JackC

Things I could not be arsed to carry around in my pocket for the sake of it include: fire extinguishers socket sets fishing rods trolley jacks printers golf clubs steam irons and guns Luckily, like the vast majority of the population, I don't absolutely need to press my shirt, put out house fires or waste perps without warning at any given moment on a daily basis.

If it's the girl I'm thinking of, then hell yes.

There is a problem with unrestricted democracy and it can be difficult to fix when it goes wrong. Take Palestine for example, they used their vote to elect Hamas which lead to war and some pretty awkward international relations. Then there's that well known (initially democratically elected) German leader who was responsible for the genocide of 6 million jews. The problem is that what you voted for might not be what you actually want. I wouldn't want to stiffle someones ability to vote by restricting the ballot. But that makes it doubly important to get people to think rationally about their choices. You can't stop people from voting any way they choose but I think it's a good idea to try to dissuade them from simply acting on gut reaction, populist momentum or blind faith. The real danger comes when people become sufficiently motivated to ignore any evidence or rational argument against their position. And that is a situation that religion excels at.

Yeah, I've seen the effects up close way too many times. Funerals are no fun.

Only after you fit nitrous

That's somewhat fitting. Those TL's have a reputation as baby eating monsters. Maybe it has the devil in it?

Yes, I am now the proud owner of a Suzuki TL1000. 125bhp, 98ftlb of torque, 165mph and a penchant for standing upright. What could possibly go wrong. I love it.

The links I posted do contain the definition I would use, if you'd bothered to read them. But just to reiterate, my definition of of the word reality can be found here, here or in any good dictionary. I use the standard definition that should be used by all English speaking people who wish to communicate with each other. Why would I define the word any differently from the usual meaning? This is about as clear as I can possibly make it. I'm sorry you took this personally but what am I supposed to think? The only reason I can think of that you asked "what is reality?" is either you really don't know or you want to send me off chasing my tail. If you meant something else, it's best if you just say it because I cannot read your mind.

You can if you really want to. Quite why you'd want to though, I don't know.

What does it matter? It's not like you base your life on them.

Don't sweat it Steve. I spotted it because you generally write better than that.

Your mind tricks wont work on me Jedi. Fetch me a dictionary! Edit: Actually, scrap that. This is just a cut and paste job from here. Maybe you could translate it for me instead of just regurgitating unreferenced material (aka plagiarism).

Apart from a vague comparison to psychology, you haven't posted the rules theology should come under. How do you measure your performance in the field of theology?

True, but I thought that was way too technical for the purpose so I changed it. The Wiki article is just as good though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

I did define it. I posted a link which you obviously didn't read so here it is again. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Areality&btnG=Google&meta= I'd make it bigger and blinking with buzzers and whistles so the reality challenged can't miss it but the forum wont let me. Alternatively, look in a dictionary, it's what they are for.

I'd define it the same way most normal people would. Why wouldn't I? I still can't believe you needed to ask.

Are you serious? This must be some form of theological McCarthyism designed to make atheists brains implode. But just in case you really aren't trying to make me burst a blood vessel and actually don't have a grasp on what reality is, try reading this. Seriously, is this a joke?

It fits with reality. Empiricism, rationality and a willingness to change your views when the evidence dictates might not give you everything all at once, but it wins out over anything else I've ever tried. Oops, sorry.

Oh give me time, I can fling poo with the best of them. That was a bit of a joke. I mostly enjoy the discussion and all I ever want to acheive is to get people to think outside the box once in a while. Actually, that's not the whole truth. Mostly I get this irresistable compulsion to bash people over the head with rationality and logic until I realise that no matter what I do, the world will still be just as dumb in the morning. Like that Whack-a-mole game. It is a bit "new age" for most conservative congregations I guess. It seems to me that a lot of the church "structure" isn't necessary and would just get in the way anyway. That is, if the underlying principles had any merit whatsoever. Maybe you're right but before I could even contemplate the best way of having a dialogue with God, I'd have to convince myself that I wasn't just having a monologue with my own head.

Dude, that's just weird. I'm not having "relations" with my guitar for anyone. Although she is pretty That is probably possible, I mean you can enter into a relationship with god just like you can enter into a relationship with Harry Potter or your horse if you so desire. But that's not what you said earlier. You said "the being of a subject is a unity which cannot be analyzed as an object". There is also no reason why you can't flip between subject and object and back again. Even so, that doesn't make god any more special (or real) than any other obsession. But to be honest I'm a little out of my depth and the only way this would really make sense to me is if I'd spent the day chewing pyote. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Phillip K. Dick You've asked me stuff like this before and I get the impression that you are having a hard time grasping the idea that atheists really don't believe in god. You perhaps think that somewhere deep down they really know that he exists and they're just in a state of denial? Sorry but this atheist is pretty damn sure that god is a non-entity, a mental fabrication, a trick of the mind, a delusional episode, a fake, a fraud, a fictional character, a complete and utter nothing. So why would it concern me if I never had a relationship with him? I think that's sort of why we are both here. You are perplexed by the weirdo atheists who are so dumb they can't see the blindingly obvious and I'm bamboozled by the zany theists who live in happy land with the fairys. I'm sure it's not a healthy situation.

Well at least I got you thinking which was my main objective so I'm happy with that. Buber has a point but he misses a big one. An example: if I try to learn to play the guitar, I can pick up a guitar and start stumming (subject). Or I can read about music theory, playing technique, other guitarist etc (object). Or I can do both which is where the best learning is to be found. If I wanted to analyse Oscar Wilde for instance, I could treat him as a subject (whatever Buber means by that) and talk to the guy, but that doesn't get me very far on account of him being dead. Or I can treat him as an object (?) and work with his writings and such like which will get me a whole lot futher. Just because Buber thinks subjects and objects can't be mixed up, doesn't mean they can't or that you wont learn anything by trying. If God is not an object of experience or thought and is not something that can be examined, then theology is a big fat non-subject. Biblical interpretation is a waste of time because you're turning God into an object and that's a no no. I think you've shot yourself in the foot with this argument. Besides, I dispute the idea that God has a divine nature to be robbed of. After all, if he is who he says he is I can't rob him of anything. This IMHO is the special pleading that I was talking of earlier. The notion of the divine is put there just so people don't question it, like a big mental road block. "Gods divine nature cannot be questioned or challenged". Well Why not? I'm challenging it right now and God isn't looking too healthy. God's power lies in the unwillingness of people to question him. Take that away and God quickly dissolves to nothing.

If that is the only similarity you can think of then theology is similar to any number of subject that have differing theories. Physics, Cooking, medieval golf course management... But even your similarity is bogus. Psychologists don't regards any theory other than their pet one as invalid. They may prefer one theory over another and practice accordingly, but they don't say "Freud is the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to psychology except through Sigmund". But the question still remains, how do you measure your improvement in the field of theology?

I had to think on this one a bit. While I believe theology is a study that is unique in many ways it is similar to pyschology I thought we'd already decided that theology was different from psychology because psychology is held to scientific standards (such as they are) whereas theology isn't? The basis of pshycology isn't revealed in the pages of one 2000 year old book, it's based on what we can deduce from empirical observations. Any theory that a psychologist comes up with is subject to the scrutiny of their peers and can be shot down if it fails the test. For theology to be similar to psychology you would need to say Freud is the untouchable, unquestionable father of psychology and his original works are inerrant in all respects, they my be reinterpreted but never rewritten and all phycological knowledge flows from them. The bottom line is that theology isn't held to any rational standards at all. There is no theological equivalent to peer review, double blind, six sigma, golf handicap, michelin star ratings or any other measure of performance. All other subjects, all of them, have some method for self improvement or performance measurement except theology. There is no way to tell if your theology is correct in any way shape or form. You can't even tell if your theology is improving. Quite obviously, theology gets a special pass and I cannot for the life of me fathom out why it deserves one. Can you?

To illustrate a point maybe? You shouldn't advertise what you don't have. Why is there smoke coming out of my irony-o-meter?

Not relaxed per say, just different. The standards for practicng medicine are not relaxed when compared to building a bridge, just different. So what standards is religion held to? Is there any subject you can think of that is held to a similar standard?