to be boxed in or necessarily talk about the question and that’s why he started at least by saying he doesn’t like the question but he answered it begrudgingly and sort of like well you’re not going to pin me into a hole and make assumptions about me because of that label. Why couldn’t you see that?

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by  ..
    #9548

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @jakelafort

    in an interesting way.

    In other words the pawn acts not out of good conscience but selfishly.

    – I agree in one way – this can go badly wrong, as we see with Isis.  But much of the time, it motivates people to act well.  Self-interest is at the heart of morality anyway.

    But with Jordan Peterson’s back-to-basics version this doesn’t really exist, because he’s not a heaven-merchant (in terms of the afterlife) – he just says that we create our own quality of experience, which is true in many ways.

    He talks about Logos the Word of God, and also, his conception of truth, which made the interview with Sam Harris so painful, is that “what is useful is true”, or in other words, truth is love.  So he comes up with an interesting package which is essentially the same as the atheist version I’ve come up with.

    #9549

    @ Bellen – At the start JP says that he “acts as if God exists” while not explaining what he means by God

    If he said he “acts as if a god exists” then maybe you could deduce that. He implied he holds a belief in a particular “God” and confirmed this by talking about the divinity of Christ a few seconds later.

    Once he uses the word “Logos” he has fully boxed himself in. In the theological sense it has a very specific meaning unique to Christianity as it is used in the Bible. Even if he just used the word in the psychological sense he is implying he has used logic based upon sound evidence to conclude there that the Christian God is real.

     

    @ Simon – that’s why I like him – he analyses things in an interesting way.

    No Simon he does not. At least not in this video. JP was asked “Does God exist?” and then replied by saying that the question “does not work on multiple levels of analysis”.  However he failed to offer any level of analysis or tells us where it fails.

    He then claims there is “sufficient evidence” to warrant to giving his “cognitive assent” (my words) to the question “Does God exist”. He offers none. Because he has none. He is being intellectually dishonest and because of his job he MUST be aware that he is being so. He cannot lecture in psychology without understanding the difference between what is objective and what is subjective. That is why I am calling him out as a charlatan. This is reinforced by his constant use of Woo terminology ala the Deepak Chopra camp. I am expecting to hear him use the word “Quantum” any time soon.

    truth is love” is just another deepity. You won’t find love in the dictionary!

    #9550

    .
    Participant

    @Reg you really missed what he said. Really…Go back and watch it again, seriously. He never said that he hold belief in any particular god. He just never said that.

    I think you have some straw sticking out of those ears Mr. Farmer lol

     

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by  ..
    #9551

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @regthefronkeyfarmer – ““truth is love” is just another deepity.

    – imagine if you went to the doctor, and asked him/her what is wrong with you.  The doc just gives you a vague hand-waving answer, they obviously can’t be bothered to look at you.  So, they don’t know, and they don’t care.  That’s the connection between truth and love.  We need to know the real situation before we can do something constructive about it.

    #9553

    jakelafort
    Participant

    JP is definitely talking bout da christian god.  Immediately refers to god as him. Then speaks about divinity of christ.  Says he believes in hell (but the lying charlatan won’t acknowledge his belief in christian god) and later indicates that a christian concept exists also in buddhist tradition.

    #9554

    jakelafort
    Participant

    I would like to have somebody expert in interpreting body language assess JP in that vid…i dont know jack shit about it but i would be not the least surprised if he gives tells of lying his charlatan ass off.

    #9555

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @jakelafort – “Says he believes in hell

    – he says he believes in “hell on earth” – that one’s living experience can be a living hell.

    He’s talking about many of the concepts that are used in Christianity, but that doesn’t make him a Christian.  I do exactly the same things but in more atheistic language.

    #9562

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Simon, you may be right about JP using hell in the sense you indicate and i may be mistaken about him using the christian concept of hell.  I thought he used hell in that way…idk

    Here is a video…only listened to few minutes but it is more evidence of his mindset.  Early on he says he is a scientist and a deeply religious man and has thought long and hard about how to reconcile science and religion.  He says it has been a preoccupation  for forty years and for twenty of those years it was virtually all he thought about.  JP, it seems to me is a fuckhead who simply wants to suck the nipple of religion even though its nipple produces nothing edible. So he tortures logic to promote the goodness of religion, an idea that is for me anathema.  So for JP there is a scientific truth and a religious truth.  GENUINE religious truth tells you how to act.  His distillation of how one gets to this religious truth would embarrass a mental patient who is suffering with a delusion.  It is pure shit.  And the sad thing is JP is considered an intellectual and a heavy weight by so many people.  It is even more sad that we have another apologist promoting the greatest lie equating religion and morality.  I wish humans would stop intellectualizing the issue. It is not very complicated.  I will resist giving an antitheistic tirade.

    #9563

    jakelafort
    Participant

    The JP video

    #9564

    .
    Participant

    @regthefronkeyfarmer

    Once he uses the word “Logos” he has fully boxed himself in

    No because he didn’t explicitly say that he believes in it. He was actually very careful about that and he’s referring to the symbolism of it. He does that in other lectures/talks/interviews I’ve seen where he utilizes the symbolism of different aspects of our culture to prove the point of the entire story to what it really teaches us or means to us. He’s using the logos as the example of the cycle of human life and development. Not saying that he believes it literally. That’s WHY he says he acts as if he does exist. I take that to mean that perhaps it’s currently the best explanation of what we’ve got and so he makes his decisions in a way that presume it’s true.

    I actually agree with him on many levels. I think he’s brilliant and I don’t care what anyone thinks, lol.

    #9567

    Davis
    Participant

    No because he didn’t explicitly say that he believes in it.

    No. Aboslutely not. Logos is a philosophical term. You don’t “believe” in logos. You use it as part of an argument or as a means of explaining something. He uses the term in a totally tortured and incomprehensible way that, as Reg said…does box him in. Because he uses the term “logos” in a way that supports or approaches an argument for God existing (even if he doesn’t). When you squeeze your arguments through the logic of a divine being…it doesn’t matter if you claim that being exists…you’ve boxed yourself into a discourse where the existence of that being is central to your argument and it either is the case or it is not.

    he utilizes the symbolism of different aspects of our culture to prove the point of the entire story to what it really teaches us or means to us

    That has nothing to do with logos. That is attempting to find connections between an old text and the way humans behave now. That says absolutely nothing about the “logos” of the existence of a divinity or how applicable an old myth is to real life. It certainly doesn’t in any way help us make sense of him “acting as though there is a God”. People relate Greek myths to modern culture and that doesn’t somehow explain why you’d act as though the Greek Gods on Mount Olympus exist and that we came from Chaos. People relate Bhuddist scripture to modern culture and that doesn’t make it reasonable to act as though Bhudda was enlightened into a spiritual plane and that our universe is one in which we reincarnate.

    He’s using the logos as the example of the cycle of human life and development.

    That doesn’t make sense.

    I take that to mean that perhaps it’s currently the best explanation of what we’ve got

    What does that mean? That our best way to know about ourselves is to compare modern culture to an ancient myth and submit ourselves to the cyclic nature of the universe? Really?

    so he makes his decisions in a way that presume it’s true.

    So he assumes to act as though something is true because he thinks that the thing he acts as though it is true is the best we can come up with or pull off?

    I think he’s brilliant

    He is one of the worst charlatans and intellectual frauds I have ever listened to.

    and I don’t care what anyone thinks, lol.

    That’s not true. You clearly care what  this man thinks.

    #9569

    .
    Participant

    @davis

    No. Aboslutely not. Logos is a philosophical term.

    Yes, it is. And? Okay so you don’t “believe IN” it but you can get the idea it’s trying to convey to you about it. Maybe your meaning is slightly different than someone else’s. That’s why he says from the flood gates that typically we enter into these discussions with certain preconceived notions about what exactly it is that we are talking about when we discuss this stuff and it’s never the same definition! That’s WHY he started out by saying, “I don’t like this question,” but he still answered it….

    That has nothing to do with logos.

    You’re still completely missing the point. Get off of the whole “logos” think and look at the entirety of what you say. You’re putting your own assumptions about what you think he thinks into your clouded attempts to listen to what he is ACTUALLY saying.

    He’s using the logos as the example of the cycle of human life and development.

    I take that to mean that perhaps it’s currently the best explanation of what we’ve got

    What does that mean?

    Did you by chance watch also the video linked with Joe Rogan? He basically said that in his attempts to reconcile religion and science, he came to realize that religious teaching has much more to do with helping us understand how to act in society. And let me tell you – as a mother who is raising a son who has all of the hallmarks of psychopathy, there’s some real wisdom in that. There are things I’ve learned from him that are ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON and I wish I had known years ago. We cannot have a functional society without at least some sort of teaching like that. ESPECIALLY for people who ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO real conscious. It’s nothing I can fix. It’s not at all just about being raised the way he was raised. On some level it’s genetic and it’s not stoppable. Certain society norms and practices really do help keep someone like that in line.

    I think he’s brilliant

    He is one of the worst charlatans and intellectual frauds I have ever listened to.

    Why? Can you be more specific about what exactly he says that’s so wrong? I don’t understand.

    and I don’t care what anyone thinks, lol.

    That’s not true. You clearly care what  this man thinks.

     

    That’s somewhat of a slight and I’m ignoring it.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 57 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.