Prophetic Failures

So when a person says to me "There is no God" it makes me think that there is something wrong with that person. Kinda in the same way some people can not even feel love from their own mother. But there was a person who used to murder as many Christians as he could, who was changed. Jesus said he came for the people who were sick. It's not a contest of who is a better person or which one is smarter.

Led Zeppelin said:

I am just telling you about my own experiences. I guess I can probably speak with authority on this matter because I have actively been trying to lead people to Christ for 25 years. I think it is likely that people lie to me and try to make it seem like seem like we worship the same God, even if they know we do not, because they want to make their own religion more acceptable to me. Maybe in hopes that I will convert. I dont know.

Click to expand...

Not wishing to sound rude, but you just said that Hindu friends told you that the Dala Lama is Jesus (that's barely comprehensible) - and that's following you saying that atheists say they don't believe in God because "science has it all figured out", so please don't expect me to take your rendition of what other people say or do as fact. I'm not saying you're intentionally prevaricating, but these sound more like caricatures than real conversations to me.

Incidentally, a Hindu is also not going to be interested in trying to make their religion acceptable to you because Hinduism - unlike Christianity - is not a proselytizing religion: it's not looking for converts.

Led Zeppelin said:

Yes. Love is not physical. It has no physical properties. There is no test you can give which will prove whether or not I love my wife, in spite of what you say about hormone glads and memory. Because love is not physical.

Click to expand...

So as I said, you can't actually point to love absent any physical component. That's my point exactly.

Of course, I know it's not possible to.

Love is a sensation experienced by a person, a physical being. That love is dependent on their bio-chemistry. They do not experience love while asleep or unconscious, for example, because that sensation is wholly dependent on their physical brain and body operating. Absent physical bodies and physical brains, you cannot isolate this 'love' because it is not a 'thing' but a sensation experienced by a physical being with a physical body and a physical brain. Once the physical body and physical brain ceases to function, the 'love' doesn't float around absent the physical bits.

You're mistakenly seeing the product of a brain's function as a thing. Demystified, love is a behavior of the human (and probably other mammals') brain.

Led Zeppelin said:

So when a person says to me "There is no God" it makes me think that there is something wrong with that person.

Click to expand...

Do you think that the opposite would be justified then? If I thought that there was something wrong with every person who says 'there is a god'?

Led Zeppelin said:

Kinda in the same way some people can not even feel love from their own mother.

Click to expand...

Non-sequitur: please explain what this logically has to do with the previous sentence.

Led Zeppelin said:

But there was a person who used to murder as many Christians as he could, who was changed. Jesus said he came for the people who were sick. It's not a contest of who is a better person or which one is smarter.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand any of this, not in isolation, nor in context. I understand all the words, but there's no resulting meaning from the sentences you wrote.

Led Zeppelin said:

Yes. Love is not physical. It has no physical properties. There is no test you can give which will prove whether or not I love my wife, in spite of what you say about hormone glads and memory. Because love is not physical.

Click to expand...

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, arse-gravy.

Not only is love entirely physical, it is, from a biochemical perspective, indistinguishable from the effects of consuming copious amounts of chocolate.

As for the test, I'm afraid you're out of touch. Perhaps your pastor isn't the best place to be getting your scientific information. In fact, these days such a test is trivial to conduct. The equipment necessary to conduct such an experiment is available in any good-sized modern hospital, and uses magnetic resonance to scan your brain in real time and map emotional reactions to brain activity. Our map of what goes on where in the human brain is really quite impressive, and considerably more impressive than factually incorrect assertions regarding science you appear not even to be aware of.

Led Zeppelin said:

Well knowing how science works is mostly only useful when you want to measure something or require a technical understanding of matter and energy.

Click to expand...

Oh, man. This is heart-breaking, not least because it's the kind of thing that could only ever be uttered by somebody fulfilling Darwin's famous dictum about confidence in spectacular fashion. Somebody, in other words, who doesn't know how science works.

Led Zeppelin said:

I think Atheists often try to present science as something which either is or should be a sort of magical guiding force in all our lives.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a capital A atheist, but I think you're engaging in a bit of well-poisoning there.

In any event, I'm less interested in how other atheists present science, and more interested in how you present it. By all means, if you can find an atheist who's willing to defend your assertion here, wheel them on out and I'll be happy to correct them as well.

Led Zeppelin said:

The scientific method was something we created to help us determine very specific pieces of reality. It is not a be-all-end-all that can provide us an answer for everything.

Click to expand...

And this is just wrong.

The scientific method is nothing more nor less than the application of very specific principles of straightforward logic to truth claims. The only distinction in science is that there's a requirement to apply that logic to a class of truth-claim, namely those that have observational consequences.

The logic of the scientific method is considerably more useful broadly, and allows us to assess truth-claims of all stripe. The very real value of learning how science works outside the practice of science is that it furnishes you with these very simple principles of logic and embeds modes of thinking that provide armour against conmen and priests (a distinction without a difference if ever there was one).

If you're interested, I've written quite extensively about the scientific method, and in particular the divergence between the cookie-cutter version of scientific logic we learn in school and how logic actually operates on the functional side of a laboratory door. You'd be surprised at how different they are, and how useful the scientific version of epistemology is outside science.

The scientific method is the best and only reliable method for investigating phenomena. The logic underpinning the scientific method is the best and only reliable method for investigating all truth-claims.

Led Zeppelin said:

So when a person says to me "There is no God" it makes me think that there is something wrong with that person.

Click to expand...

Not going to get overly involved here because there's already discussion going on, but this sentence is troubling. Why would there be something "wrong" with a person who says there is no God? What exactly do you mean by this? Is it your position that the existence of a God is just so obvious you're baffled as to why anyone would question it?

Sparhafoc said:

Not wishing to sound rude, but you just said that Hindu friends told you that the Dala Lama is Jesus (that's barely comprehensible) - and that's following you saying that atheists say they don't believe in God because "science has it all figured out", so please don't expect me to take your rendition of what other people say or do as fact. I'm not saying you're intentionally prevaricating, but these sound more like caricatures than real conversations to me.

Incidentally, a Hindu is also not going to be interested in trying to make their religion acceptable to you because Hinduism - unlike Christianity - is not a proselytizing religion: it's not looking for converts.

Click to expand...

I think sometimes it is ok to be rude if you truely think you have a valid point. I probably do portray many Atheists in the wrong way sometimes. All I can do is try to not make the same mistakes over and over again.

My experience that Hindu's are often subtle. They have ways of letting you know that they want you to tell them that the Dali Lama is God. But Hindu's are people, just like you and me are and will say anything. I am not lying to you.

Sparhafoc said:

So as I said, you can't actually point to love absent any physical component. That's my point exactly.

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure if this is really even a fair question, but yes I can do that. God's ability to love exists independent of his physical creation. The reason why things can exist in the physical realm without being physical is because God made us to be able to experience things that exist in apart from his physical creation. Love is not a physical thing. It is not a value of anything physical and it has no physical characteristics.

Led Zeppelin said:

I think sometimes it is ok to be rude if you truely think you have a valid point. I probably do portray many Atheists in the wrong way sometimes. All I can do is try to not make the same mistakes over and over again.

Click to expand...

That's something we can agree on, and I can also happily acknowledge and admit to (albeit not specifically in the theism/atheism divide)

Led Zeppelin said:

My experience that Hindu's are often subtle. They have ways of letting you know that they want you to tell them that the Dali Lama is God. But Hindu's are people, just like you and me are and will say anything. I am not lying to you.

Click to expand...

Sorry LZ, but I just can't get a purchase on this. It just doesn't appear to have any relationship to a real world that I can recognize.

Feel free to ignore the following conversation if you want - I acknowledge that some people find my innate skepticism tedious - and reply only if it's of interest to you...

But...

Why are Hindus talking about the Dali Lama?

Hindus no more believe in the Dali Lama than they do in Jesus.

The Dali Lama is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people and more generally of adherents to Tibetan Buddhism - something like the Pope of 1 of the 2 main extant branches of Buddhism.

The current Dali Lama, Lhamo Thondup by birth name, was born in Tibet, is ethnically Tibetan, and the nation of Tibet has basically zero Hindus - there are far more Christians in Tibet than there are Hindus (remember the non-proselytizing thing?)

I live in the most populous Buddhist nation on Earth, and yet even though they're Buddhist, they've got nothing to say about the Dali Lama because he's not in the same religious tradition as their beliefs.

The majority of India's citizens are Hindu (80% Hindu, 15% Muslim). In fact, except for Indian diaspora, the extent of Hinduism is pretty much geographically restricted to the borders of India. (There are also far more Christians in India than there are Buddhists (again the proselytizing thing.))

So why are Hindus, in a discussion comparing their religion (Hinduism) to yours (Christianity), talking about the leader of another religion (Buddhism)? Why aren't they talking to you about the plethora of Indian Hindu gods? Why wouldn't they mention Bhrama the Creator, for example, to give you a potential parallel in their own religion? Or why not talk about Krishna - a saviour of humanity type god that would parallel more naturally with modern renditions of Jesus? Why are these Hindus you've talked to talking about Buddhism rather than Hinduism?

And if even then, you say that all of this definitely happened multiple times, then I still don't get what this is all meant to exemplify. What are these alleged statements from Hindus meant to establish? It's a nonsense burger.

Sparhafoc said:

Do you think that the opposite would be justified then? If I thought that there was something wrong with every person who says 'there is a god'?




Non-sequitur: please explain what this logically has to do with the previous sentence.




I'm afraid I don't understand any of this, not in isolation, nor in context. I understand all the words, but there's no resulting meaning from the sentences you wrote.

Click to expand...

Well I think that some people feel the opposite is true but I don't believe it would be justified. I am just pointing out that when a person is unable to feel love from another human being, then we say that there is something wrong with that person. In that same line of thought I am also suggesting that there is also something with a person who is not able to feel any love or empathy with God.

Led Zeppelin said:

My experience that Hindu's are often subtle. They have ways of letting you know that they want you to tell them that the Dali Lama is God. But Hindu's are people, just like you and me are and will say anything. I am not lying to you.

Click to expand...

Umm a minor quibble, but the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist, not Hindu. And I don't think Hindu's consider him a god.

Led Zeppelin said:

I'm not even sure if this is really even a fair question,

Click to expand...

Well, of course it isn't - that's because you've taken a position that is untenable if you rely on typical standards of establishing the existence of something. I can show you that the 'love' quantity is dependent on the brain for its existence, therefore - given the brain is physical - you need to actually show that the specific 'love' quantity isolated and measured continues to exist independently of the operation of that brain.

You can't.

If you could, then I would believe you. I'm not ideologically predisposed to believe in something - I just believe whatever is the most justified and credible account humanity can manage.

As best I can understand of the neuroscience, of human physiology, love involves brain activity and hormone secretions. If hormone secretions are impaired or imbalanced, or certain parts of the brain are damaged, it's quite plausible that individual may never experience any form of that quantity 'love'.

Led Zeppelin said:

but yes I can do that. God's ability to love exists independent of his physical creation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's awful mate. Sorry, but that's genuinely an embarrasing thing to write.

You're just begging the question.

What's this God thing? Oh it's another immaterial thing you declare exists despite there being no good reason to lend it credence. How does one not apparent thing justify the existence of another not apparent thing?

And don't proselytize at me TNTD, or I will get rude with you. Not a warning, not a threat, a promise. Empty platitudes like the above deserve a rap on the knuckles from a wooden ruler of yesteryear.

Led Zeppelin said:

The reason why things can exist in the physical realm without being physical is because God made us to be able to experience things that exist in apart from his physical creation. Love is not a physical thing. It is not a value of anything physical and it has no physical characteristics.

Click to expand...

Embarrassingly absent any sense of either comprehension or justification.

Led Zeppelin said:

Well I think that some people feel the opposite is true but I don't believe it would be justified. I am just pointing out that when a person is unable to feel love from another human being, then we say that there is something wrong with that person. In that same line of thought I am also suggesting that there is also something with a person who is not able to feel any love or empathy with God.

Click to expand...

Human =/= god

Next poor argument?


Now if god is fictional, then perhaps instead we would be justified in considering people deranged who declare that they feel love from a fictional character. Daddy issues, perhaps? I dunno, but I have no doubt I could act just as bigoted back if you wanted to see who can pee higher?

hackenslash said:

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, arse-gravy.

Not only is love entirely physical, it is, from a biochemical perspective, indistinguishable from the effects of consuming copious amounts of chocolate.

As for the test, I'm afraid you're out of touch. Perhaps your pastor isn't the best place to be getting your scientific information. In fact, these days such a test is trivial to conduct. The equipment necessary to conduct such an experiment is available in any good-sized modern hospital, and uses magnetic resonance to scan your brain in real time and map emotional reactions to brain activity. Our map of what goes on where in the human brain is really quite impressive, and considerably more impressive than factually incorrect assertions regarding science you appear not even to be aware of.

Click to expand...

Oh man. Hackenslash, you are a smart guy and have been on this forum a long time, trying to help people understand things. But your post only goes to show that whatever physical metric you are using to show that love product of bio-chemistry is completely invalid.

The consumption of chocolate has not been a motivating factor through out our human history. A person does not risk his life to save another person because he ate a lot of chocolate. But even though you are not a Christian, Hackenslash, you might even give your own life up in an instant to prevent harm to being done to someone that you love. That is how powerful love is.

Sparhafoc said:

Well, of course it isn't - that's because you've taken a position that is untenable if you rely on typical standards of establishing the existence of something. I can show you that the 'love' quantity is dependent on the brain for its existence, therefore - given the brain is physical

Click to expand...

No. The brain is physical but love is not. So you might be able produce a reaction in the brain with say..the ingestion of certain chemicals found in chocolate, but this is not love. Love is not physical.

We might for instance, lose our ability to speak well when passionately expressing our love to someone with words. But our ability to speak is not a measurement of love.

Sparhafoc said:

Now if god is fictional, then perhaps instead we would be justified in considering people deranged who declare that they feel love from a fictional character. Daddy issues, perhaps? I dunno, but I have no doubt I could act just as bigoted back if you wanted to see who can pee higher?

Click to expand...

Right. I am just pointing out that when a person is not able to experience love from someone then we call that an illness. Because even though that love exists and is part of reality, that person is unable to experience it.

I am not trying to say that you, Sparhafoc or anyone is doomed to never being able to know if God loves you, just because because you do not know it now, or something like that. I think there are a lot of stupid Christians that think this but it is not true.

I would rather never say anything again than to stay anything which could make you think what these stupid Christians say is true.

Calvinists are fucking idiots.

Greetings,

@Led Zeppelin, I suggest you read about oxytocin.

Kindest regards,

James