Straight forward factual of the Atheist condition
Sometimes we should get tired of avoiding debate.
It is my well learned understanding that Atheists just cannot operate on faith. Now sometimes Atheists get upset at that suggestion. They should not in my opine. They should just agree and take it from there.
I cannot evaluate and analyze anything without the empathic and spiritual and "psycho-mumbo-jumbo" coming in. I just cannot be hyper critical and use cold logic of a mathmatical sense in isolation of "feelings".
What I am saying is that I cannot completely isolate one from another. I understand both in an intellectual sense but I cannot separate them completely in my being.
So if I can admit that why can't atheists admit the other way around? Why is it an insult instead of a fact?I have never met an atheist that claims to operate on faith. Not one.
If you have, we have a very different group of acquaintances. Most atheists pride themselves somewhat on their ability to reason, and operating on faith is very much the antithesis of reason - it's why believers and atheists have such trouble communicating at all.You said it much better than I could. I scolded instead.
Wait, I get it… you are under the impression that because atheists don't have faith in any invisible, undetectable God they can't have faith in anything or anyone.
Did I get that right?
Sorry, I have faith in many things and a lot of people, just not in anything unproven and or undetectable or something that can't be demonstrated.I've apparently misread something because i don't get the same thing out of the OP others seem to have. I assume faith is referred to strictly in the spiritual sense. Of course atheists wouldn't operate on faith in that way. Itake the standard atheist argument as you can't apply faith unless there is something concrete to back it up. Which there isn't. So, taking something spiritual on faith equates to accepting the imaginings of yourself and others as fact. I don't see it as difficult to understand why they can't and have problems with those who can. Or why they are vocal in pointing it out
You might tell me what I've missed hereI hope that is what I was talking about. You phrase a "won't" and "do not" I phrased it as "you cannot". Perhaps apples and oranges or just our own self will.
So straight out: Do you think you do this by will or by inability? I am able to have faith. I suggest you are incapable of it, and not just desirous of not doing it.Any act of trust is an act of faith. I have never met an atheist who cannot trust at all- so your argument is defunct.
To give an example- every time I buy a meal from a restaurant I have faith that they won't spit in the food. I don't know they won't- I have no reasonable way of checking but I trust the restaurant staff to not spit in my food. And that simple trust is an act of faith.I tried running that through this atheist community and they said I was wrong. That they have no faith/belief at all.
Square that for me.The parameters of the discussion would set a specific definition of faith- it you parameters led them to believe the discussion was about spiritual faith then they are obliged to say they have none. That is the difficulty with making such broad and obviously contentious statements- they can mean different things to everybody.
It could just as easily be that they hadn't thought about the relationship between trust and faith- people often compartmentalise information.
It is also possible to be an atheist and be spiritual. See here: http://www.spiritualatheism.com/
Bunching all athiests into one group based on your discussions with a few is the same as saying anybody who believes in god is this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz
The dabate, the context and personal history give the meaning to the individual terms. A signs signifier/signified relationship depends on numerous factors and that is not a discussion for hubpages forums.I had a look at that and their definition of "Spiritual Atheist", it seems they have just redefined the word 'spiritual' to mean something completely different than the original definitions, yet have not really defined the word because they use the phrase "in some way" as part of the definition.
Makes no sense.Reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with an Atheist about the band U2. I mentioned to him that U2 is a Christian rock band and he replied that they are just spiritual. As it there is a difference between a Christian rock band and a spiritual rock band. I think it simply made him feel better for liking the band.
That's pretty funny, Bono is a well-known Jesus freak, most of his lyrics are about Jesus.
That is a way cool insight. Perhaps now I feel better hihihi
I am not saying I agree with spiritual atheists just that some people believe it is possible.
As I mentioned earlier definitions are automatically subjective (which is why dictionary definitions are at best guides and in some cases actually obstructions to finding the real meaning.They appear to be very confused as they can't even stick to simple definitions and have to make them up using defined words.
Okay, so what is subjective about their use of that word? They don't even know. It seems they just pulled it out of thin air (or somewhere else).They don't follow a centralised spiritual doctrine but they believe in spirituality- believing in nature as a kind of sentient/semi-sentient force is not the same as believing in a god or gods but it something many spiritualists would agree on.
I don't agree with them any more than theists but the simple fact is having no central organisation defining the parameters of their belief means it will be fuzzy and seem confused- it is more about the individual finding what works for them.I understand that, but they have yet to define 'spirituality' that makes any sense or even remotely is associated with atheism. It seems more as if they are just another brand of new agers.
So you think you are able and others are unable?
Let's see what happens when we use this same logic in reverse order.
I am (able) to see the reality of our universe without an invisible sky daddy. Are you (unable) to do the same. Are you (unable) to think at my level?
See how that sounds the other way around?I do think I have a disability. In that regard. While I study and learn, I just cannot remove my lenses that make me see logic and science as part of the spiritual realm. It is just hard for me to break out of the "Zen" of a connected truth.
I hope that helps in understanding. But I did put this in the in the beginning.Okay, so you admit to being unable to do what I can do, which is to control your thoughts using logic? You can't suspend your beliefs long enough to look at the reality long enough to see faith for what it is.
Interesting, I am however (able) to have the kind of faith you are talking about as I once did have faith. The fact that I was able to suspend that faith for long enough to look at faith objectively led me to where I am today.
Perhaps this is the key difference between those with and without faith. You assume or so it appears that we are (unable) to be in the position you are in as if that's what we all want, but in reality it's your (theists) inability to suspend your beliefs long enough to objectively examine them that is the key difference between those with faith and those without.Of course I hold the opposite point of view. Because you could once climb a mountain, now only means you can understand, but not that you can still climb, take my word for it I am old and fat.
I propose that you can no longer have faith. And that is OK with me. But do not suppose that I cannot have logic and scientific inquiry.
Or are you saying they are exclusive of each other? To which I say: Only by incapacity and there is no incapacity for a believer to know science. Just a choice not to worship it.
(all antagonism here is meant for straight forward frankness not angst) For I know you now and think very highly of your contributions to greater thought.We can all have both faith and logic/science, it's only a matter of which one can actually show the real truth.
No angst taken and none intended.
How then do you explain those Atheist who become theists? How do you then explain the faith I have that the moon and sun will rise everyday?
You see I do have the ability to have faith which can be demonstrated with the things I do have faith in, but you can't demonstrate that you can objectively look at your own faith. Can you for instance examine your own faith as you would the faith of the ancient Egyptians or Greeks? If you say you can then lets do it together.Is it possible to have an Atheist "mystery of faith".
I pretty much do that. I am criticized for it, but they keep inviting me back because it seems to work.
This faith thing, if it is caused by fear or ignorance it is dangerous. There is something in that "free will" notion that requires knowledge. At least an honest attempt at it.
If I finish preaching and someone says "now I get it" I have failed. If I finish preaching and someone says "I have to think on that a bit" halelujah some how this old boy did good.The search for knowledge on what we call free will ultimately leads to the absence of free will and to it's necessary illusion.
Unless it does not. And then we call that enlightenment. Christian love the metaphor of a ever narrowing road we follow. Choice is the illusion of there being less/more than right and wrong.
Technically, neither the sun or moon actually rise or set. The "rising" of the sun and "setting" actually has to do with the rotation of the earth that places certain parts in line with the sun and moon...
Don't mind me, I just always wanted to do that...lolI like it, thanks because I always wanted to say that too. Moon don't cry. That is just us.
I think it is a trait one strives to attain. I think it is human nature to take things on faith, which is one of our downfalls so you have to constantly evaluate why you think what you think.
Although, some probably are incapable.I hear you here. I think the "great divide" between "believers and non-believers" has some basis in inability to transcend and bridge the "two worlds".
I think that when I see aggravation and angst that it is a result of an ego driven fear related push when trying to and yet not achieving understanding between the two.
I hope that made sense within the context of this apology.I think seeing aggravation and angst might upset some who don't see themselves as aggravated or full of angst. Sometimes, we just have to accept that people are different and accept their words at face value; without attempting to read emotions into them.
That is wise. With my wife I am required to notice and pay due attention but never mention anything behind the words --- just act on them. Sometimes it is a bit confusing. But over eleven years into the relationship and a great son, indicates it is working.
We really do not need to be in someone's face. But here we come to discuss not make happy or at the least both. As you make me happy to learn your point of view, well worth the effort!
If one goes about life analyzing everything in a logical way they will never have even proof of God's existence. Once a person realizes there are just some things that cannot be explained, it opens up the door for faith.
Right, the intellect can't find it, so one need to shut intellect down and suddenly it appears. The same thing could be said for just about anything. I can't find any evidence for a flying dragon, but I can with my imagination. Does that make it real or imagined?
Where do you get this notion that Christians have no intellect? It is absurd. Let me see --- USA last 10 presidents stated that they were Christian and took an oath of office on a Holy Bible. I do not think these guys shut down their intellect, just so the could believe in God.
I said no such thing. Please go back and read my post and the one I was responding to. She said God can't be found using the intellect, to find him one have to start with faith. I didn't say theists were shutting down the intellect for other aspects in their lives.
Yep just reread it you said what I said you said -- "shut intellect and it suddenly appears"
OTOH I do see your point, we do kind of have to shut down the physical senses to be spritual.That's the whole faith thing isn't it? Just don't think about it and your good, I'm sure you don't approach the rest of your life that way. Good thing doctors don't just have faith that we will be okay, Me "Hey doc, what's this big lump in my side?"
Doctor "You'll be fine just don't think about it, I won't speculate what it might be because I'd then lose faith that you'll be fine."
You are correct - analyzing the world logically will not produce proof of a god.
But why would anyone choose to live as there is one even without proof (or evidence at all)? Just for the good feeling, the assurance they will live forever? Why would anyone at all decide there IS a god even when it cannot be found?wilderness now you are denigrating those who can know something without proof. That is a slippery slope for a good man.
I decide there is a God because I know God. You do not, and here you highlight the point of the forum.
Just as with the naked eye, you cannot see what I can with a telescope. Yet I can see God but you cannot. Your vision is not more accurate than mine. (vision in a spiritual sense)1. No one can "know" something without proof/evidence. They can only believe.
2. I do not denigrate: I ask why one would ever put belief ahead of knowledge. This is, to me a valid question and at the root of religion.
I do not believe you can see a god; if you could you could photograph it. A camera will, after all, receive and record all wavelengths your eye will. And "vision" is not factual in a spiritual sense, only emotion based feelings. You do not gain knowledge from those, outside of knowledge yourself and your strengths/weaknesses.Where did you get no. 1? And who gets to decide what evidence is admissible and relevant? You are going to say that for me there is no evidence and because you cannot understand my evidence that it is worthless?
I do not think that you know absolutes for if you did there would be nothing left to learn.#1 seems self evident to me; subjective thoughts, feelings and emotions do constitute proof of the world outside the person. Only when other people can experience the same proof can it be considered proof. A drug induced hallucination, for instance, is not proof the sky is falling. A self induced feeling that god is manipulating your memories or thoughts is not proof it happened.
I do have proof of God but it can only be proven to myself. It's not like I can present it to you and you will be convinced. I would never waste my life worshiping something I don't even know exists. To me, that kind of worship has an ulterior motive like, "I just worship God even know I don't even now He exists just to insure me heaven or get out of hell."
It is only proof if it can be shared and demonstrated to be true again. You have felt what you perceive as god and call that proof- well I have felt a chill on a warm day but I don't think it was Jack Frost.
I didn't say it was empirically proven. There is proof in earthly standards and proof for spiritual things. They are completely different things.
If you cannot demonstrate it to others it is not proof.
Some definition of the word proof (although generally I hate using these kinds of definitions):
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
The common thing is that they are used to demonstrate or persuade- if it cannot do either it is not proof. Nor even evidence.This is just semantics. I know God exists because of proof given to me. It is proof to me not even one else. The supernatural doesn't abide by proof definitions.
If it is personal to you why do we need churches?
And it is not just semantics- if it cannot be shown to others it is not proof. You can claim to know "god" but this guy was sure his neighbours dog was telling him to kill people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz - to him it was "proof" that he experienced it but I don't believe in demon dogs anymore than your personal god.Don't forget the priests that ordered mass murder of people, claiming to be told to do so by their god.
Clair worships God cause she is scared to go to hell. What can we expect? She probably goes to church because she thinks if she doesn't, God will be pissed and she'll lose her ticket to heaven.Because many people have proof of God and they gather in churches.
Luckily we are all entitled to believe or not to believe."I know God exists because of proof given to me. It is proof to me not even one else.".
So not the same proof that is given to people in Church? My partner is a church goer, not because she has ever experienced any proof of god but because she was taught that she should be. As is the case in most church goers.
If god existed and the bible was his word then there wouldn't be 41,000 varieties of Christianity alone. There also wouldn't be contradictory texts in other one god faiths which share an origin (not to mention the hundreds of contradictions in the bible).
So organised religion is already flogging a dead horse.
And as I have explained above, a personal relationship with god is no different that Berkowitz's relationship with a demon dog.
I am agnostic, so if any reasonable argument can be made for there being a god I am prepared to be receptive but the arguments theists use to "prove" there is a god irritate me because they don't stand up to even the closest scrutiny.I label myself agnostic. I haven't been inside a church except for a wedding or funeral in a very long time. This being said.
You reference people claiming proof for them, and them alone, then appear befuddled that there are tens of thousands of denominations. Wouldn't that naturally follow?I was referring to the early points made Clair when she said that she has a personal proof of god- it isn't proof if it cannot be repeated to others. I am ot befuddled by the thousands of denominations but is a further suggestion that an omniscient god does not exist.
41,000 flavours of Christianity and contradictions in the bible need not necessarily mean that God does not exist. We could also say that either God speaks messages tailored to the individual or that the Christians and bible writers simply weren't listening.
Then she is wasting her time. I would never serve a God I wasn't even sure existed. What point is that?
Some people believe the Bible in a way because they were taught it. They dare not question it. Some do research and study the Bible and see that it isn't all that what it is and see it differently. Christianity is supposed to share a God with the Muslims and Jews but is that really the case? The Jews were serpent worshipers and Allah was the supreme pagan god. Jesus is nothing like that. Therefore the Abrahamic religions do not share the same god.
You will never find God with reason and empirical proof. It's impossible. So if you are waiting for it don't bother. The first step to knowing God is to deny oneself. Put to death one's old life and ambitions and follow Jesus.
That is why the word, "delusion" exists in our language, it allows everyone else to distinguish your proof from their reality.
Are you saying you know how the supernatural works and by what rules it follows?
By definition, the supernatural is supposed to be that which is not part of nature, not even part of our universe, so we would never know of it and it would not know of us, because the moment when the supernatural interacts with nature, it becomes an act of nature if nature is affected in any way.
If you say you have knowledge of how the supernatural works, then by definition, you somehow interacted with the supernatural, which would be an act of nature if you were affected in any way, and clearly you were affected because you gained knowledge of it. Therefore, that in itself constitutes evidence we can observes and measure and therefore see exactly if the supernatural exists and how it works when it interacts with nature.
Sadly though, none of this has actually come to fruition that anyone can show. If nothing else, science would probably have an edge on us when it comes to that sort of thing.I know the supernatural but I cannot possible fully understand it. People can see the acts of the supernatural through the mind. I would call it telepathy. Therefore it has nothing to do with the physical world or universe. The mind and soul is the link between us and the supernatural. Going back to telepathy, I have it from time to time. Not often but I do. Once I was fast asleep in my bedroom upstairs and my mother and aunt were having a chat downstairs. I woke up and told them what I had dreamt of. They looked at each other in disbelief. I was dreaming what they were talking about. I cannot explain it.
A lot of people have claimed to have witnessed the supernatural first hand. Unfortunately, you cannot go to scientists and say, "There's my proof." The whole point is that science cannot understand it at present. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.It's pretty obvious you're just making this stuff up as you go along. Invoking telepathy and then saying science cannot understand the supernatural is just pure nonsense.
So you are saying I made up the story about my aunt and mother? How would you know that??? Telepathy doesn't make up the whole of the supernatural. I don't think scientists will acknowledge demons and gods any time soon if ever. Telepathy is not accepted in mainstream science. Scientists think it is ridiculous. But they are experiments that suggest telepathy does exist.
Read this:
http://gizmodo.com/harvard-scientists-h … -978412932
The point is, what is viewed as ridiculous today can be viewed as fact later on.Sorry, that experiment has nothing to do with telepathy.
"We present a method for non-invasive functional linkage of brain activity between human volunteers and Sprague–Dawley rats. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of computer-mediated interfacing of the neural signals between human and animal to generate simple motor responses."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi … ne.0060410So a human thought making a rat's tail move is not telepathy? I'm not sure why those scientists would have called it telepathy then. It's true that it is not human to human telepathy and is the conventional definition but it still is telepathy.
A little equipment was needed.
"EEG headset to "read" the human's brain functions, an intermediary computer to interpret and translate the that data into electronic signals, and a transcranial focused ultrasound device that activates a specific region of an anesthetized rat's brain"
Without the equipment, nothing...No, it isn't
Nope. It ain't telepathy because the human and rat are sending signals via computers.The computer is an interface just like the brain.
How come my wife can finish every sentence I start for me? But I do not have a clue what she is talking about half the time ;-) Sometimes things just are.
"Sometimes things just are."
Remember Pavlov's dogs?
"Sometimes things just are more predictable"
Wilderness and I wish I could forget Skinner's children. But your point is well taken on the deeper level. A prediction does not a prophet make.
Just remember, you aren't alone. I can no more follow my wife's line of thought than I can fly, and as far as predicting it, well, might as well try to predict which politician will be first to lie.Forget what about Skinner's kids--you haven't fallen for the baby box myth have you? http://www.snopes.com/science/skinner.asp
Fair enough Psych. Just the imagery is stuck up there. But I was put in my eldest sister's top drawer of her built in Bureau, or maybe it was the bottom -- can't really remember but it is family legend that that was my crib part of the time. And it did not make me loopy, loopy, loopy, loopy loopy ;-)
That is strange. Sometimes when I'm talking with my mom we think of the same things without telling each other. My mom will think and open her mouth and I will already give her the answer to a question she hasn't uttered yet. This happens when two people are very close.
The link I found was embedded in the gizmodo article as the original experiment.
Wait a second. I can make a doggies tail wag just looking at him and think wag.
Since we aren't able to observe the proof for spiritual things, we can't possibly know if spiritual things really exist. If the proof only exists for that one person, then that is the world they have created for themselves, which is distinguished from the rest of reality as what's commonly know as a "fantasy".
What makes you think no one is capable of observing spiritual things. Often it takes many years to understand why God works in one's life. In retrospect you can see it how it all comes together for one's good. Then that proof strengthens one's relationship with God because you know it will work out in the end.
Uh, because we would all know it, obviously.
It's not like the supernatural appears on cue. May people have observed it.
Almost all phenomena don't appear on cue, that makes no difference.
Then, we would all know that because it would have been observed by science.
Such comforting words. To bad it's a product of your imagination.
I ask atheist if God doesn't exist why do you have to deny that he does?
I'm not sure this makes sense, but it seems to hit on a paradoxical conundrum which baffles their already flimsy logic.Have you stopped beating your wife? Much the same, isn't it?
Yes, it is very much the same. You cannot argue logically about whether or not God exists. That is the very nature of faith. To take something on faith means you assume it is true without proof. I think we all do that with some things, for example I take it on faith my husband doesn't cheat on me, even though I don't follow him around all day.
Faith is good, blind faith is not!
Faith is fine as long as it inspires you, and gives you hope, not when you rely on it to solve everything. Have faith, but don't depend on it.
You have faith in your husband because you know him well enough to believe that he won't cheat on you; that's more logic than faith. How will you react if you find something suspicious? Will you completely ignore it? If yes, that's blind faith. If no, then is it really faith?
You can't have faith in something that you just assume is true, that's blind faith. YOU ARE PURPOSELY NOT THINKING ABOUT IT because you know YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS!!
It's ignorance!!
Have faith in yourself. That way you can be independent and free.So maybe faith is based on circumstantial evidence? Thoughts?
Not really; I believe faith is sometimes hope, sometimes it's motivation, sometimes it is power. Logic is based on evidence. Don't mistake it for faith!
Tell me something; What do you believe in? God, Jesus?
Why? When did you start believing?Jesus Christ is the epitome of Love. Our oft repeated understanding of Him is so pure in love that it brings a goal to live by and try to emulate. When we study what is said of Him it is hard, very hard, to find fault outside of our empirical world.
I unlike most Christians truly believe that we are all born in love. Jesus is our symbol of that love. And so we are actually born in Jesus and it is not a matter of when we believed but when we understood we believed in Jesus as love.
This power is all we need. At least it is all I need. Black and white and night and day --- if I live in love then love lives in me and all things are good.
On the other hand I believe that if I study the plants around me and the weather conditions and the animal poop I see I can tell you where water is to be found. Not by faith but by science and logic. And in my case an integration with a sense of what is in the moment. Some call that forensics.I cannot find fault in the teachings of Gandhi, but that doesn't mean I think he's a God.
My friend rad man I do not think he is God but I know for sure that God is part of him and he part of God.
Love is not a box or even electrical current or teaching it is a state of being and that being is part of and from God.
You are God and Ghandi is God, for how else does God show himself to me so I can grow and be happy, free and loving?I am sorry, but is that because you cannot know them, or because I cannot know them?
How in heck can you know what I can know. Your rules? Sorry but that do not fly. My momma told me I could not earn a doctorate. She sure was happy to be there when I did.No, the rules of reality. If you knew Jesus or God, we all would, too. You are not privy to that.
Are you saying you have some special organ that helps you detect and converse with the spirit world while others can only speculate? Do you have evidence of that? Care to demonstrate how you are able to communicate with the spirit world?
It's rather like me claiming to fly and you telling me I can't. We both know I can't, but if I do in fact think I can, I've got problems.Watch real close. Obama is not appreciated in this Christian Republican home. But we love him and pray for him every night.
This is love. Can you see that or are you incapable? We love our country and we love the man we elected president. We love and pray for both.
But we in my house hate him and his policies. Now watch real close.
We love him and respect him and wish him well.
Is that all a lie to your rad man?
That is not logical or scientific or empirical but it is truth. Or are you going to tell me we are crazy and those above truths do not exist. And if so drop by for prayers tonight for those who we despise.
Can you understand that that can only happen in love and love is not emprical.That makes absolutely no sense at all. It would seem you really have no idea what love is all about, by definition and by common usage.
What's worse is that you not only have the capacity to hate as we all do, but you openly hate someone, which shows you even less idea about what love is all about.
I can probably conclude that if you say you love me, you probably hate me, instead.Sorry Eric, love and hope have nothing to do with you claiming to be with God all day long. Love is certainly not just a human emotion and it is an emotion that evolution gave us as a means for survival.
BTW, I'm not American and I still wish Obama well.
Are you seriously equating love to God?
Eric, love can be defined in many ways but what you call love in the Christian sense can be defined as empathy. It is not that athiests don't want the best for Obama but they will define it differently.
They also don't think prayers and good wishes will achieve anything so they don't bother with them- but that doesn't make you in anyway capable of feeling or understanding more than they are.Now that is truth -------- it makes no sense at all and don't fit no definisheeeeone.
Now we are talking about loving love! Amen brothers.It is well worth every breath I spent here. Love does not make any sense. Right on and righteous. That is the best news I heard ever since my boy started pooping in the toilet.
Love is an emotion, just like any other emotion, all from evolution.
sorry but on this one I sneeze. Show me proof. You cannot,,.. Love is a power not an emotion. The fact that science freaks can measure attributes of love does not limit that.
So I take a page out of Atheistic handbooks and ask you to prove what you say and not by some mumbo jumbo pseudo science please. My love is capable of moving people to do things. Tell Skinner and Pavlov to get a death life.So the fact that a break up causes the exact same chemical reaction in the brain as a drug withdrawal isn't an indication to you that there are chemicals involved and not spirits?
No Eric, it is an emotion just like all our other emotions, that is common knowledge. Look it up yourself, you'll not find a definition saying it is power, but you will find it states am emotion.
Let us be very open here: Bullsh&^% or whatever to please censors.
You tell me the science behind love that concludes that it is an emotion rather than and energy force behind moving objects.
\"go ahead punk, make my dayIt's common knowledge that love is an emotion, it would be you who needs to show love is a power that is an energy force behind moving objects.
"Despite the fact that love is one of the major human emotions (some would even say the most important one), love has only fairly recently became the subject of scientific.
http://psychology.about.com/od/loveanda … s-love.htm
That would be a narrow minded view, unhealthy over zealous worldview that ignores much of what many other philosophical leaders have said. Sure, we can easily find fault in Jesus just as we can find fault in other leaders.
But you don't have a true understanding. Only that which you have made up - have decided what a god should be like and assigned those attributes to Him.
The only record you have of your god - the bible - does not portray god to have the same attributes as you give Him. Not even close.Hold on here Holy batman. I know this makes you crazy but I personally know Jesus. I just plain wake up and then go to sleep with the fellow and walk with Him all day long.
If you cannot understand that. Then just admit that you cannot and do not cuss me for being able to not only understand that but live it. That is what I am saying here. You do not know the man or the God. I do. And no there is not book that I got that out of, I was born with it. I was born without my wife but now I love her and know her and do not want to be with out her and there is no evidence of that fact --- it just is.Are you confusing emotions with God/Jesus. How exactly are you with God?
Actually, that doesn't make him crazy.
That is false, you know that and we know that, no sense in even saying it.You were born with the knowledge of god's attributes?
Who are you and what have you done with Eric?Buddy friend, and great thinker. Is it possible to be born with knowledge? My Christian buddies think you can be born of sin.
Well why not an innate knowledge?
You are smarter than an average me. Granted.
But what science says that I cannot be born spiritual and connected.
Follow this through. I am gifted and yet by nurture I am a wreck. You are gifted through hard work and pressing intellect. Here is the issue. I am smart with no cause to be, you are smart through earnest effort. Go make sense of that. Are you just going to say that you are talking with and idiot because it is rational, even thought there is nothing rational about his intelligence? Because the Eric dud do not follow rules of thought? He dances around the fire we stoke to keep warm yet he acts like warmth is not important to him.Not really. We are born as blank slates ready to soak up knowledge.
That's just a silly fairy tale, there's no evidence of that.l
Reality would confirm that."But what science says that I cannot be born spiritual and connected."
If you really wish an answer, or even a best guess, you will have to define what YOU mean by "spiritual" and "connected". I doubt you reference an umbilical cord, but don't really have much inkling what you DO mean.
I don't believe in God. I believe Jesus was a very influential, extraordinary person but no more than that. I don't know if I technically qualify as an atheist, because I do have a sneaking feeling something happens when you die. I suspect we have souls that go somewhere, or maybe that's just wishful thinking. I don't know. What I do know is I can't simply choose to have faith in something I don't feel and hasn't been proven to me. I completely respect other people's faith in a deity, however. Just because I don't have faith doesn't mean a god of some sort doesn't unequivocally exist. And it certainly doesn't mean that people who believe are necessarily on the wrong path.
You don't believe in God, but think we have souls?
Actually, I can understand that. A part of us that grows, but does not die with the body does. A pattern of energy perhaps, grown and developed in the brain tissue that then retains it's form when the brain dies.
Can't say as I agree with it, but it makes much more sense than a cruel ET from another universe that loves us as it condemns us to eternal fire.I do think that there are mysteries. I do believe in control of outcome. And I believe there is something more than science. And I believe that looking at and to love is where the answer shall be found.
Unfortunately we usually love what we perceive something is rather that what it actually is. Probably why so many marriages last only a couple of years.
But more than science? As the field of science is everything we can detect or perceive, that seems incorrect.
What makes more sense is our energy gets transformed or moved to the creatures who eat our bodies or turned into heat by the flames that arise from our burning bodies. Anything else is speculation and wishful thinking.
@April, I agree with most of the things you said; Jesus was probably a normal person, who helped people, and may be he believed in God, or he might have never existed, and it was just a lie to control the masses.Who knows?
But no one likes to hear the truth; it’s LAME!! People want lies and fantasy.
I do believe we have souls; it's our identity. Without it we are just a bag of chemicals, which is possible, but not likely. I don't believe in heavens and hell, but I do believe that we are born again or in other words pass on to a new host. To think there is nothing after death is as stupid as believing in a heaven.
After all, what we are is a point of view, like in movies. After death, that point of view is no more, so it doesn't matter if the universe exists or not, for we cannot see it.
I don't believe in a God that our ancestors believed in. They had limited knowledge of science; all they believed in was may have been based on confusion.
Although we are much more advanced in science and technology, and we have more knowledge, most people still believe in the magical ancient stories that were told thousands of years ago. It's sad!
The saddest part is they don't think; they don't try to. They just believe what the so called people of God told them.
They have learned nothing from the past; Churches killed in the name of God; priests claimed to be the messengers of God, telling them to kill all those innocent people.
Will God tell you how to live your life? Will he punish you if you don't?
That's what they teach you as a kid, right?
It’s all about rules in religion; people do things in fear rather than devotion.
In Hinduism, we have castes to separate people; they believe in 330 million Gods. Their faith is so shallow, they find it hard to rely on a single God; often they will pray to more than one. They do what the priests tell them to; some people are not allowed to eat fish or meat, and not because of their belief, but because they are told to do so.
If there is a God, it must be the universe, and we are a part of it.
That explains astronomy too.
If God made us in his own image, who the hell designed him??
Believing that we are just a product of science is just as stupid; do you think we came out of nowhere? For evolution to happen, there has to be a start.
I am a spiritual atheist!
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einsteinthis is just great stuff. I shall ponder and work it through in my small brain.
You are a spiritual atheist. And that is way cool. But allow me to say if I may that you are a Spiritual Atheist.
Come on by for coffee any time."The universe isn't expanding because the Cosmological Constant is totally a thing." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
Just because he did give us special and general relativity doesn't mean the guy's immune from saying really stupid stuff. Assuming, of course, he even said what you claim he did.May be he didn't say that, or may be he did, but it doesn't matter; it's true!
The problem is, most people are bound by their their beliefs; they either are believers or they are not, but that only makes you slave to another religion you have created.
Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean all those who do are wrong. If you don't even listen to what they have to say and you are absolutely sure that they are wrong, you are just as blind.
Albert Einstein may have not known everything, but whatever he has to say, I will listen. I have my own mind to decide if it's right or wrong. I choose what I believe in.Hey in the spiritual realm I like it. May be that JC did not say all that but what is attributed is cool.
Where the knowledge comes from doesn't matter, what we learn from it does!
Spiritual Atheist - I like that. Amazing Thinker, I mostly agree with your viewpoint. I know people throughout history have done atrocious things in the name of religion and have used it to instill fear and exercise control. "Religion is the opiate of the masses. " - Karl Marx. But I have also known intimately a few people who pray to a Christian god who are not hypocritical and are very moral people I admire.
I believe (suspect or hypothesize might be a better word than believe) when we die, our souls join the universe in a manner that may or may not include consciousness. And maybe we are reborn as well. I have contemplated the option that we are no more than the biology and chemicals that make up our bodies. With that perspective, though, there would be no free will. All of our choices would be dictated by hormones and serotonin and the like. While I think those biological forces are powerful ones, I like to think there's something else in us as well.I'm still trying to find out how a spiritual atheist is defined, based on what you said here, it would be a person who doesn't specifically believe in any of the current religions, but does still hold a number of irrational beliefs that originated from those religions. Not really an atheist, though.
You are right; I am not an atheist, as it is still a religion, it has rules, and I don't like to follow rules when it comes to religion. I thought atheists were people who don't follow any religions; my mistake!! I mistook atheists for thinkers.
Turns out that atheism is just another religion of stubborn and narrow minded people who don't think beyond their beliefs.
Atheists think that every belief that religious people have is irrational, and their own beliefs can never be wrong. That’s stupid!
You are just avoiding thinking too deep.
If you don't even consider the other possibilities than you are not thinking at all; you have stopped your search for the truth, and you are no longer trying to find the answer, as you believe that you already know all the answers.
The truth is; the beliefs of atheists are based on their inability to think, and their inability to learn. They are blinded by them. Your religion says that there is no God, no soul and nothing more than what science tells you is real (Am I right? I don’t know what the rules are) and you blindly follow it; you don’t ever consider the possibilities.
Your beliefs are based on proof or the absence of proof right? (Correct me if I am wrong; I don’t know your rules). If you always rely on evidence than you will never find the truth. When there is no proof I just use my imagination till I find it.
You think everything that the religions tell us is irrational and is a lie? If you are willing to learn, they have a lot to teach, and it depends on us what we choose to learn. I don’t have to be a Christian to learn from the Bible nor have I to believe in everything that’s written in there.
These ancient stories may sound too ridiculous to believe, but may be we don’t know how to read them. Or may be they have been altered and exaggerated over the years and are very different from the original ones. After all they have been told and retold since thousands of years, but that does not mean that every story they told us is a lie.
As I have said before; these people had limited knowledge of science and technology. They may have confused magic for science, but that doesn’t make them stupid.
My beliefs are based on imagination, logic and proof, but I don’t claim to know everything. I listen what anyone has to say, then I use my imagination to understand it.
My religion is thinking. I think and I learn. My beliefs are always changing, as I am always learning new things. What I am saying right now may not be what I will believe in tomorrow. You won’t believe how many times I realize how stupid I was before. But I don’t regret it, as I know that I “know more” than I did before.
I don’t believe in the existence of an alien life, as I have not seen anything that will make me believe, but I don’t deny their existence, and I am open to the possibility that they do. For those who deny it I ask them; are you absolutely sure that they don’t exist?
You can never deny the existence of someone or something unless you have the evidence to prove it. You can only assume but cannot be absolutely sure. Can you?
You are only assuming that there is nothing after death, but you don’t know for sure. Do you? Your beliefs are based on logic not proof. Science is not perfect!
May be free will is just an illusion. Of course; you control your own life, and you do what you want to. You are not a computer program, I get it, but in a bigger sense, it was supposed to happen that way. May be it is already planned, are we are just some characters who are playing our parts. But I don’t expect you to understand, you need a strong imagination for that.
Of course these are just theories; I can’t prove anything, but nor can you prove it wrong.
My religion is thinking, and I am a thinker. There are no rules, there are no limits. You are welcome to join me.
If anyone has anything to say, I am all ears.
Thank you EncephaloiDead! Because of you, I realized that I am not an atheist.
Note: When I say “you,” I am not referring to a specific person.Very interesting. These labels we use are an enigma.
Yes I do suppose some just give them a definition and never question it. Or maybe they just accept what a science teacher or priest tells them what labels mean.
Reminds me of Tractatus Logico-PhilosophicusHave you read it? Is it good?
I mean the book!I meant Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the book. Has anyone read it? Is it worth reading?
If you are going to tackle it I would suggest buying a reading guide to go with it. It is a *difficult* read.
Oh sorry, it's on my to-do list, but first I have to finish the last book in the Enders Game series.
Which one? In the store the other day and saw a new "latest"; a prequel to the war with Mazor. Didn't buy it because my son was right there and seemed interested that I was interested: I smell an Xmas gift in the making.
Ender's Game, - my kids liked it more then me.
Speaker for the Dead, - I loved it more than my kids did.
Xenocide, - Better read Speaker for the dead first.
Children of the mind - Starting a little slow, put if down and have to get back to it.Did you know there is another whole mini-series about Bean? I enjoyed them at least as much as the Ender series.
I think one of my kids mentioned that. I'll have to get through Children of the mind first.
Ender's Shadow was the first about Bean. I absolutely loved it! Almost more than Ender's Game.
I did too, Mo. A whole different view of the same thing - a great read.
And then the later ones, back on earth were an entirely new subject, far different from what Ender experienced, and again a great read.
Funny, I ask one of my kids about it and it turns out we have the whole series waiting to be read.
I envy you. I typically read books several times, and will read those again, but it's not as fun as the first time around.
Is Ender's a better read than it is a movie?
wilderness I had to study it in school but I do see now they are redoing it:
Wittgenstein, Ludwig and Bertrand Russell (Contributer) and C.K. Ogden (Translator).
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. in: Project Gutenberg. (Original Publication: 1921)
Release Date: October 22, 2010.
Russell was my professor's professor so I think I should put his on my list also.Yes, much better and the others in the series and much better than the first book and tie very nicely to religion.
Eric, I read the book (actually whole double series) before I saw the movie. I felt it followed the book better than any movie I'd seen made, but that people that had not read the book probably would not enjoy it as much. Mostly because it DID follow the book but of course did not have the time to fully develop either characters or plot.
*******Spoiler alert******
Agreed. But the very ending was changed and didn't make any sense whatsoever. Although the family had a great discussion on the way home that my youngest was rather passionate about that had to do with why the military would trust the decisions of a child rather than a planed out attack. But the concept of Enders games (video games) was cool to say the least when you read the other books.
Hey wait a minute, these are not books that will get me banned from the blued haired lady middle pews section of church are they?
Here's the thing, one of my kids was just telling me about how the author is gay bashing a-hole religious nut, but somehow wrote some thought provoking stuff that is rather religion neutral.
Wanna hear something crazier? Orson Scott Card is a devout, practicing Mormon.
Maybe the Hive Queen's home planet was actually Kolob? After the Little Doctor, there isn't much left of it...
I does start to explain why some want to shut down that little voice in ones ear.
That and video games. Video games are quite dangerous, and when they have a giant with a drink, well...
Athiests in general will be capable of thinking- most scientists are athiests and assess the information available to make the best and most informed decision. Many religious people are also capable of thinking- even if it comes from a flawed assumption to begin with. Indeed, which ever programme of belief (or lack of belief) you choose to follow there will be an assumption at the start of your thought process.
I call your bluff --- Most scientists are not atheists ----- where did you get that from?
I don't have the stats to hand- I read a lot of stuff that I don't keep to hand, but a quick google search gives this on wikianswers. Not cast iron, but a nice starting point.
I should also point out that I include agnostics with atheists for the purposes of this discussion. I am agnostic but as I have seen no evidence to suggest god exists I reject him at this time. I am open to a change of opinion if the evidence changes.I'll have to dig it up, but I recall reading that, in a large survey of American scientists (maybe biologists?), they found that 85% were Atheist, 11% were Christian, and 4% were the Other selection.
EDIT: Maybe this is it?
Sorry, Atheism is not a religion and there are no rules to live by, except if you find yourself believing in God then you should drop the label.
That's not true either, we are open to any evidence anyone can supply. There is simply none.
What makes you think the other possibilities have not been explored? It's been my experience that the religious are the ones who refuse to look at their own beliefs in a critical, rational manner. Ask them, as I just did and they will respond that they refuse to do it.
No, most of us have been down the road of faith and it was the ability to think and look at our beliefs critically that lead us to where we are.
Statistically Atheists know more of the bible then Christians.
One can imagine all kinds of things are untrue.
Yes I would.
Okay, right. Just like atheists, we don't believe in the existence of God, but are willing to look at and for evidence.
I can safely say the Easter bunny is not real, I can do the same for Harry Potter.
We can imagine all kinds of crazy things, but so what?I wasn't aware that atheism had any rules, it's just a lack of belief in theistic claims. You say you have a huge invisible super friend and I don't happen to accept your claim because you have no evidence supporting the existence of your super friend.
That's about it. Can't see it being a religion, at least, not based on any definitions of religion.
But, thanks for calling atheists stubborn and narrow minded, nice argument.
That isn't what atheists say at all, ever. You're just making up stuff. I agree that it's stupid.
That's what religions actually claim, that they have the answers. Science is always looking for more answers, looking at other possibilities, constantly. It finds and uncovers the real truths about our world.
So, you're guessing at all that stuff about science, because you admit you don't know the rules, you don't actually know what science says about things, you just follow rumors?
I question scientific findings in the same way I question everything else.
If you don't know the rules, why do you keep making unfounded statements?
Evidence provides truth, real truth, not magical truths.
Exactly, that is called magical thinking.
There is a lot of beautiful literature written in all kinds of scriptures from all kinds of religions, it doesn't make any of them true, though.
Neither do I.
The common way to read words is with the eyes. It has been done for a very long time that way and continues today.
But, it does mean the stories we read today are greatly exaggerated and have changed so much, they hardly resemble the original stories. That is useful to us how?
But, it does make them extremely ignorant about our world compared to what we know today. Big difference.
I use logic, reason and critical thinking skills.
Good for you. You must be very happy with all the knowledge you've gained.I don't expect you to understand. I brought up a lot of things that can't be explained in a few words. I should have expressed my views in a way that others can relate to, but I was a little busy at that time.
For you to understand my theories I will have to give a more detailed explanation with examples. And it's not going be any less than 10,000 words.
I will write a hub on this topic and answer all your questions. It might take a while, as I just started a new job, and am super busy right now.
I will let you guys know when I do!
Note: As I said before; when I say you, I don't refer to a specific person. My views on atheism are based on observation and research. I have talked to a lot of atheists and most of them share the same beliefs that I mentioned above.
Some of the atheist hubbers I know are different; they think beyond their beliefs. Of course they don't believe in God and neither do I.
My theories on the existence of "God" are a bit complicated. I will try to explain them in my hub.
I said I don't know the rules because the rules are made by the individual; they make their own rules and don't think beyond them. At first they think they are free from any religion, they believe that their way is superior and eventually start to deny the religious views simply as a reaction; they are convinced that these views are nonsense and cannot be true. They are blinded by them. They don't realize that they have just created a new religion with new rules.
Now, how can I know the rules of the religion you have created?
I agree that most religious people are ignorant. In an argument they will simply talk nonsense, or declare you to be sinner for not believing. No point in arguing with them. Most of them but not all!
Eric,
I have been here 7 days and in 7 days I have seen only attempts at trolling from you, for the most part.
Why does it matter to you the thought processes of an atheist? Why is it of any concern-unless you only want to spark controversy...which is fine, but let's call it what it is.
As a non-atheist/ non-Christian, I have respect for any religion or lack thereof. I do not question why someone believes in a particular god, nor do I question why someone does not believe. Do you know why? Because it is none of my business. We are each afforded an opportunity to believe whatever we choose. Yes, we are also allowed to question whatever we choose, but it seems your questions are always mirrored images of a loaded gun pointed at the reader's face.
PeaceHi there bipolarist.
In seven days you have read my 380 plus hubs and yet there are no views on 100 of them. Look up the concept of troll. I have cut a wide swath here. I am entitled to voice my opine. How many featured hubs do you have? I would bet not one tenth of mine. I am at the current time one of the most prolific writers here. Attack the system not the participants.Eric,
I have not read any hub save the one about poop. That was your featured hub.
Absolutely you may voice your opinion, but I am allowed the same respect. My opinion happens to be that you do your best to pull Jesus into every conversation, though not in a favoring light. It is a ploy used (in my opinion) to lure and bait.
Since I have been here 8 days now, I feel comparing your 380 hubs to my 7 is a bit ridiculous, no?
I have not attacked your writing nor have I mentioned a lack in "prolific writing," I have only suggested that you troll.
The meaning of troll is to run a baited line through the water in hopes of catching a fish.
The system has nothing to do with your commentary.
New Agers live in some fairy tale, everyone just get along, except they can't stand to get along with Christians.
There is only one truth, so either your wrong, or the Holy Bible is. I'm going to say your wrong, and the Bible is right.
Of course you can say peace all day, but really you mean shut up Christian, or else..
You can hate Christians, we're just imperfect sheep, but the trouble you'll have is with Him who created you. He it is who has power to send you to everlasting punishment.
You won't be able to say you didn't have a chance.
So have fun with your insults, it's all you get -- is your selfish hate, just like your father Satan.I know it's hard to hear the truth, you can blame it on me, remember I'm just an imperfect sheep, but if it makes you feel better...
The only one saying hateful things here is you. I suggest you stop projecting negativity and cheer up, find a way to feel better about your fellow humans and yourself. If faith helps you do that, that's great.
Hey, I love you...come to the Lord Jesus and be saved, and remember I do care about you and everyone here. I love you...
GHAAAAH! What is this thread even doing here? Wasn't all this junk supposedly hidden away months ago? This thread should be on the other side of the tracks in the religion forum. Get it out of here, please.
We don't want it over there either!
We've already got quite enough drama.
Isn't there a hole in the sandpit we can bury it in?Hi Melissa and Fun person. Have a great day. I am sorry you to are grumpy. Hopefully something will cheer you up!
How about this: What is black and white and used to be red all over?
- Will Apseposted 11 years ago
0This thread is Eric's revenge for people being unkind to him yesterday.
And those insufferable liberals at HP HQ will simply refuse to terminate it on the grounds of some dead piece of paper called the Bill of Whites. Whatever that is.
Anyway, something interesting: which one is the imperfect sheep?
Although not an atheist, I fully understand why some feel that there is no God. Perhaps it stems from a sense of frustration that emanates from all of the horrible things that go on in our world. Whatever the reason, I respect other's thinking and the way that they feel. I think that having respect for what others think, believe or choose not to believe is the underlying basis for a better world.......
That would have been perfect if people didn't do stupid things in blind faith (More like using God to justify their actions). Just saw on the news that a man sacrificed his neighbor (a women) for some ritual.
I am afraid that mental illness is everywhere. Nice to think if we could cure it. But we have to stop looking for others to blame for it. Like suicide bombers and the media wants us to believe it is religion. Come on -- it is serious mental illness being exploited by psychotics. Religion is just a veil.
You can see here, Eric, the small samplings of responses that will make an atheist what they are. It is the reasoning of atheists to not only not want to be associated with people who think this way, but also to not want to become one of them, intolerant, self-righteous and completely oblivious to what they say about others because of their faith and lack of understanding.
It is not to say atheists are anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, they are just anti-intolerant, anti-self-righteous and prefer not to have faith as they can see what faith does to people, how it makes them think and ultimately how it makes them behave towards others.
Atheists can see clearly how faith causes people to project their own negative traits and lack of morals onto others, again oblivious to the fact that it isn't so much the horrible things going on the world as it is the faithful and the projection of those idiosyncrasies onto them.
Atheists actually do want to live in a peaceful world where everyone gets along, but know only to well that won't happen if the faithful continue to harangue them and everyone else who doesn't share their faith.
Being an extremist is wrong. Extreme Muslim, extreme Atheist, extreme Christian.
Is it possible that your Christ is someone else's Muhammad?Extremism is wrong --- you can leave the rest off the equation.
The truth is that God will come to each person when that person wants God to come to him. Until then…
Let God do it.
And Jesus
and the
Bible.
However, I believe it is perfectly fine to discuss the matter, as God is real to those who have felt his presence and have been guided by his invisible hand.The standard argument of theists...prove god doesn't exist.
To which I answer...prove that the one eyed, one horned flying purple people eater doesn't exist?
The onus is not to prove that something doesn't exist, it is entirely to prove that something does. Until it is proven god exists and wants us to follow a bunch of stupid and contradictory rules I am going to live my life the way I want to.- Will Apseposted 11 years ago0
Eric 10 Everyone Else 0
Eric has certainly learned how to work a crowd.Will please be kind. I am just a sinner like the rest of us. The fact that I am good at sinning just aggravates the situation.
- Will Apseposted 11 years ago0
Truly a fisher of men.
Though that one does look like a fish. Vanity blinds the minds to seeing the truth. To think your special version of reality is truth is vanity. Do as tho wilt is the new age mantra, where everyone thinks they are so unique, really your just like everyone else who thinks of themselves as the determining factor of truth. Truth is evolution takes more faith than believing in the Bible. To think something came from nothing is not logical.
The theory of evolution doesn't suggest that something came from nothing. So that is flaw one in your wonderful argument.
Flaw two is if god made everything, where did god come from? Nothing?
Flaw three is supposing that neo-liberalism (do as tho wilt) is supported by athiests. In fact the majority of neo-liberals in the USA are Republican and they are Christians.
Flaw four is scientific enquiry is objective- and if new evidence comes to light true scientists re-evaluate- it is not vanity blinding anybody.
Flaw five is not recognising that we KNOW the history of how the myths of the Christian god developed comes from a multi-god faith practiced in northern Africa (I'll let you research yourself to find out which one).
And the last thing here is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in the same god but they don't agree how to worship the same god. Within each of those religions there are many arguments about the best way to worship him (there are around 41,000 versions of Christianity) So even assuming he exists (which is a huge assumption) there is no point worshipping him because statistically you are likely to be doing it wrong. Not a flaw in you argument but a flaw in the idea of worship.Evolution is fact, the Bible is fiction.
Evolution does not say something came from nothing. You might want to read up on evolution before making false statements about it.One cannot read up on a personal relationship with God. I evolve everyday. I hope you are still learning and growing and evolving. Love is not fiction.
so your household hates a man you've never met, or talked with face to face. so you all pray nightly for him out of your love and respect for him. lets pray for the guy we despise for no real reason? Eric? you really live that way? love nor hate is the four letter word im thinking of. Fake is what i see.
Eloquent yet not worthy of response except to say so. You want to talk about me rather than a good thought,
Yes we do pray of those we do not care for.
Something that nobody has mentioned is the fact that even if there is a god (I don't believe there is) why would I worship him. I am sure tables exist and I don't worship them.
It can be dated back to the ancient times, before all this started; people heard the stories of God, and his "powers." Obviously they would want to impress him, they just didn't know how, so they came up with their own ridiculous ways; human sacrifice, rituals, and all that stuff.
Religion is a fake how to impress God manual.
And it's also that as children they are threatened with scary stories of God punishing the people who don't obey him. It's mostly fear, I think!The point I was making is that merely existing is no reason to worship. Mike Tyson is more powerful than me (physically, at least) but I wouldn't consider worshipping him.
By power I meant that they thought he was in "control!"
I have explained this in my hub; Why do people believe in God - Faith and religion.It started as fear of the unknown and was almost entirely related to weather cycles and food and developed from there It was an attempt to explain things they didn't understand.
It is still much the same, but for the rationale mind there is now much less that we don't understand.
I have read your hub but it doesn't explore the themes in depth or with any real insight and some of the things you say "we" don't know we do, or have enough evidence to strongly suggest the truth. But you are conflating organised religion with god when you discuss "control"- many religions have powerful creatures that represent chaos (for example the Wild Hunt in Celtic folklore), nature etc...
This forum went from asking about Atheistic abilities to why people cannot prove religion.
Certainly that has proved a portion of the nature of the forum. Atheists can only think one way. They operate in the empirical world only.
They "believe" - "think" that the only way to know something is to have empirical proof of it.
It is a black and white construct.
Although we do see that some atheists can know something without "physical proof", if they remain atheist then they still do not know God.
So probably we can conclude that cognitive atheists choose not to know God rather than being incapable of it. And that theists choose to know God though the are perfectly capable of logical critical thought. US presidents being a fine example of the latter.Why do you believe Presidents are capable of logical/critical thought? And why do you think they all believe? They say anything to get votes- by saying they don't believe they alienate vast numbers of voters.
Rejection of god is simply because logic and empirical evidence suggest no one god exists. We know (as much as we can know anything from ancient history) the history of one god faiths going back to the days there was a pantheon of gods. The simple evolution of faith serves as a strong suggestion that one god faiths are flawed.Or you can just be like me and believe that we are all gods because we have Love within us and God is Love.
If we are all gods then no need to worship or follow doctrine.
Indeed, the suggestion we are all gods denies the need for an external god and is essentially atheism.Well make no mistake you are talking about religion and I am talking about God.
You have your own definition of god, and I use the lower case quite deliberately, which means there is no difference whether you believe or not because if everybody is god they are free to live how they want and if nobody is god they are free to live how they choose. The entire debate is null.
God is a chemical reaction of the brain similar to the withdrawal of addiction?
That's a new one.Rad Man you must be great at love. All you have to do is add some chemicals to the body to get the right reaction in your brain and poof da you love. Take them away or add different chemicals and poof da you hate!
Did it ever occur to you that our body makes those chemicals by itself in reaction to stimuli? And in fact psychotics cannot produce those chemicals but others can simply by trying?Actually, a recent study has showed that a break up produces that same chemical reaction that a drug addict goes through when they are in withdrawal.
You do realize you admitted that love is something the brian does and not something God does right?
This might be one of those times you are turning of your intellect in an effort to find a God where none exists.Dang it --- I was mocking you! I guess I was so PC to have lost that idea on you.
I can explain your "telepathy"- your ears still work when you are asleep. You caught snatches of the conversation and filled in the rest.
Many people claim to have experienced the supernatural and many people have delusional episodes. It would be nce is the supernatural exists but if it cannot be proven then it cannot have an effect on our physical universe and it is a moot point whether it exists or not. It is can have an effect then it can be proved.
And there is a clear history through Islam, Christianity and Judaism which goes back to the "heathen" gods of ancient Egypt. The simple fact that Moses is in all three faiths and that Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet clearly demonstrate the links. There are many more links (not least of all Abraham).
All preach there is only one god and share a common history so either they share a god or there are multiple gods who are each denying each others existence.
Denying the rational world and blindly following Jesus is not an act of faith it is an act of stupidity. Live in the rationale world and worship Jesus by all means, but to ignore the realities around you is to invite all kinds of disaster.The conversation was downstairs and my aunt and mother will speaking in normal voices. I was sleeping upstairs. I wear ear plugs also.
When I was studying sound engineering I had an episode where I dreamt the night before that we were in the studio playing this certain song. When I got there after waking up that same song was playing.
What do you mean if it cannot be proven that it cannot have an effect on our universe? A lot of things were unproven and they did exist. Take radiation for example. No one knew it existed until 100 years ago. That doesn't mean it didn't exist until it was discovered. Who's to say that the supernatural will not be scientific later on? Science just doesn't understand it.
Jesus broke the mold. I don't see that He is derived from heathen gods of Ancient Egypt. Yes, Jews and Muslims don't realize they have been deceived by Satan. Allah is a moon god. In the occult, that is Satan. In the OT, the literal translation says that God is actually extra-terrestrials.
I don't follow Jesus and am not sure He exists. THAT would be stupid. I know Him and that is why I follow Him. It's pretty presumptuous of you to think I ignore the realities around me.You would be surprised at how sound travels and we can feel the vibrations through the floor and through our skin- it doesn't have to be through airwaves that enter through the ear canal.
Jews were duped yet Jesus was born a Jew? The old testament is entirely jewish, meaning half the bible is actually satanic? The history tracing the islamic god and the christian god through the jewish god (Moses) is pretty clear, and while there is little physical evidence left it is possible to trace Moses back to an Egyptian court which forsake all of the other Egyptian gods in favour of just worshpping Atun. The followers of that court were all exiled to the desert when the traditional Egytpian faiths regained control. Sound familiar?
Occultism is drawn from a lot of different ancient religions, with the name Satan probably coming from the Babylonian language- much predating Christianity but adopted by Christians hundreds of years after Jesus died.
The idea of the moon god being evil is not universal- although I suspect you are referring to the Mesopatamian goddess SIN- who later did become the embodiment of the semitic idea of evil.
I said thatif it cannot be proven it cannot affect our universe in response to the statement that supernatural means we cannot understand or interact with it. Radiation can be proven and always could, we just did not have the technology- but if supernatural beings like god cannot be understood or interacted with then we cannot prove them and they will have no bearing on the universe- if they have an effect then at some pont we will gain the ability to understand it as science advances.
The final statement about ignoring reality was aimed at a comment, I can't remember by who, who suggested that blind faith is a good thing. Blind faith means ignoring evidence and just believing. These threads have become convoluted and therefore it is difficult to find the original posts.You cannot be serious??? You know this is nonsense. Then I will dream of everybody's conversation.
Jesus came to witness to the truth and most did not know it. They were idolaters. They worshiped pagan gods like Molech. Moses was a serpent worshiper which is Satanism. I agree with you about the Moses part.
Other pagans wouldn't think moon gods are evil but it is so.
There is evidence of the supernatural but scientists don't touch upon that subject. Paranormal investigators have proof. I know I have seen it with my own eyes. Where did the concept of the supernatural come from in the first place?
I most certainly do not agree with blind faith. That's a waste of time.The laws of physics are not nonsense. Nor are the biological facts that sound can be felt. Ignoring science because it is inconvenient to your beliefs is nonsense.
Moses was a sun god worshipper- the Egyptian god that he most likely worshipped was Atum- associated with the evening sun. Moses was instructed by god to make a snake idol to cure snake bites but the instruction came from the ONE god.
You are saying that we shold accept your supernatural beliefs but then stating that pagans who worship the moon are evil - that is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Your beliefs are no more valid than theirs.
Jesus came to tell the truth - so all the words of god before the new testament are the lies of Satan. So now you are going against most of christianity as well. I wonder where you divine understanding comes from, that so many have been duped where you see so clearly.
The civilisations associated with the worship of Moloch all collapsed around 500bc, half a millenium before Jesus. Jewish people, the people that Jesus was preaching too, were already one god worshippers and not pagans.
Supernatural ideas originated to explain things that we didn't understand, but now we understand these things much better. The "evidence" for the supernatural comes in the form of personal accounts and obscure images, or in readings which cannot be fully explained. Yet they can be explained by equipment failure or be rare atmospheric conditons etc... The is no substantial proof of anything supernatural, but as I have said before if these things exist we will attain the technology to understand them fully in time and they will then become part of the natural.Any other explanation but telepathy, hey? Can't even consider that. Tell me, if I went to sleep this evening and people were talking would I dream about what they saying? Everyone knows sound can be felt. Words uttered are frequencies. That doesn't mean we can interpret frequencies as words by not hearing it.
Yes, it probably was that Egyptian God. In fact, that god was most likely and extra terrestrial.
I didn't say all pagans believed moon gods are evil but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is Satan.
That is a Knight's Templar moon god figure. As you know, that is Satan in Satanism. If we are to believe that that the three Abrahamic religions are referring to the same God, then would the Father of Jesus be a moon god?
I didn't say all of the Old Testament was wrong. Just most of it that at least what I have read. It's not divine understanding. It's just logic. Who can Jesus be contradictory to the actions of God in the Old Testament if they are one? Was Jesus one with extra-terrestrials? The gods were actually E.Ts. Christians must do research. Most prefer not to. They like to package Christianity in the way they want to.
Yes, by that time those gods were merged into one like Allah. How can we take seriously Moses being a monotheist when he worshiped pagan gods? Yes, those in Jesus' time believed in one god because the Bible told them so. To this day we think that God in the OT is just one when it fact it is many.Sounds like someone's been watching Ancient Aliens.
Too bad a little bit of research (or a metric ton of it) shows that the Ancient Astronaut theory has a huge amount of holes, misinterpretations, and outright lies.How do you think sound is heard? The vibrations on bones in your ear are interpreted by your brain. The vibrations don't have to go through your eardrums. There are numberous examples of composers who are deaf being able to hear and write music because they feel the vibrations.
I am happy to consider telepathy when there is solid evidence but no real experiment has been able to indicate that telepathy is possible and there is a very real scientifically valid explanation for what you experienced, so I would rather go for that option.
Satan has many forms in christian writing and it is intersting that they are all from rival religions that christians were trying to discredit.
Moses worshipped one god in a way that he was told to, not many. That is pretty clear in the bible, the holy book of christians. And it is also clear that the Abrahamaic faiths all share one god because they all share the same initial prophet- that is why they are called the Abrahamaic faiths.
I find it interesting that you feel you can pick and choose which parts of the holy texts are valid and which are not- if there is an omnipotent god then they are all valid, if there isn't then none of it is valid.Yes, composers pick up frequencies from sound but they cannot interpret it as words. Where is your proof that this is true? Then all deaf people should "hear" what other people are saying then.
Science is not really interested in that subject. However, are you aware that the there is a Defence Intelligence Agency Psychic Center and that the NSA (National Security Agency) studies parapsychology regards to psychics, ESP and telepathy?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/visio … ota_9a.htm
Like what rival religions?
That is not true. Consider this verse:
2 Kings 18:4
"He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)"
So Moses was a serpent worshiper. How could he worship a serpent (Satan) and God?? So which God was it?
It is not all or nothing. As I said, what contradicts Jesus cannot be true. God works through people but they are not infallible. Therefore an infallible Bible could never be written. Then there are just those occultists that contributed to the OT like the Levites.Are you aware Operation Stargate was shut down in 1995 for this reason:
"The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists."That is so cool. A billion dollars spent to learn about something that the billion dollars could not prove or disprove or even conclude exists or does not and therefor the same of the origins of such matters. And yet there was still enough "stuff" out there to get them to embark on such an inquiry. (I am intentionally leaving out the obvious -- that it is the government and therefor suspect for reasons to begin with)
But still it is amazing to think about.Obviously, it was a colossal waste of money, but that's what happens when you get believers lobbying the government to fund their delusions. They keep telling us to keep our minds open to other possibilities and when we do, this is the result.
Sorry but I have to laugh at that. It is your considered opinion that the alphabet soup of US gov. agencies undertook this because "believers" convinced them to do it so as to prove their beliefs. And not because they were convinced there was something there that they could use for their benefit? Even you have to admit that is funny. And you can take that either way and it is still hilarious. Either they did it for the reason you espoused or the other more likely reason and both are funny.
"Information in the United States on psychic research in some foreign countries was sketchy and poorly detailed, based mostly on rumor or innuendo from second-hand or tertiary reporting, attributed to both reliable and unreliable disinformation sources..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_ProjectBased on this I have a very psychic belief that they did not and have not stopped the programs. The article reported one whacky Dr. General required that his officers could "bend" spoons. I reread that 3 times and the article clearly says that they were required to learn how to do this -- not try. Your reference makes it clear that things were done just not reliably consistent to act on independently --- sounds just like Benghazi.
To be fair most US research in operation Stargate was in response to videos that Soviet Russia "leaked" to them which demonstrated their own research. Many now think it was just subterfuge to get the US to re-direct resources- a cunning ploy which had some success.
I am reminded of Doubting Thomas. The notion was not that he was bad because he could not believe without touching and it was accepted that he was that way. No one thinks the less of him. (metaphor or reality who cares?) The notion was that others are blessed that they see and know without touching. I love Thomas and gave that as a middle name to my eldest son. For we must question and I want him to always remember that.
I think we can all identify with Thomas.
This forum clearly asked about atheist and their position. But as we can see the vocal atheist only uses an argument against faith and not a justification of their position in general. Here it is very clear that though they cannot have faith they refuse to admit that fact.
It is befuddling that one can argue against blind faith and say it is stupid and irrational and only and idiot can have it and that they do not --- but not admit that they cannot have it while others can.
It is a straight forward fact that atheists cannot have blind faith but they also cannot admit that.I don't have a blind faith. I need to see evidence as should you,
Rad Man I applaud you!
As for me, sometimes I am just too damned stupid to understand the evidence so I just trust.
Doc the other day told me I was dying. I trusted him. I gasped. He laughed and said God has a sense of humor your are dying in about 40 years.
You seem very willing to stereotype all atheists in a derogatory manner. So I don;t see how you can complain that the same is down to you.
I am agnostic- I am happy to believe in any gods when sufficient evidence is presented.
You also said that atheists are not capable of faith- something that was successfully argued not to be the case. Everybody engages in acts of faith every single day. Not blind faith but informed faith.Right on the money Mark. I always love a Bible thumper who says thou shall not judge!! Well I sure hope they do not drive and have to judge the speed and distance of 80 mph cars.
Is the act of engaging in acts of faith -- the same as believing?
(but remember you are agnostic - not atheist)
It's not that an atheist cannot have blind faith, they can, just like a believer can use his brains to think if he wants. It's just that the atheist does not choose to use blind faith to rule their worldviews.
They hypocrisy about the whole thing is that believers also don't just accept everything on blind faith, they too demand evidence sometimes, but instead choose to accept the things they want to believe on blind faith.Your logic is faulty you just made the words conform. Not being able to choose to do something is our English equivalent to "Can't".
You cannot exercise blind faith -- it is not in you --- just admit it and it helps the discussion.The logic is not faulty, both blind faith and thinking are common amongst all humans.
I have no problem exercising blind faith, none whatsoever. It is in all of us.Thank you. What do you have blind faith in?
Perhaps the issue is that Atheists don't have a song. At last now they do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU
"Atheists Don't Have No Songs"I think Osborn has one -- What if God was one of us? Just a slob like Eric.
One of my favorites but do not tell my Christian friends.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3_PawcvFrMQ?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Blind faith in my dog, my mother, gravity, expecting the sun to rise tomorrow. No problem.
Sorry you had me going with mom and doggie. But "expecting the sun to rise has no logic" Because something has happened a billion times is no proof to believe it will happen again. Just like God.
Your experience is not proof of a future event.
So why do you not have "blind faith" in God. The dog and the mom you have physical evidentiary proof of, so it is not what we mean by blind.
It depends why they are deaf as to what extent people can hear, and when you are asleep or semi-conscious your brain is doing a lot less and can interpret things much easier.
Like Islam and Judaism (not to mention the near infinite versions of Christianity).
I know the CIA, NSA and KGB not to mention many others studies all sorts of mental powers and managed to find nothing supporting them - the few cases which they thought might be genuine were debunked in the long run. So vast resources have been thrown at investigating some of the areas but still no evidence has been provided.
Yes, the Jews originally came from Egypt so they would worship Egyptian gods until your god told them not to at Mt Sinai. Nothing really surprising there, what is surprising is that an omnipotent god would not take steps to ensure that his words were not misinterpreted - he would only have to pop in another vision.
Like I said before the Christian god is the Jewish god and most likely came from the Egyptian god Atun. As did Allah. Nothing can change that. Even most Christians accept the old testament, but you are rejecting all of it. Yet Jesus is not god, he is the son of god and he accepted the old testament god.
And I should warn you that calling Jewish people Satanistsis anti-Semitic.Then why don't I dream about everything anyone says in my sleep? I'm not going to discuss this further You are adamant not to entertain the idea of telepathy
So why is there still that centre?
It's because corrupt human beings manipulated the Old Testament.
Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit. He assumed the role of the son on earth. How did He accept the Old Testament God?
I never claimed they were Satanists. Satanists worship the devil knowing who He is. Being deceived by Satan by believing lies is not Satanic.I am happy to entertain the idea of telepathy when there is evidence to support it which is not more likely to be explained away by the laws of physics.
The centre does not still exist.
Corrupt human beings manipulated the old testament but Jesus is a lovely bloke? And we know he accepted the old testament because it is still in his holy book- he and his disciples would have discarded it when writing the new testament. That and the fact that Jesus would have been Jewish, in fact he was a descendant of King David, is also a strong hint that he accepted the Jewish preaching's.
Your version of god must really be disappointing if you think he lets almost the entire world worship his arch rival in his name.
Related Discussions
- 31
Why Are Most Atheists More Intelligent Than Religious People?
by ngureco 9 years ago
Why Are Most Atheists More Intelligent Than Religious People?
- 26
Why is it men don't pick up on subtle hints from women?
by Joana e Bruno 10 years ago
Why is it men don't pick up on subtle hints from women?They do, but they ignore them? They don't really listen? They don't care? Or women really have to be straight forward at the risk of injuring some of men's feelings, which usually women are trying to avoid by giving the subtle hints?
- 59
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?
by Pauline C Stark 7 years ago
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?When it comes to Atheism, most religious people get angry and even combative when it comes to this subject. I wonder why, especially in this day and age, one would feel anger towards another human being with a different perception/outlook/belief....
- 28
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?
by M. T. Dremer 10 years ago
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?If you're a theist, what's something positive you could say about atheists? If you're an atheist, what's something positive you could say about theists? Please no sarcastic or passive-aggressive responses.
- 374
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?
by Dwight Phoenix 9 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's rebuttal
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
by Brittany Williams 5 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...