The Great Debate, PTB vs A. Fox Starts Here

[andyfox]

"The" $1000?

David only offered $200. He then graciously increased it to $500. Now we're talking about "the" $1,000? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

"When I use the term 'God' I use it as a convenience because that's the term everybody else is using."

But they're using it, if I read you correctly, in a different way than you do. They're generally talking about (if I may paraphrase/steal from that renowned theologist, George Carlin), the big, all-knowing, all-powerful invisible man in the sky who has a list of ten rules that must be followed else he will curse you to eternal damnation in hell. But he loves you. [And he always seems to need money.]

I haven't really taken part too much in these religion debates because they don't interest me. But looking at a group of your posts as suggested by our host, I note that you kind of dance around things when asked point-blank questions. Davidandy's question you are addressing here is an example. You've given a dissertation on your dissatisfaction with the word "entity." Nothing wrong with that and I know David often sets up his yes or no questions so that a simply yes or no doesn't really tell the story. Just an observation.

While, as I indicated before, I'm not well-informed on religion, my guess would be that most people's idea of God is that he is not subject to the same natural laws that you and I are. After all, he created heaven and earth in a few days and, while he needed a day of rest, it was a good week's work. I would guess that most Christians believe that Jesus was indeed the son of God, immaculately conceived, who rose Lazarus from the dead and who himself was resurrected; and that most Jews believe that Moses spoke to God and received those ten rules that Carlin jokes about directly from Him.

Nobody can say whether a person's "inner experiences" are real or not. I know a person who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. What happened next is a long story but suffice to say he is now out and has become reborn and is a minister. I have no doubt that he experienced an inner transformation of some kind and he is a better person for it. That's great. Where problems come in is when people insist that others follow their lead.

See I don't necessarily agree with David that illogical thinking in one regard means that there must be more illogic alongside it in the brain of the illogical thinker. I've known very smart and successful business people who couldn't play poker worth a lick. Our president has said that he considers advice from Jesus Christ more important for his presidency than advice from his own father, who had the experience of being president. (OK, there's the exception that proves the rule. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

But I also don't think that logical thinking in one area, usually the area of expertise of the thinker, necessarily translates to logical thinking in all areas. There is often more to a situation than just knowing that 2+2=4. And sometimes the fact that 2+2=4 is irrelevant to the situation.

So I imagine I don't fear or despise or resent or denigrate an inner, spiritual experience or thinking or feeling as much as David does. I'm talking here about thoughts that would qualify in David's mind as fuzzy thinking. (For example, I parked in space 232 when I played poker last week, and I won; I'll park in the same spot tonight for luck.) It is not illogical for my friend to see that his life is now better than it was when he was in prison and that finding "god" has helped him. Even if it's the big, invisible man in the sky (which it happens to be). And I can still play a mean game of hold 'em even if I think I should park where I parked last week. For luck.

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
" Given your apparant theories, where's the flaw in taking it one step further and saying that the bible was simply primitive man's way of making sense of the myriad of apparantly astounding things they saw."

The flaw is in the word "simply". That a God involved in natural phenomenon came from a prescience view of reality seems clear. But the bible is also concerned with how we live, how we treat each other, and our inner lives. The concepts of God, expressed in the bible, that came out of these concerns is another matter.


DS --
"You have already conceded that the God and Jesus of the bible was filtered through ancients man's prejuudices. So why couldn't those prejudices have caused them to make them up out of whole cloth."

I think your statement carries the hidden assumption that I insist on the existence of some object called God. As I've indicated in my previous responses, that's not how I look at it at all. What I see in the bible is historical evidence of some kind of experience those people were having. They described that experience using "god" language and gave explanations that depended on both the experience and their conceptual framework for reality - including their prejudices and many other faults. However, despite their inadequacies I think the experiences were real and they speak to us today.

DS --
"I'm not suggesting you give up the idea of God completely. Maybe he caused the Big Bang. But you seem to believe in a lot more than that. Why? "

I think that as great as science is in grounding us in a non superstitious perspective for reality it only scratches the surface in telling us what's really going on. I think that poetry, music, art, theatre, films, comedy, philosophy, religions, literature, etc provide us with just as important understandings of reality. Many people have personal experience with something they call God. I think that similiarly contributes to our understanding of reality.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Andy Fox --
"The" $1000?

David only offered $200. He then graciously increased it to $500. Now we're talking about "the" $1,000? "

I thought his $500 was generous. But since he talked about how I must be licking my chops for my end of it, I figured why shouldn't he give me the same consideration he gave you and send another $500. I'm afraid I would be remiss in my negotiating duties if I were to ask any less.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

RJT --
"The very least, if David S. would add some narration to the discussion as it proceeds. You know, kinda like Mike Sexton (oh, I better watch myself)."

Do you think maybe we could get Phil Helmuth instead?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

Pair The Board,

When I said you were licking your chops, I meant if Andy was so silly to not have me send the money to him first, whence he could have a deduction, you would be licking your chops about how easy it would be to beat such a silly person in a debate. It was a joke. It had nothing to do with licking your chops about getting money off me. I will send $100 to you personally or to any place you designate. If you designate a place that interests me, I might send more but that is totally my business and off the subject.(Andy's check is already in the mail.)

As to my original post that got things started, I really did mean for it only to be a jumping off point. I really did think that it probably was similar to what Andy would ask (or that chrisnice did ask). If you guys want to debate different points than the one I suggested, that is fine with me. I am not part of this debate and will not even moderate. I proposed the debate because you two have aseemingly similar outlook on life yet have come to this outlook with great dissimilarities about religious type ideas. I have nothing else to say.

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
"When I said you were licking your chops, I meant if Andy was so silly to not have me send the money to him first, whence he could have a deduction, you would be licking your chops about how easy it would be to beat such a silly person in a debate. It was a joke. It had nothing to do with licking your chops about getting money off me. I will send $100 to you personally or to any place you designate. If you designate a place that interests me, I might send more but that is totally my business and off the subject.(Andy's check is already in the mail.)"

Cedars-Sinai sounds fine to me. Or if you have a favorite that would be fine too. I think you're being very generous and will be happy with whatever amount you decide on.

Thanks,

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

I will send $500 to the Cancer Researh Dept of the Hackensack NJ Medical Center. Better not to have all your eggs in one basket. They have been performing miracles, I mean doing great deeds, with my father for twelve years and may already be the best in the world in their field. I will tell them it came from Pair the Board.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I will send $500 to the Cancer Researh Dept of the Hackensack NJ Medical Center. Better not to have all your eggs in one basket. They have been performing miracles, I mean doing great deeds, with my father for twelve years and may already be the best in the world in their field. I will tell them it came from Pair the Board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks very much David. That sounds great.

DS --
"I will tell them it came from Pair the Board. "

That should produce some spiritual experiences.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

andyfox --
"Nobody can say whether a person's "inner experiences" are real or not. I know a person who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. What happened next is a long story but suffice to say he is now out and has become reborn and is a minister. I have no doubt that he experienced an inner transformation of some kind and he is a better person for it. That's great. Where problems come in is when people insist that others follow their lead."

I agree. Especially when that insistence is supported by tactics of psychological coercion such as threats, curses, and bribes. I think George Carlin nails it pretty good. imo, When someone teaches an innocent child that she is a depraved sinner who god will send to hell to be tormented for all time unless she conforms to what she's being told, that person is guilty of child abuse. When such a person approaches me on the street or comes to my door to tell me the same thing that person is guilty of PairTheBoard abuse.

If someone wants to convince me they have a message of love, then show me the love.

David Sklansky --
" I proposed the debate because you two have aseemingly similar outlook on life yet have come to this outlook with great dissimilarities about religious type ideas. I have nothing else to say. "

Andy, what do you suppose David means when he opines that we have simiiar outlooks on life?

PairTheBoard

[andyfox]

"Andy, what do you suppose David means when he opines that we have simiiar outlooks on life?"

That we're silly romantics and let silly romanticism get in the way of logical thinking.