Is it possible for non- believers to think in duality , really !, especially when it comes to the pobable or possibility of obvious otherworlds in spirituality ? I mean even atheists have to consider in one way or another the possibilities of some kind of spirituality ! ....Or .....are you so closed and suedo-scientifically minded that there can be NO possible lose ends to the big bang theory ? This is a serious question by one who lies comfortably between both spheres of though ! I know someone is going to go off on a tangent but at least try to be serious ! The question is , is the duality okay ?
Perhaps, I can help clear up the faulty logic of your post.
It IS all about thinking. It IS all about considering possibilities and more importantly, probabilities, observations, evidence, logic and many of the other factors and processes that go along with thinking.
No, we are not pseudo-scienitifically minded, quite the contrary, it is the pseudo-sciences we criticize and mock almost as much as we do religions. They are both a result of not thinking and much worse; ignoring, rejecting, denying or prohibiting that which is based on thinking.
So yes, we can think about "duality" in a variety of ways, one of the most common being that of how light works in that it can exhibit properties of both particles and waves.
Of course, when one gains an understanding of how light works, it is very difficult to understand how spirituality can be hypothesized, let alone observed considering how many questions require an answer from that physics perspective.
Spirituality appears to be little more than wishful thinking when all the cards are on the table.
Could the OP demonstrate or show us in some way exactly what we are supposed to be thinking about in regards to spirituality? Examples? Evidence? Anything?
Is it possible for non- believers to think in duality?
I thought only women could do that? So i am often told anyway.
It's not that we can't multitask, it's that we are to focused to bother.
When one believes that God is the creator of math and science, it's not hard to think dually.
Math is a "language" often useful in describing nature and the relationships there - it is an invention of man.
Science is a method of studying science, often using math as the language to describe what the study finds. It, too, is an invention of man.
Unless God put those ideas (language, methodology of study) into someone's mind, what is your meaning that God created it?
And if He did put that knowledge there, is He also responsible for all other knowledge that man has collected? Such as how to cause pain to fellow man, the best way to manufacture and use chemical weapons, or how to build a nuclear warhead?
"it is an invention of man."
Not to get all school yard on you, but says who?
God created our minds... we have the ability to download knowledge, just as a computer would. If the mind does what it is created to do, namely think, would you find that strange?
We have knowledge of good and evil, of course. That is when matters of the heart... or motive come into play. God teaches to pursue what is good and right. Do you blame Him for allowing us a free will? It seems there is nothing God wont take the blame for from those who claim He doesn't exist.
No, our minds are part of our brains, which evolved over time.
Most believers don't know how to use their minds.
No, He teaches people to pursue worship and obedience for Him and rarely if ever demonstrates what is good and right.
That's because believers claim there is nothing God won't take credit for from those who claim He does exist.
I don't think dogs, cats or monkeys invented mathematics. It pretty much leaves either Man or myth. I choose man.
Even with God having made minds, I would still agree that our minds can "download" knowledge. Not as easily as a computer, but we can learn.
"We have knowledge of good and evil, of course".
Only if we are taught it; it does not come with birth. As the teachers are varied, so is the "knowledge", with widely varying ideas of what each are.
From there you deteriorate into claims about your make believe friend. As your last sentence is quite correct - I don't share your belief - I'm not sure why you mention it at all. There is certainly no rational comment I could make about what your friend does or doesn't do.
"God teaches to pursue what is good and right. Do you blame Him for allowing us a free will? It seems there is nothing God wont take the blame for from those who claim He doesn't exist."
Was simply a response to this comment:
"And if He did put that knowledge there, is He also responsible for all other knowledge that man has collected? Such as how to cause pain to fellow man, the best way to manufacture and use chemical weapons, or how to build a nuclear warhead?"
God did not create math and science, but instead taught people to reject them.
Some atheists are materialist (no non-physical entities), others are not.
You can not believe in Gods and still believe in sidhe, spirits, chi, auras etc, and some people do.
Atheism, after all, has no doctrine.
Of course, and any atheist that can think for themselves will readily agree that there is a possibility of another universe, a God that created this one and the whole spirituality thing.
Belief that that possibility carries more than a minuscule probability, however, requires evidence; evidence that has never been found. The probability of such imaginings thus remains very close to zero. Not truly worth discussing (although the reasoning producing Gods may be interesting) and certainly not worthy of building a way of life out of.
It's a serious question and truely , in a way , its meant to weed out those on either side of the spectrum that might blow a gasket , duality in belief , or the possibility there of !....:-}
I believe that everyone is a non-believer to some degree. That is natural and good. So I can freely admit that sometimes I do not have perfect belief. Therefor in my disbelief I myself am a dualist. How can it be otherwise?
If I had perfect Love I would be done here. If I had perfect belief I would ascend. And can a believer claim to be perfect in their belief? And when they are not perfect they are of a dual mind.
I hope that un-believers do not feel bad, when the slip into belief. I have never met a perfect atheist. In fact if an atheist was perfect at being anything, they would not be natural, they would prove their own fallacy that nothing is perfect.
So if an un-believer claims here never to ever have held a belief without proof they are claiming a God like quality. And nature does not produce such beings. The notion of a perfect Atheist just cannot be.
I believe that predestination is a complete myth; that the future is not fixed and immutable and therefore cannot be seen.
I believe that for much the same reason that the theist believes in their God; because it pleases me to do so. In the same manner as the theist, I need no evidence to support that belief (although I recognize that it is only a belief and not necessarily fact).
I also believe in the necessary corollary; that any potential God cannot be omniscient as that would mean the future is fixed and free will is the myth.
If that is what it takes to be natural, so be it. I shall retain the belief until proven wrong.
Wilderness. You speak of truth, proof and fact as though they all contain each other. Logic can disprove a notion. Facts can create a false proof.
This statement is wrong, disproving it with logic is easy. By this notion: If a God was onmiscient "that would mean" your future can be anything the God makes of it -- free will or otherwise.
"I also believe in the necessary corollary; that any potential God cannot be omniscient as that would mean the future is fixed and free will is the myth."
You have proven no logical bases to jump from your hypothesis to your conclusion that fee will is a myth, if there is a God.
Why would someone use a rating system like "only a belief" as though in the course of human existence a belief is not as valid as a fact? What a strange concept that we would place a higher importance on our senses than on our beliefs. Morality and indeed our own sanity is not a system for facts but of beliefs. The sun showing up tomorrow is a belief not a fact.
Proof and fact contain truth, yes. Logic cannot disprove a fact if used correctly, but it is very easy to misuse logic. Fact cannot create a false proof, except with the misuse of logic. Facts can only produce truth, and then only when all "options" are covered as well.
You slightly misread my statement, but:
God is omniscient (premiss)
IF God is omniscient => He knows the future (definition)
IF He knows the future => it is unchangeable. Even if He (omnipotent as well) chooses to change the future then He would already have known He would do so and what He would change it to; nothing has actually changed. (logic, explanation)
IF the future is immutable and unchangeable =>every decision I might make is predetermined and nothing I might do can change that preordained decision. I cannot make the choice to do something that is different than what is already laid out in the future. (logic, explanation)
IF I cannot make a choice either way => free will does not exist. (conclusion)
The last statement is almost a definition of free will as I see it. Others may define it differently, primarily with the sophistry that God knows what my choice will be but I still have a choice. Doesn't work for me as a definition.
A fact has a 1-1 correlation with truth and reality; belief seldom does. That makes it more "valid" if not more useful. Belief, even when incorrect, can be more useful than truth; my belief that I have free will and can actually make choices that produce a result may be what keeps me from stealing everything in sight or simply shooting anyone that disagrees with me.
Your sanity may be a system of beliefs, mine is primarily based on facts, or at least as near to fact as I can get. (Primarily, not 100%; I believe in free will and I could be wrong). More important to me to know truth and reality than to believe something that simply makes me feel good, More important to you to have a guardian angel, eternal life, whatever you find valuable in your belief, than to have evidence the belief is truth.
Morals come mostly from experience in what works in our life and society and what we were taught. The two are interconnected, reinforcing each other, but are usually facts and not simple belief. Or at least facts to the best of our knowledge; much of what is taught children are accepted as fact even later in life without the need for evidence simply because it's been "known" forever and never questioned.
There are only a few universally accepted morals and thus only a handful that are actually true and useful. Others are rooted in beliefs, but are only useful in following the tenets of that belief. The golden rule is very nearly universal, and useful in nearly all cultures as a result. The moral prohibiting public nudity is NOT universal and is useful only in the cultures that accept it as a moral to live by - it is rooted in a belief (Christianity) and not "factual" anywhere that belief is not honored.
Very excellent except for your underlying premise. Your logic is very good and your conclusion drawn with clarity. The rules and laws you apply are proper and acceptable. They are an epitome of man's understanding. Bravo.
But by the mere concept of God He is not constrained by natural law and logic. His logical framework would be omnipotent. So what man says is illogical to man may be very correct. But applying that logic and constriction to a God is fallacious. If He be God He can see the future even though it has not come to pass, therefor He can see whatever comes to pass and He could have seen it 1 million years ago.
You are restricted by your logic and are rightly confined to it. But God is not. It would seem you are applying a rudimentary string theory on the time space continuum. That is a straw argument.
Speaking of fallacies, how is it that God did not foresee his failures?
Did He not foresee Eve would take the apple? Did he not foresee Cain would kill Abel? Did He not see the Earth was spherical and went around the Sun? Did he not see that common houseflies carry more diseases than other insects?
That is a great notion troubled one, You declare God a failure based on your short time on earth and limited understanding. These thing may be failures in your eyes and not His. I just saying.
Interesting how you deflect the discussion away to fallacies instead of responding to Gods failures.
Of course, someone as selfish and egotistic as God would never admit to His failures.
You are the one deflecting. Give us your logic in putting human attributes on a God. It is the exact antithesis of the concept of God that He would have human attributes. (notice I just screwed up there and used a gender description but that is because I lack another way to think of a God) You seem to want God to be a slob like one of us -- good song as it points out the error of your thinking.
Is that the best you could do, "I know you are, but what am I"?
Simple, humans are far more intelligent than your God and have managed to construct a much better moral and ethical system than your God. It was easy. Your God is a mere snapshot of the ignorance of several thousand years ago, the epitome of Bronze Age thinking.
Yet, the Bible states emphatically... "Genesis: 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Your God IS the slob. We don't want to be like Him.
So what is it that God is trying to accomplish? Give us the specifics, and we can make an assessment of whether He is a failure or not. Could you tell us how all this foolishness fits into the objectives of an omniscient being's planning?
Or, are you really just invoking "God said it-I believe it-that settles it"
If one accepts the notion of God, then one must conclude that a mortal cannot know all that God knows. So for either a believer or a non-believer the concept of God is the same. So even a non-believer cannot really argue that God works in a way that we can understand. Putting human attributes on God makes God less than God.
For this forum I do not argue the existence I only argue of how we should speak of a God. So it is possible for us to think of factors set in motion but no longer controlled by God.
Yet, we mortals know much more than your God. We have developed morals and ethics your God is seriously lacking, as one example. We also figured out the Earth is spherical and goes around the Sun.
Petty, selfish, ignorant and dishonest are the ways of your God. Easy to understand.
Then, why did He create us in His image?
We argue His existence, which you or any other believer have failed miserably in doing. That is why you don't argue it.
Nothing has been ever controlled by a god, your god or any other god, at least, nothing that is distinguishable from sheer coincidence or chance.
In other words, we are to take on the mentality of a slave. Thanks, you just reminded me as to why I am a freethinker.
In other words, we have to be God's slave, because He has knowledge that is incomprehensible to our knowledge. So even if it appears that God is a complete idiot(which the bible depicts)we are not to question His omniscience. Complete blind faith. How ridiculous.
If you totally, without any dualism as this thread is about, do not have any belief what so ever in the existence of God that answers the question.
But in your thinking does that include the absolute non-existence of Spirituality also? Or can we have spirituality without believing in a God?
There is no evidence to support the existence of a God, or any spirits. And just what is spirituality, except wishful thinking.
We can have Spirituality and we can have God, the moment either one of them can show they actually exist. But, they haven't, so we have neither.
I think we are good on that. Ed gets a fairly direct answer. A believer can be a dualist but a non-believer can not.
It would seem that a strict adherence to a dogma prohibits the understanding of other thoughts and ideas.
So I would also suggest that a strict Roman Catholic cannot be a dualist either. Those who as part of their being are constricted by laws of man are not permitted to consider alternative views from that dogma.
And of course the best way to defend the dogma is to fully attack those who do not hold true to the dogma --- The crusades and Communism.
I have no doubt in the existence or goodness of God. Not on my worst day. It's not a boast or anything else, just a fact I hope never changes.
Beth, your post caught my interest. You mentioned you hope it never changes. Does hoping mean you want to believe in God? Doesn't wanting something make you kind of biased? Is the want/hope so strong that you won't question your belief? We can all want things, but that doesn't mean we get things.
Yet , my friends , take it all back , way back to the first living organism, the first cell if you must , I can believe in evolution from that point forward , no ?, and still know that a higher power created it all ! Hence evolution - and believe -faith based knowing that a higher power exists ! No ? Seems to me it takes far . far ,far more faith to believe in only evolutionist beginnings of an earth ! Can't atheists wonder and study , chart and catolog in a duality of possibilities ? As to closed minds and fixed beliefs , they lie on both sides of the issue , no ?
Ed, I'm not sure where you're going with this post, but I will chime in with what it made me think of. My husband is a self proclaimed Christian. In my opinion he is just a believer in God and of Jesus Christ but NOT a Christian. I love that he believes and would never try to change that BUT the other day he caught me by surprise. We were at the zoo with the kids. We were visiting the gorilla enclosure where they have thick glass. The gorilla was sitting right next to the glass when our toddler walked up to the glass. The gorilla stopped eating and put it's hand on the glass and just looked at our daughter, then went back to eating. My husband got quiet and we moved on to the monkeys. One got up and starting walking up right while eating an apple. In the middle of me taking a picture my husband in a very serious tone said "I get it now." Me not understanding said "what". He then said "I get why people believe we came from that" We then had a 20 minute discussion about evolution. In that conversation he shared with me that he believed it to be possible that there is a God and that we evolved. Personally it doesn't matter to me. I'm not sure why the ideas of creation are so important to so many. It seems the fact that we are here should be more important. Do I think it's possible to think on both sides of the fence? Well I'd be a fool if I never reconsidered my beliefs and stuck with one side forever. Thoughts change with new evidence, theories, and life experiences. Do I believe in spirituality? Nope Do I believe evolution to be 100% fact? Nope. As of right now all I have figured out is that Either A.) There is no God, or B.) It's not a God I'd choose to worship.
Peeps , I have wondered once or twice in reading your posts , are you as bitter about the possibility of God as I once was ? And you may not be ! but I actually came from that end of the belief question , for years I was imbittered and yet still wanted to believe , I settled on spirituality ! Maybe not of a God as created by mans interpretation , but spirituality still ! It helped me greatly to settle on a spiritual center ! Not of a god that I have to decide why he does this or not that but just that higher being thingy ! Mans interpretation of even God and that of gods intentions is pretty twisted at times too ! But for me , I look around at life and see just to much evidence of beauty of peace and tranquility to think that , there is noting up there ! By asking about the duality of consideration , I'm trying to see if Atheists actualy wonder ? I respect either answer and either believing or not though . What I really disslike are those who antagonize with "either- or " posts ! Be at Peace Peeps !
Of course, atheists can wonder, they just don't toss away their intelligence and understanding of the world around them in favor of invisible sky daddies "up there".
And what about the mindless chaos and destruction? Is that also evidence of a spirit? And just because a person feels that there is something controlling the universe....well.....that doesn't equate to an ACTUAL supreme being. Just wishful thinking and conjecture.
Then, it is inevitably and ultimately up to us to eliminate the evil and chaos. When do we start?
That is not pragmatic. It will be wiser to be tolerant of the beliefs of others, as long as they are not blocking traffic and telling you where you can walk your dog.
Who said anything about evil?
And what makes you think it's up to us to do anything about the chaos in the universe? Are we to stop celestial collisions, or stop exploding stars from exploding, or tame black holes, etc?
I am a non-believer, but I suspect that the propensity for religion and superstition is hot-wired into our brains - presumably because it played an evolutionary role in our past. I am very much a materialist, but I don't doubt that in the back of mind, part of me would love to believe in miracles, UFOs, ghosts, etc. Is that duality? I suppose it is, in a sense. I am not sure how significant it is, though. I just see it as psychology.
ATroubled man , that can be said of either believers or non-believers ! You actually sound like its just you alone thats correct . And faith is reasoning to to those of reasonable faith !
Radman , Some might say the delusion is in those who chose not to believe ! Either way your intolerance is exactly what I'm asking about ! Just how is belief intolerant ?
"How is belief intolerant?"
How wise that is. Faith does not equal intolerance, as a matter of fact, they have nothing to do with one another.
Sure some might say that while hanging on to a belief in something that cannot be touched, measured, tasted, heard or tested. But that would be delusional wouldn't it? I don't think belief is intolerant although some of the believers are very intolerant.
Is it time to feed the hungry children, yet?
Some believers are intolerant... that is true... as are some non-believers. However, our God would tell us to love others no matter what their situation (not that every believer does what he's supposed to do.) Those without a god are free to be unkind and even overbearing with their opinions I would imagine. Just an interesting thought...
True, some on both sides are intolerant. I'm personally intolerant of anyone telling me the universe is a few thousand years old.
If those without a god are free to be unkind and even overbearing with their opinions then some of those with a belief in God think it's there duty and direction from God to be unkind and ever overbearing with their opinions.
How do you know what your God would tell us to do? The only source information about God is the bible and that information regarding how to treat non-believers is somewhat conflicting.
I so appreciate your question and respectful tone Rad man... thanks!
I do believe what Ive read in the Bible to be the voice of God to believers. Yes, I believe He still leads by the impression we might receive on our spirits, but because I know who He is/His personality b/c of the Bible, I know when something isn't from Him. IE... If I felt out of no where a desire to give money to someone in need, and I had it to give, then I would believe I was following Him. (Not that a non believer couldn't do this too, but speaking solely about the Christian in this case.) Now if I didn't have the money to give, and I could embezzle it from my employer, b/c he didn't need it and a poor person did... I would know that was not of God b/c the Bible is full of teachings telling us not to steal.
That's why you always hear about relationship. A Christian often has a lifetime full of teachings and circumstances (answers to prayer, miraculous happenings etc.) in their lives that lead them to believe in God.
So then , it is entirely possible that a believer and a non believer as well examine each and all possiblities. And that only one who is closed minded would make statements like . There is no God ! Or God is the all that there is !" And YOU are wrong and I am right" .? And all of it would be done with decency and kindness .
I assume we've all pursued our beliefs to the point we're at now... so when we have questions for one another, they should be asked with the thought in mind that this person has come to the conclusion they are at b/c of a lifetime of experience and circumstances that I don't share. We don't have to come to the same conclusion as another to respect the fact that they may be an intelligent and thoughtful individual. Spirituality is a wonderful topic when it's a conversation and not a weapon.
Or, more precisely, that person has been indoctrinated into their religion, which is taken into account.
There is nothing intelligent or thoughtful about religions and the indoctrination people undergo, quite the contrary, and it does not deserve any respect whatsoever.
How can it be a topic when it has never been shown to exist? That's like saying leprechauns riding unicorns is a wonderful topic.
I see that you are just like everyone else here. You want everyone to agree that your right?
A few of the usual maggots there Beth ? Some people are just incapable of decency , Its the same ones all the time . Ignore the ignorant Beth , they know not what they do .
by Kenneth Avery 3 years ago
Sept. 25, 8:08 p.m.In the last few days, I have published these two new hubs:"15 Things That Will Rogers Did Not Say""Joan Jett Coaching in The NHL?"And through above date, I have received NOT one comment. I asked Christy at Team HubPages what was wrong or was it me who did...
by Claire Evans 3 years ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can only be proved to oneself and not by another?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 2 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Lippy Witch 2 years ago
If you could ask a witch anything (a serious question) what would you ask?I am wanting to do a q/a type series of articles from people who genuinely are curious about certain aspects of the witchcraft culture.
by sandra rinck 10 years ago
Say something in the name of God... an atheist comes and says, there is no God. A believers says, May God bless you... an atheist says, "was that a threat."A believer says, I believe that God is Love... an atheist says, " there is no God but what makes you think I cannot love?"A...
by marinealways24 9 years ago
Is your belief based on faith, logic, or both?Can a person be logical if they have an illogical belief or faith?
Copyright © 2019 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|