we've been saying it...but look here, a message from the Rebbe Lubavitcher Schneerson. Really great guy, chassidic, long beard and hat and everything "religionist"
but he said this to a "nonbeliever" who (take note) BOTHERED to write to him...it's like yes, rather typical of self-proclaimed atheists, who BOTHER to be an atheist.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c … Belief.htm
"I do not accept your assertion that you do not believe.
For if you truly had no concept of a Supernal Being Who created the world with purpose, then what is all this outrage of yours against the injustice of life?
The substance of the universe is not moral, nor are plants and animals. Why should it surprise you that whoever is bigger and more powerful swallows his fellow alive?
It is only due to an inner conviction in our hearts, shared by every human being, that there is a Judge, that there is right and there is wrong. And so, when we see a wrong, we demand an explanation: Why is this not the way it is supposed to be?
That itself is belief in G‑d."
Knock yourself out!
What injustice of life? Life cannot be an injustice.
This only proves HE(the person you mentioned) has no clue about morals.
It's not a surprise because, usually "survival of the fittest" applies. Only ignorance leads the way for those who do take that action.
Actually, being a judge(which would be judging other people's actions) and right/wrong, are social constructs based on the survival of the human species.
It's been put in place by others a long time and continues to be in place, in this day and age. It actually doesn't have to be, providing....(answer to this is too long for a forum post, but boils down to five words) self responsibility and self awareness.
I don't see the connection, but I am sure you'll explain it to me.
No clue about morals...only you could step off the Matterhorn and end up at the beach at Malibu. I don't think you could have made less sense if you had been trying to make less. Survival of the fittest. Law of the jungle. Who are you...Tarzan? You should realize that survival of the Smartest doesn't necessarily mean "fittest", and how do you imagine yourself with that impenetrable blindness that you so obviously suffer from. You speak of love, yet you are so superficial, and can't even make consistant statements on your "favorite" subject, even though we all know that your favorite subject is other people's riduculous beliefs, which only shows you have not a single tolerant bone in your body. Disrespect of others proves you to be be a prejudiced bigot.
yes, yes...the usual. that is from the writer of a classic chassidic treatise, he is like the pope of the Jews or if they had saints, this would be one big one, like francis of assisi or something. he is very philosophical in his approach. but then you would prefer to attack the clothes, than the wearer.
it is very funny how an argument is plain, in psychological terms and people weedle their way around it like it did not show its face.
Indeed, it is a belief in Theos, else they would not bother. They would simple ignore it completely as often hailing as myth. Yet, the underlying pulse and compulsion to disbelieve-believe is what keeps them returning to the same point again and again. The nature of these actions is seen in religious practices. Ergo, they have not altogether abandoned the practices they despise/dispute thoroughly. A thoroughness disregards ALL elements of a thing, not selective areas. They have turned to managing and by some extremes controlling these elements.
Exemplify this point as addition. an addict continues to go to AA or NA, having broke free of the drug itself, but the effects continue, else they would walk near a pub or see the substance and pay it absolutely no attention -as if it never existed.
The stuff they once enjoyed now gives cause for disgust. It still does not change the individual, only the vantage point represented.
They still believe or require a fixation with belief, to justify that new found freedom, still neglecting one important key: they still are addicted to the sensations/side effects of that drug.
"Atheists do in fact claim supernatural knowledge; an astute hierarchy of verba sequentur. Self appointed guardians of knowledge, above others, is one of the roots of atheism (also Free Masonry). A superiority based on some empirical knowledge or result of a set of systematic practices (rituals) leading to an assumed god-like status, in fact. Atheism, therefore believes beyond simple semiotics or textually based disambiguation. This makes atheism a far more dangerous branch of theology than the others, as there is no restraint set in place to limit, even subdue the veracity of compulsion...of madness...
~j charles s | The Ism : prologue
So - anyone who does not believe the garbage is a believer? LOLOL
Does that mean g-d dunnit?
No wonder you cause so many wars
what is it to you to worry about dis-belief. The book you follow states it is your responsibility for your own salvation, not for others. If the story is right, then God will judge this- not you
stick to your personal relationship with God, that you alone are suposed to be refining.
as I understand this, as I read the Book more and more to try to understand it, it is belief from the heart.
You suposidly refine and simplfy yourself, become humble as you approach God. That is the only way He, God will know you.
you preach a moot point.
You are not God and no authorization is or was given for any one to step in for him, to save or judge anything or any one what so ever.
you keep falling back on deeds, but it clearly states it is belief that makes it possible.
This makes a lot of sense. I've always wondered about the radical atheists, that seem so mad about the whole thing. It doesn't make sense to say you don't believe in God and then spend so much time ranting about the subject. If you don't believe or you aren't interested in finding out more on the subject, why bother?
Reading, but not comprehending the posts here? You must be joking.
The tired old long dead moral argument for the existence of God? Really? The one that's been dead for centuries ever since the Euthyphro dilemma.
The reason we feel "conviction" is because we're a social animal, we evolved to survive in groups. Anyone who's studied animals and evolution even at a glance knows that human beings are not the only species with emotions and a form of morality. Indeed altruism and group dynamics in social species, along with empathy, form a basis for morality that is solely independent of a God concept. You wouldn't suppose that an animal might give its life for another in the group has some absurd notion of eternal reward or God in mind. If other animals can behave in surprisingly moral ways without a god concept than so can we.
Not only can morality exist without a God but a malleable non-absolute morality (which is what humans possess) is far BETTER than any divinely commanded morality passed down from absolute authority. Indeed one need look no farther than the Old Testament to see this. Slavery is openly condoned by Yahweh and yet our society eventually realized the damage it was doing to fellow human beings as far more important than what some ancient book said. So our morality improved while "God's" remained in the bronze ages.
That is precisely why our morality is better than any given by a God, it can improve. There need be no mystical reason for guilt and supposing one doesn't logically lead one to the God conclusion. If for the sake of argument I allow these moral absolutes to exist how does one then leap to the conclusion that they are dependent upon some God character rather than them just existing in much the same way Platonic forms would hypothetically exist. Moral absolutes might just as well be something natural as supernatural and that's presupposing they exist, no one has shown that they truly DO exist.
Well is it a discussion on the belief in G-d, or a discussion on why people WHO DO NOT BELIEVE bother with the belief at all. See, you can howl there is no god, no god, no god...but have you ever asked why you do this? Why spend your caloric resources thinking up refutations and typing it up and so. why is the nonexistent important to you?
People with beards can still be idiots when speaking about stuff they have little experience, and no understanding, of.
But that same analogy applies to those who assume they have this 'experience', let alone a minute 'understanding' of this 'stuff', you mentioned.
Just wondering, what exactly is that 'stuff' you are referring to, Skinner?
I am referring to the fact that as a person who doesn't believe I have a direct experience of the fact that I do not believe. He can say I am a believer, an alien or an aardvark--but it is all equally ignorant. The fact that he does not believe in me does not change who I am or cause me to cease to exist.
It's a subjective belief. I observe myself not believing it. Are you seriously suggesting someone else know what I believe better than I do. I am literally the only person with direct knowledge of the phenomenon as it applies to me.
I am not disputing your experience or the applied knowledge of yourself gained to bring about that phenomenon. I am merely asking you to provide the set of applications used to come to the point of disbelief, apart from the use of belief itself. One can guess a portion was thought, so what thoughts were they and how did you cipher them. What other tools were used apart from thought, etc.
That seems extremely tangential to my point that a dude who says other people can't be non-believers (because he has never experienced it himself and doesn't understand how that could be) is an idiot.
missed the point, my dear. he is saying that disbelief is born from a pre-existing belief...that's all he said.
And he is wrong. I am a life long atheist. His 'logic' is loopy and egocentric.
A life long disbeliever? there is no such thing. I have met people who describe themselves as secular...not atheist. they know what they are...secular. when you ask them about religion they say they really aren't interested.
but atheists...that's different. they go to debates against religious people and bother to like say things like I am a life long disbeliever... I disbelieve all my life. but why are you drawn to what you disbelieve? you believe it, and reject that you do.
Of course, believers often cannot fathom life without their gods, whether it is themselves or anyone else.
I think you missed the part where she said the man was responding to an atheist that took the time to write him. The question is (and this apparently applies to you too) the guy went out of his way to proclaim a disbelief in God. Why? It's like if I stood on a street corner declaring a non belief in unicorns. They don't exist. OK. No problem. If someone claimed they did, I wouldn't take the time to write them and say they didn't. I don't think I'd be dogging unicorn enthusiasts to tell them they were delusional. I wouldn't take it personally. Why would it matter?
I know what you are going to say your reasons are, but I'm not sure you are always completely forthcoming.
and you are an example of someone fighting his own shadow.
And this is not exactly true - if the idea of a god had never been born then atheists could not even begin to exist, without Capitalism - Socialism would not exist. Not that the things each do and talk about would change it just would not be called what it is.
This is just a semantics trick.
This is mindless babble.
I don't believe my car is a V6 because I can count 4 spark plugs in a row.
The workshop manual can say whatever the hell it likes, it is still a 4 cylinder.
Not believing in an invisible sky fairy works the same way, we have no need to have any belief system to know it is a pile.
If you tell me my cat is really a dog and sings opera I don't need to have a belief system to tell you you are talking crap.
you don't believe in the sky fairy that you used to believe fervently...you still believe it but fear that very belief to control you.
For those too feeble minded to see why non religionists post in these forums, my answer is simple.
Like many others here, I am a loving father and grandfather who will never allow this sort of vile filth to be taught to my children as "truth"
"I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings." (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)
It doesn't matter in what context it was written, or who it was written to, or when.
A hate filled psychotic person wrote this nonsense, and that is fact.
We know what psychosis look like these days.
I assume my post brought about the feeble minded statement. I'll be honest, some religionist on the abortion thread raised my blood pressure to the boiling point and I'm posting testily right now.
But, I still say it is not unreasonable to think that radical non belief implies belief on some level.
It's one thing to be anti religion, but if someone goes out of their way to proclaim a disbelief in God, then they are putting an inordinate amount of time and energy into it that doesn't add up.
It adds up just fine, and as I recall my statement was general.
I have a beautiful family that includes 6 wonderful girls, and 4 boys, sons daughters and grandchildren.
I will do all I can to protect them from hate filled doctrine, and all I can to prevent people from lying, wiggling out from under and claiming superiority, or making judgements of them and undermining their confidence.
I can fill these threads every day for years with words of hate and loathsome inhuman quotes from the bible and quoran.
Here is the elephant in the closet.
The words in the two books are psychotic.
Regardless of who or what said them, to whom and in what context is totally irrelevant. It is there, it can't be ignored, it's like wading knee deep in threats and neurotic behaviour that would result in the author being fitted with a double breaster in any civilised society today.
We must all do what we think is right. But, just so you know. My statement was not general. It was specific in its scope. And it had nothing to do with anti religion. I'm anti religious myself.
As to the question of the existence or nature of God? Non belief would equate to disinterest.
You avoided addressing the elephant.
Who wrote or inspired to write the psychopathic scriptures, and why would anyone listen to a psychopath?
What elephant? The Bible? Men wrote the Bible. It's the cosmology of the Hebrews; how they saw their place in the universe, in my opinion.
I think I know why people listen to the New Testament. The old? You got me.
OK, I'm pretty disgusted with your walk around.
Nothing more to add.
Read all the book. It is not as easy to ignore the OT with your NT when you have studied both.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but that appears to be your MO. Emotionally attached to religion. It's just.a book. Get over it.
I'll spell it out for you then.
The bible and quoran are jointly the source of most religious belief including yours.
From this, three types of believers emerge.
Those who say only the new testament is a valid source for their beliefs, and deny the early laws except when they want to threaten with them.
Those who say the NT is all lies to avoid the judgement of the OT and make threats from the OT.
Those who say the book is one smooth transition from the OT to the new.
All of them choose to ignore the reality that psychotic people write psychotic text. Normal psychology does not threaten to kill, maim, set on fire, deny life to anyone, ever.
Your jesus is supposed to be at best the son of a psychopathic entity who is cruel beyond belief and an unredeemable sociopath to boot.
Ernest, I am not a Christian. You asked a simple question. I answered it. I do see good in the teachings of Yeshua. I don't buy into it though. Sorry. I can't be like you and see all bad.
OK your not a a christian. Where did your belief in a god come from?
Not from the bible?
Sorry, I will not believe that. Those are the sources of a god.
If you are happy to accept the bit you read and not understand about the biblical god, that is simply avoidance in my book.
It is a bigger search to find the good in either book than to find the bad.
Ignorance by choice as a religion? No thanks!
Ernest, not all those who search for answers are Christians. I don't recognize their concept of god. I don't know what I believe. I refer to myself as agnostic. I don't believe there is a god, per se but I do believe in a continuation of consciousness; on some level. What level, I have no idea.
But, teaching people to look within themselves. To understand themselves and who they are. To focus on your own problems as opposed to others isn't a bad outlook. To teach that there is a connection of all life to each other is not a bad philosophy. I don't think Yeshua was alone in teaching this.
You can lump everyone that doesn't think like you into one pile in your mind, but it doesn't make it true.
As I have explained before, I don't do the lumping, the belief in an invisible personal god does the lumping together for me.
It is simple enough. The books that offer a god are psychotic, to deny that is to stare truth in the eye, ignore all that is written within them, then cherry pick a belief from the bit you like.
Religion spreads hate, judgement and dissent, just as it's authors intended.
Actually, cherry picking is the way of the world. You are, by all definitions, an atheist. Yet you refuse to accept the title.
The funny thing is, I've been going back and forth with you and you think I'm a christian. I've been going back and forth on another thread with a guy that thinks I'm an atheist. I think I'm agnostic. I need to figure out what the heck I am so I can work up a self righteous indignation with one of you.
No, I am not an atheist. The word itself is a religious construct.
I don't buy the tooth fairy story either, that doesn't make me an untoothfairyist.
The last I heard that is the definition of an untoothfairyist. But, I'll take your word for it. It's been a while since I've had to deal with the trauma of admitting to someone there really was no tooth fairy. Things could have changed since then.
It works to blackmail kids. Teeth are getting more expensive these days, and the tooth fairy still pays out big at our house.
At least it is a lie I have told before and had little repercussions from.
I have an excuse. A grandfather needs to teach them to save their money. First they need some to save.
Well, if you can teach a kid to save money in this world you've accomplished something. With all the adverting the industry focuses in their direction it seems like they always are in need of some new gadget that just can't be lived without.
My lot are no exception. We try to give them good things that they can learn from.
The little ones at 6 and 7 are very much harder to please than their parents were too.
I used to be happy playing with an old jam tin lid and bracken fern when I was little.
Yes, I remember making my own toys out of the oddest things too. But, I bet we had more fun with our imaginations than the kids these days have with all of the toys they get from the store.
Nah! One of my sons just bought my grandson a four play Super Mario for Wii for his birthday.
The whole family have run it at every spare moment!
Naturally the little ones are already experts.
If a computer stops working in our house, the older girls, 14 and 18 go to the seven year old for advice. He has had his own computer for over a year now and is a wizard with windows already.
I guess I liked how it was when we were dirt poor and happy to entertain ourselves, but I did not know half of what today's kids know when I was their age, and that includes the Y gen ones as well.
The older girls did not bother to learn how to fix there computers. They are very girly girls. Give Dad or grandpa a hug and he will fix it types! Superspiderman now does most of it for us now he is 7.
so you teach them tooth fairies...do you know why that myth exists, earnest. it's there to teach that when you lose something, something else comes to take its place.
it alleviates the feeling of loss. that is the purpose of myths. so if you don't equip your children with stories that help them transcend the challenges of life, they feel more vulnerable and afraid. the myths are there as patterned mirrors of the ego, so the unconscious can adjust itself in the ego's appropriate stage of development.
True. Children respond very well to stories for many reasons.
I identify my youngest grandchildren in the "homemade" bedtime stories I tell them each night. It delights them.
you are passing on your mythology and belief system, and that is how it starts.
As with most believers who fail/ignore/deny the differences between teaching children and indoctrinating children, your post would indicate that quite well.
It is doubtful that Earnest is reading those bedtime stories with the demand those children believe them to be reality, to be the most important thing in their lives, to die for them if need be and to command they worship and obey the main characters in the stories with every fiber of their being.
If he did, you would have a valid point.
The current stories are about pumpkins. I call them (the three little ones) rough pumpkins, a term they see as loving and funny.
The stories have the pumpkins as the main characters. No belief systems enter their stories.
The stories are light hearted fantasy built from the little things in daily life.
The goal is to give my grandchildren some fun at bedtime, and to keep them confident that they are cherished by their family.
No indoctrination is involved, just love.
Love is a doing thing.
Qwark shaking head up and down!...YES!
2 thumbs up Earn! :
you think 3 little pumpkins has no belief system imbedded into it. man, you really have to read jung, like really read him.
Exactly as I suspected, Earnest. Notice that Cecelia simply dismisses that concept as a "preschool argument" and wouldn't dignify it with a response?
this would be preschool argument that I wouldn't even dignify.
...it is important to them because they still believe --in some form or another, be it the concept, the doctrine or the experiences of either. The excuses used to fend off those thoughts or feelings is heartily displayed as anti-devotion, anger, mockery, pity or inclusive use of the former doctrines texts, by their interpretation -aka as an antithesis.
Addiction is a tough thing to get up all together, unless a lobotomy is performed to purge out those thoughts or the thoughts are thoroughly replaced with understanding, rather than assumption.
Matter of fact, nearly all unbelief, non-belief or disbelief in a thing -especially theistic things- is not based on practical, substantial or irrefutable evidence, but rather supposition, indignation and cowardice.
That is a mutated form of the same theos.
It is funny because most equation views rant about the absence of proof does not deny the existence of something; only that the observation, based on whatever parameters were applied, was not adequate in its results to provide proof or clear evidence leading to further testing. They cannot prove Creator does not exist, through their reasoning or methods of testing/applications. So to save face, ignore the fact they have no proof to the contrary. Addiction 101 calls that denial. (ex: "I don't have a problem not believing; they have the problem because they believe" --which is highly irrational actually.)
Short and Sweet, they bother because it bothers them they failed to prove or disprove what they hoped to gain from the thoes itself.
absolutely. Why bother? I don't bother with wrestling, no opinion, do watch it, don't disapprove of it...nothing.
Hi james, how is the "book thing"? do you know my controversial talk is now viewed 666 times. please tell me that's not a message.
ooooh, 666. scaaaaaaaaaaaary. NOT!
book thing goes well.
1st agent (AEG) turned out to be a Vanity Press.
2nd author subsidized, no-reach.
3rd and 4th (Westbow & Crossbooks) had great reach but really low royalty (less than $5 a book) + cost of marketing package (1 to 3k).
5th is a boutique out of Oregon -InkWater Press. Seems promising. A lot of good reviews. They only take like 5 scripts to print per year. Waiting for the full monte.
The one I really want, hasn't written back yet. They specialize in new authors for non-fiction how-to/spirituality and are jacked into nearly every main publishing house from Nelson on down.
ps, really cannot believe I received 5 positives, so far, on the query's alone.
by vector76 years ago
I personally have tons of reasons why I do believe in God. I didn't just wake up and say, "Huh, God sounds feasible.. Guess I'll go with that." The reality of demons and such was always big with me prior to...
by Jefsaid6 years ago
I am all for World peace and everyone living harmoniously with the World around us. However, since the beginning of history there has always been conflict in one way or another which makes me feel that disharmony...
by Julie McFarland4 years ago
I wrote a hub on how faith is not required in order to be an atheist. Someone requested that I turn it into a forum thread as well. My position is that atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a...
by Richard VanIngram7 years ago
The short answer is, "Yes."Should he or she, though?My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes." Can I understand why some or many rational individuals...
by fallenangel6666 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code, or morality that essentially states either of the following:1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.