I'm encouraged after yesterday's discussion. We can now take this into the next level.
We all have the awareness that no one (atheists included) can change the world by winning an argument on a forum on HubPages.
But even if we can discuss about the 'real' problems of the world and how to solve them ~ we are winning half the game. Because very few people do that, from an objective, unbiased viewpoint.
Specifically and in great detail, how do you propose to breakthrough their subjective materialism?
Reply to the edit: They aren't genuinely interested in any of that either, in my opinion.
I'm always optimistic about that. My own experience has been that it's possible to bring about 'radical' changes in one's consciousness. The odd is that it might take a great deal of time (and slow experiences) for that to happen.
It's quite like the case that happens with medical students: Here you have a bunch of youngsters who were fans of film-stars, watched movies, played video games, made mistakes in life and had a 'fantastic' worldview.
After applying scissors on dead-bodies for a couple of years ~ they might suddenly realize the disturbing fact that film-stars have the same organs inside their bodies, that everyone else have.
It's not impossible to bring the same change in someone's (one who's not a medical student) consciousness ~ but of course that would require a great deal of effort from both inside and outside.
It's not impossible to break through a 'materialistic outlook' of life. The strongest point here is that the whole 'thing' is an artificial construct: No child enters the world, equipped with a materialistic philosophy installed inside their heart, soul and mind.
Besides giving them a radio check for the late JC, I don't think it's possible to break their irrational blind faith in their subjective materialism, even with the mace of reason.
As I said ~ it might indeed be very difficult ~ as difficult as to break someone's blind faith in Jesus Christ.
Apples and oranges. One faith leads to a tragic carnal conclusion, at best, and all that went along with it, another to hope (as well as many other things.)
Edit: If it ain't broke why fix it and if it is irreparably broke, why keep it?
Which would you hold on to? A mud pie or a recipe for mousse?
I see. Wisdom here.
1. If someone's belief makes them happy ~ why do we need to bother about their beliefs?
2. If someone knows himself/herself that their beliefs have no connection with reality ~ why do they still cherish those beliefs? And why should we approach such individuals, anyway?
One belief can be replaced with a .99 cent calculator. Another belief has inestimable life lessons. No one would want to pry a mud pie from someones hands and when it comes to baking cakes, we gonna need a recipe.
Scissors? I s'pose they use duct tape to seal them up.
"They aren't genuinely interested in any of that either, in my opinion."
~ That's true about some of them.
I am curious: why do you want to?
I think having people with diverse beliefs will be good for the world and for humanity if only we can stop killing ourselves over it.
Why would you assume intent? I was curious to the OP's strategy. Like I said, why would anyone want to pry a mud pie from someones hands? I don't. .
I did not assume anything.
"Specifically and in great detail, how do you propose to breakthrough their subjective materialism? "
You asked and I replied: why would you want to.
You then implied people who believe different things from you are carrying "mud pies".
To which I say: or maybe we are all just carrying bouquets with different flowers in them.
I am comparing subjective materialism to a mud pie. To one person its a bouquet of flowers, to another poison ivy.
If you give all people equal respect, you use the same imagery for all basic belief systems rather than treat some in a derogatory way as nasty or poisonous. It is your doing this that made me interpret your question as I did.
I get that some beliefs are actively harmless, but broad religions / lack thereof should not fall into that category if you respect human diversity and consider it a good thing.
But I am not trying to extol the virtue of diversity. That is your alleged gig. If I were to do that I would sculpt a Bernini of diversity and donate it to the Louvre. I am trying to explain fundamental reality.
No you're not. You're trying to explain/convince of your personal perspective of reality; a perspective based on very subjective reasoning and experience that cannot be transferred to others.
You just made my point. Such is reality even at the core level.
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
a thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is grim or problematic.
plural noun: realities
a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind.
"the paperless office may yet become a reality"
the state or quality of having existence or substance.
existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.
Or would you prefer to make your own definition that will support your (subjective) perception?
If you insist, who am I to argue with you? Where do you come by this knowledge, to drop on me? And what of Jesus? What are they gonna say when He's gone? Because He dies when it dies, when it dies, He dies. What are they gonna say about Him? He was a kind man? He was a wise man? He had plans? He had wisdom? No way man. And am I gonna be the one that's gonna set them straight? Look at me. Look at me. Wrong...It's all about knowledge and where it came from and who listens to it.
"Wrong...It's all about knowledge and where it came from..."
No arguments there. So where did your "knowledge" of Jesus come from? A book written by unknown authors and compiled by a political force intent on consolidating their power? Or from that subjective experience you cannot communicate to others and refuse to question yourself?
Well most of what I said came from here since you ask. And that's in my opinion closer to the truth than your: political force intent on consolidating their power- story
Its all about knowledge. Where does it come from? How much does it weigh? Who is getting it right and who is not.
Who do you think came up with first church doctrine and compiled the bible? The apostles? (Hint: look up the council of Nicaea, formed under the Roman emperor Constantine, as a starting point)
Nice set of emotional questions, but not a hint of answer or knowledge. And that's where you go to find knowledge of our world?
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun … onceptions
Without me getting too emotional. Where does knowledge come from? How much does it weigh?
Give it some thought, while I am off to my favorite social site. Have a good day all.
But in any case, that's why I said to start there. Going on:
"The Christians who wrote the New Testament were Catholic – they were Catholic for two reasons. One, they believed everything which the current Catholic Church (and only the Catholic Church) teaches (as is shown by the writings of the Church Fathers). And they were Catholic because there was no other church at the time. Myths such as the “Trail of Blood” simply do not hold water – the Catholic Church was, quite literally, the only game in town." http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/ap … xts/1l.htm
And if you don't think the Catholic church is a political organization, you'd better think again.
Continuing on: Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin Church." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
I was extolling diversity -- then you were insulted because I was contrasting that with your... opposite position.
So now I have no idea what you are arguing with me about, but my initial post was quite accurate. And I guess your inability to even understand that we have different "fundamental realities" is further support of the contrast.
And because I have no idea of the relevance of Medusa to any of this.
Psycheskinner wrote: "I am curious: why do you want to?"
why do you want to?
Then Psycheskinner changed it to: why would you want to.
See the difference?
Can you define your topic a little better? Do you intend a
religious discussion or is the topic spirituality of the human animal?
You have arrived late this evening. The show has already ended. Take your seat and enjoy the replay.
Oh, I read the posts. Sounds like a replay of the Christian beliefs rather than a spiritual discussion. That and insulting anyone that is "materialistic", whatever that means.
They'd have to know what it means to be insulted, wouldn't they? Do these quotes sound familiar to you Wilderness? "Just rant about how they ".. 'are always attacked "or You and" ..."want to be offended," Nevertheless the movie was more of a Matrix than an Old Yeller. Please avoid the petty bickering. Thanks
For the sake of focusing discussion materialist has two distinct meanings:
1) focus on possessions: devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values
2) theory of physical: the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions
If purely the second meaning is referred to I am a materialist and many people are. If the first is being referred to, that is an insult.
So do you want to discuss how to solve the real problems in the world or do you want to discuss how to encourage atheists to be spiritual? Those are two different topics.
Teaching anyone to be spiritual would be pointless. Following Christ is about having a relationship with Christ. Being spiritual can be mystical or ritualistic... it has many meanings. A Christian believes that salvation comes from accepting the gift of the work of Jesus on the cross. The two are not even in the same time zones and the former cannot compare in importance to the latter.
And given that people either follow this faith, or another faith, or no faith and trying to make them change is pointless if they are not interested in changing -- perhaps learning to live together peacefully is a more realistic goal.
1) You are exactly right. If God Himself does not move on your heart, then my words are meaningless. However, Christians are still called, by God Himself, to faithfully share the gospel to every tribe and every nation. I will not push Christ on anyone. I might as well beg George Clooney to marry me. Do you know what I mean? I can stalk him till the cows come home, but all that's going to do is get me arrested.
Now, if I belong to a small community where several threads based on the topic of religion are posted, why would I not post on them? The Atheist obviously wants me to post on them, or he/she wouldn't start them... and though I seldom post unless something catches my attention, I would be remiss not to be honest in my beliefs, just as you are in yours.
2) I do live quite peacefully with real life Atheists and ppl of different faiths. They are my friends and co-workers and I love them dearly. And if I ever have the chance to share Jesus with them, I do, and if I feel it is offensive to them, I do not, but I will pray for them. Most of the time, when they tell me their troubles, I just hug them and cry with them or laugh with them... I mean... I'm their friend. This is kind of the norm with the Christians that I know. I think of this as living out the scripture that says, 'They will know we are Christians by our love.'
3) Im sorry that post was so long.
Although I haven't really read them in-depth, he writes How to Make the World Happier articles, so that may be his end goal.
So, what are the "real" problems of the world according to you, Gs?
You would answer, "Materialism."
wilderness would ask "What do you mean by materialism?" and you would say--->_________________________
It can't be denied that much knowledge was lost during the dark ages. Why were they called the
"dark ages?" "... the period in western Europe between the fall of the Roman Empire and the high Middle Ages, c. ad 500–1100," W
little knowledge of….
by Kathryn L Hill 9 years ago
Here is a place for Atheists to discuss their beliefs, or lack of beliefs, with others of like mind. If God-believers want to counter them, they may, but it is mostly for Atheists.
by Prodio 8 years ago
Atheists do not dislike God - they dislike the God which has been created, described and distributed by human beings. "A Christian God" - says an atheist - "is not a God at all" - and they are true - up to a great extent. A "Muslim God" - said he - "is...
by Peter Freeman 11 years ago
I'm not a big fan of getting into controversial discussions in the forums. I prefer to read than write here, but this has been bothering me for a long time. There are some deep questions that I want to ask. When I talk to Jewish Rabbis or thinkers they would engage me forever, keep the coffee...
by Brittany Williams 2 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...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
by OutWest 6 years ago
Why do atheists take the bible so literal?In their effort to disprove God many atheists are as extreme as the religious fanatics they claim to be against. They take passages literally and claim they cannot believe in such a God. One who kills and is cruel. Why not see it...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|