Like the Rockafellers, I think both sides need weopans and while I am neither religious or atheist, I think it's only fare. This may seem strange to some, but to me it makes perfect sense. The problem lay in words, not in method. does this make sense?
If you gave them all weapons, the Christians would win every time... Apparently Jesus was an active NRA member.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Anyone who doesnt believe in a god is an atheist just like a new born baby is an atheist. You cannot be neither, you have to be one or the other.
Weapons of word. They say if people read history, history wouldn't repeat itself. The trouble is, people who make history often can't read, like George Bush Jr.
How are people going to thieve from each other if their Gods are not at war?
They kill eachother until weopans won't solve anything. Waring with finesse and verbal candor can solve more problems as many may assume otherwise. Take Reagon for that matter, they do call him the great negotiator for that reason. He was an intelligent spinner of words.
There is no greater God than Jesus who is All in All, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. That is why his cross, the protein molecule 'laminin' taking the form of a cross, is in every human being as he created us all. And like Christ, it binds the human body together, without it, the human body may fall apart. All mankind should rejoice in Christ Jesus, as he is in all of us, yes, in our body. May we be guided more to be in his light that we may all be stronger against all evil in this world. Merry Christmas to one and all! Show love to all as we keep Jesus in our hearts or KJOH. Btw, thank you knolyourself for your views, may we grow more in the love and the light of Christ.
The conflict could be settled if Christians/Muslims would realize that their God has appointed the Millennium: "a time for SHOWING the world what is the real deal" and if Atheists would optimistically say, "Okay, I'll wait til then for proof."
With all the religious deception no logic-think atheist will ever believe in an almighty God unless that almighty God visually reveals Himself. And if one--anyone--actually thinks with logic, then, you can't condemn an atheistic mindset. Because it's practical if there is no irrefutable, tangible evidence.
I agree with both sides. I really just go where ever I may go. I am a spiritual drifter, both in and out. I am an atheist and yet I'm not. I cannot explain this to anyone because they see it as obsurd, though to me it makes perfect sense. So I decide to see it from both angles, maybe I'll finally hear something that really means something and maybe I'll gain some higher knowledge of myself, through the eyes of others.
I respect your belief. Know this, that logic is "thinking that conforms to facts" and common sense is "the greatest denominator of mentally understanding things".
No matter what is taught by man, there is logical evidence that some sentient being or sentient force does exist that created the physical matter we know.
Pure logic refutes the notion that nothing can come from nothing...thus the Big Bang Theory is essentially flawed.
Common sense begs us to reason that an intelligent mind had to have created the complexity of the universe. Only a source of vast intelligence could've designed the cosmos and set in motion the unbreakable laws to which it operates.
Knowing this is based on our own inherent intellect and not an influence of another human being. So no man needs to prove to you the existence of a greater intelligent being, because your own intelligent mind refuses to not ask itself that question.
And that is the problem with both die-hard atheists & Christians, they believe and insist it is their DUTY to prove to us that a superior intelligence does exist. To each one's end--they have proven nothing (as you've stated before).
Proof lies in the tangible and that is all the evidence one needs to form and adhere to any belief system--that they can prove their belief by what is physically seen and what can be physically demonstrated to bring about a physical manifestation of a result--no matter what it is--so long as it is governed by tangible evidence that can be implemented into "a cause and an effect".
Better to sit on the fence than to blindly fall off it.
Yet, I have a nagging and lengthy rebuttal scratching at the back of my pea brain but fear if unleashed would have me wallowing in despair at the thought of coming back to it full circle and facing up to lost cause.
So, I'll just leave my response in the form of a question.
What if everyone sat on the fence?
The fence would break under all that weight.
Human history and human nature has given our intellectual minds the proof that such a pure-hearted decision of oneness among ourselves is not plausible. Due to the fact that we are divided not in a slice of two or three, but in multiple beliefs, theories, and faiths.
There exist too much going-against-the-grain and opposition among the "intelligence" of our minds for us to ever reconcile to one unanimous agreement to just sit on the fence.
The question itself is flawed.
My statement is based on if our "traditional idea of an intervening Supreme God" is not part of the equation. So no need to response with defenses imparting God into it. Because my comment is based on if there were no God to intervene then this would be the outcome mentioned by A Troubled Man.
I agree that it is possible to take both sides. I tend to feel for the believer who is being criticised for their beliefs. This can mean that I defend the religious when they are criticised, but also the atheist when they are. And, as I find my own opinions changing almost by the day, I can see both sides. At Christmastide, I am usually a believer, as I get carried along by the positive message that Christmas brings, even if logically I have many reasons against it.
I think most agnostics agree with points on both sides of the religious debate. I don't think that is fence sitting. It's honesty. I can't understand how a thinking person could become doggedly entrenched. Neither side has ever proven their case.
If everyone sat on the fence, now stay with me here. Wouldn't there be more to talk about, besides petty religious squabling?
Most assuredly. And, by 'fence sitting' we put ourselves in the position to learn, which is the only logical stance if you are truly interested in finding truth; since neither side can prove their case, as of yet..
As we drift further toward becoming a level 1 civilization, we will eventually reallize that things that make us happy as individuals will be alright with everyone else. We will stay level 0 unless we can somehow come up with a sollution to being so self centered, as a species.
Not really. Learning would imply one is no longer sitting on the fence but is actually thinking and has an intelligent opinion.
That's why one should learn about something, not completely submerge one's self. This how we get fanatics, they read a little and because they have some small connection to the magical and somwhat dangerous words of other men. One should just read it as a book and say "Ok. I'll just pick up another book and move on"
I love to read, but I don't base all my beliefs on what I read either. I see that their is logic to be found from it, but more in the way of seeing how we've changed as a species and how we still act so primatively. I think religion haulted our evolution as a species for a time. Once the atheists got control of things (in the science department), it only took us 100 years to get where we are now. Up until that time science and religion were clashing and religion was winning. Now they are a bit more even and The christians are going after atheists now.
Books can lead to all sorts of reallity based problems, especially when people that take things to litterally get hold of one. I think one should scrutinize everything they read and be open minded to all other ways of thinking. A book is a book is a book.
Aw gee ATM. Attempts at insult. That is so unlike you. You don't understand the position I find myself in. The god of religion is obviously not real. I know this. Creator of reality is a term I find myself uncomfortable with also. Billions of years is a very long time.
However....(this is where you start formulating how many laughing faces to respond with) I'm still at a loss to explain certain things so I listen carefully to those such as you. I read and attempt to stay abreast, as best I can, of every amazing thing science discovers. I also listen to alternative ideas on the spiritual and write them off one by one. If the day comes when my questions have all been answered I'll be more than satisfied. Whichever answer I find.
So, if there is some type of a deity that lies somewhere outside of my ability to believe it could exist, I can't fathom how my stance could be perceived as a problem.
I must say that you still have retained an amazing ability to read words in posts that aren't there.
A lack of critical thinking skills is the problem and the reason why we have fence sitters.
Since you obviously appear to want so very much to understand....you said Learning would imply one is no longer sitting on the fence but is actually thinking and has an intelligent opinion.
So, to recap. Per your post you are saying fence sitters are not thinking and don't have an intelligent opinion. Does that about sum it up?
Are you sure you aren't pentecostal because....darn....your posts can sometimes mirror one of theirs.
It really doesn't matter what I say, does it? Your beliefs rule your worldview.
Yes, I spread hatred and lies everywhere.
I've often wondered what drives that? Are they afraid to have real opinions because it might offend people? Obviously most really are atheists - they know it's all silly, but they are reluctant to say so. I know that, as you say, most may not have really examined the issue in depth, and simply choose the believe the "we can't really know" blarney that so many spew, but I really wonder about the "fear of offense".
I am just being as pollite as possible. I think etiquite and social empathy is important when talking to others. People have a tendancy to see the small details between the lines and it may not be agreable to everyone so I am apologizing to the individual.
Ahh. The emotional need to be polite.
How wonderful it is that this emotion determines your beliefs.
So. Being polite is bad to an atheist? Interesting. This explains a lot.
I don't believe that I have to pretend that your opinions have value to be polite. It's quite enough that I will stand to defend your right to hold them - I don't have to give them false respect.
No. I don't have to respect your silly ideas either; but sometimes it makes me feel good to pretend I do. And I would always defend your right to have them. Even if they didn't create such amusement.
Oh, you are amused :-)
How utterly fascinating. No doubt that is supposed to imply that agnosticism is the intelligent stance. Yet you still refuse to read anything that might challenge that false belief..
Have a nice day. I'd be interested in how you'd have responded in another thread. Here is what I had to say:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/89085?p … ost1914424
Hang around for a while. I may be agnostic, but being agnostic appears to be more offensive than being atheist or hard core religious. We get harrassed by both sides and respond in kind.
Whatever delusion works for you.
We say the same about atheists and the religious. Fancy that.
Yet you have not even read my arguments. I HAVE read all the "but we cannot know" nonsense.
Fancy that, indeed.
You do realize you aren't the preeminent atheistic opinion? I don't have to know what your argument is, anymore than you care to know mine. I think, each of us knowing the definition of the word the other defines them selves as has been enough to seal each of our opinions of the other.
I'm sure you consider your reasons for your stand as convincing as I consider mine to be. I was raised to be polite and give leeway for freedom of conscience. And you?
No, I don't realize that.
I happen to be of the opinion that my arguments and opinions are as good or better than anyone else's. I think Dawkin's and the rest of the "popular" atheists (if there can be such a thing) are quite wrong in their "can't prove it either way" stance.
I CAN prove it.
Oh, and I was raised to say what I know to be true.
I'm done here, so feel free to take your least shot and say something demeaning.. I won't be back to retort.
Believers believe their beliefs should have top priority and be respected, honored and taken seriously. The person is irrelevant as they are nothing more than a "fleshy suit" worn by some spiritual entity.
Hence, respect the beliefs but not the person.
You and I look at it the opposite way.
No. you do not spread lies. I do think sometimes you foster hatred, but that's just an opinion. And, honestly, I figure it's calculated. So, maybe you have a good reason.
But, I'm not sure how my beliefs are bad. I believe all people are basically good and should follow their hearts and their conscience. Is that bad? In your opinion?
Was it the consistent use of laughies that gave it away? --->
I think that once you come to that understanding as opposed to that belief, you'll be well on your way.
Words, words, words ATM. I see that as a basic difference between you and I. You attempt to use word choice against people when, basically, you are saying the same thing. That's why I like you. I know you'll never see this, but we are very simpatico.
No, I'm not saying the same thing and my choice of words are directly correlated to their definitions and that usage in any given sentence.
I choose my words, also. Probably not as carefully, but I am in the habit of giving others the benefit of the doubt and keep forgetting that isn't the norm here. But, let's take a look at what was said.
I said I believe all people are basically good and should follow their hearts and their conscience.
You said 1. I think that once you come to that understanding as opposed to that belief, you'll be well on your way.
Which means we are in agreement, from where I'm standing. I use the word believe, because it is my understanding that people are basically good; but it is also my understanding that not everyone agrees. So I label it a belief. I am not arrogant enough to think I know everything. I could be wrong. Maybe it is simply that those I have come into contact with in my lifetime have led me to come to this conclusion. I haven't met everyone in the world yet. And I'm not trying.
I do not think it is bad, I am speaking of how the knowledge ot it can be used in sometimes negative ways. It can be seen on both sides, but the intellegent people on the fence would rather talk about it than create an argument. Sometimes it may get a little heated. but what should one expect when one is talking about personal philosophy?
You are correct. I have a bad habit of stooping to the argument. Definitely something I need to work on.
We're all like that. I think we may be hardwired to act in such a way.
Just because one sits on the fence, does not mean they aren't educated to to some degree. It just means they don't like to act the same way everyone else does. I don't by fashionable clothes because I don't care to. It doesn't mean I don't like to watch the game being played either. The game that has 2 goals with the same idea. One is to live life and have God, the other is to live life without god. It's a game of opinion and self dellusion.
I do not boast to have any of the answers, these are just some observations I've made and in no way are intended to offend.
i disagree. I can't prove that there is no "creator", but that could be a 4th year physics student in some other Universe. It could even be creatures like us accidentally creating other Universes while we fumble our way into learning about particle physics.
I can prove that such a creator, if it exists at all, is no "god". I can't prove it to the religious, of course: they have emotional need to believe and I wouldn't even want to take that way from them - we all have irrational beliefs and if they make us happy and bring no harm to others, we should be allowed to have them.
But no person without that emotional need should accept the argument that "it can't be proved either way". It can, and there are no gods.
I'll be honest. I haven't read your hub. But, I think it should be easy to explain away the religious idea of God. But, at this point, many things are possible. I simply believe it would be arrogant to say we know enough to know for sure that some type of extension to reality as we know it does not exists.
I think heaven, hell, and souls hanging in the balance here are ridiculous concepts. And I don't anticipate dancing for Jesus, or any such silly idea. I'm sorry, but I can honestly say I honestly don't know. And I haven't heard a reasonable argument that makes me believe anyone does.
I know you probably think this implies you are right. I think it could mean that, or something else entirely.
I am uninterested in disabusing anyone of either religious belief or fence sitting. If it makes you happy and you are not hurting anyone, I'm fine with it.
You are fine with it? Gee. That's a load off my mind. I was soooo very worried.
I agree that religious belief of any kind is not in itself a bad thing. As far as we know we are only passing through this life once, and are only here for such a very short time. Therefore belief in gods, devils, angels or fairies is not harmful. It is only when people insist on forcing their own beliefs onto others that the human species encounters probelms, which leads to wars and acts of terrorism. It should be possible to disagree very strongly with the views of others, without the need to force others to agree with us. Agreeing politely to disagree is what raises us above the savages.
Well, I can't claim to be agnostic, and I'm certainly way beyond being atheist. I believe in logic, and science, yet, I also believe in God. I believe that all sides make the whole. Everyone has something to contribute. I believe that we are really close to a revolution of thought. We stand on the threshold of what amounts to a quantum leap for the entire species. Keep searching for the truth.
Middle grounds was my first thread here on this forum and both Religion and Atheist seem too extreme, yet it has helped me find a middle ground better, Thank You all
Never been much of a fence sitter though and hope you people out in the forum do not think my intention is to down your way of thinking or belief, I'm sometimes just too honest to a fault and want to get a closer understanding and do what it takes to learn
Learning is a necessity for all complex life forms. By this I am asking... Does a tiger not teach it's young to hunt? does a whale not push it's calf to the surface? Etc;. Tine is short for us in the scheme of things. Much too short for anything so small to be so serious. It is what we make of ourselve's and how we take others in that really counts for anything.
So many words for a simple idea. I need to learn to speak english!
So much crime going on in this thread.. No I must call backup... noooo
It's inner dialogue getting mixed up with what I am typing. It does have some understandable points to a degree. Plus I was talking to somebody else as well.
Hey mischievousme. I thought of another reason I don't agree with atheists or the religious all of the time. They are arrogant. That's irritating.
Ayup. It's really hard to deal with rational people, isn't it? They are just like irrational people - except they are rational.
No. Not in the least. But people who claim knowledge they don't possess aren't that rational. Imo.
But I DO possess the knowledge. You admitted that you haven't read my arguments, so how can you possibly say that I am irrational?
Unless, of course, it is that you have an irrational reason to want to straddle the fence - which is what I strongly suspect is the case for many so-called agnostics. With that need driving your thinking, you'll be no more convinced than any bible-thumper - because you have already made up your mind.
This is why I am neither atheist or religious. People are arogant, not just the to sides. Everyone is prideful in some way or another. I am no more guiltless than anyone else in this world of being this way. This is the way things are and it is a universal truth.
Well, I agree. But, on some subjects some stands appear to be more arrogant than others.
Arrogance has little to do with the belief itself, so much as the individual point of view. We can all be arrogant and it is a result of our pride to act the way we do. They are aspects of ego and self affirmation, arrogance and pride.
pssst.... i am sending you an application to join the thoughtpolice...
I'm afraid I would have to disagree. Firmly held beliefs are ego. Plain and simple. Ego, self affirmation, arrogance and pride are what entrenches the belief and makes us push it as truth.
Now, if you argued that arrogance was not meant to be a by product of the teachings of a belief; I'd agree. But belief is simply a shadow of what has been taught. Each person internalizes the things taught in their own unique manner.
Well it is the ego that harbors the reservations that we have for new ideas, though many of the ideas we are introduced to are older than the one's we know.
The fence sitting aspect comes from Sidhartha. Sit in the middle and observe. This is how old fence sitting is. Older than Christianity, yet younger than Budhism. The ideas seem new to us but are older than we know. This is why one should do research and listen. Be part of everyone, not just inside the finite mind. One must remember that we live with other people and that we are not alone in our suffering, nor are we totally individual of others. You have worries and so does everyone else. You have happiness sometimes and so does everyone else. This is to say that, our ego keeps us separate and that we will never get allong with others as long as there are cliques and special clubs to join.
For me, the right group of people, are people in general. I do not hang out with same people all of the time, it is bad for the individual in us. To remain confined to a certain group can make one absorb the traits of the group itself. One should hang out with as many different groups as possible and be integrated into society as possible. What makes us look smart in one group, makes us look dumb in another. This is why I observe and speak. I think it is better to know who I speak with, rather than what we are talking about. Talk to people, not at them.
See the definitions of "Agnostic Atheism" and "Agnostic Theism" they might be of interest to you, they have certainly been for me. They approch the issue in a more intelligent manner.
"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact." wiki
No, they don't. They simply define positions that are already obvious from the phrases themselves.
What works for one person doesn't mean it will work for another. If you agree, then you take both sides and you are being tolerant of others. If you dont, then you are selfish. Fame, power, money are the usual motives/driving force for one's belief.
I agree totally. It is true that it works this way. To each his own, so to speak.
That's right. However unaccepting you are with the logic in their belief, if they are not causing any harm, probably we can just be tolerant about it. Unless arguing really results to something special/productive/beneficial to someone, then so be it. But if not, just understand that everyone has experienced the world differently. Taste, smell, touch, experience is not the same for everyone. And that makes the world colorful and interesting!
Yes! lots of tolerant, like the way you think mischeviousme
When I tell atheist or Religious people I'm not arguing just having a friendly discussion they still don't think so. I try to learn something and test somtimes being in their shoes, because I don't belong to any group (maybe optimist club). No need to be against anyone, it's just odd thing I'm not for.
Why have an angry discussion about God, neither side can not proved or disprove, just share and enjoy the wonders of life in it all.
Try to enjoy the company and walk away feeling a little more enlightened.
Well discussions make you sharp. And discussions usually lead to new ideas and innovation. So if there is a good outcome, that's a great discussion.
How to be a team player with out being on the team. That would be a great title for a book.
by Jacqui3 years ago
Looking at both sides of your beliefs - have you tried it?I came across this quote (in pic), and it resonated with me a lot - I try to do this, but in complete honesty, I don't manage it with as much as I'd like. I'm...
by Susan Ream4 years ago
Have you ever jumped to a conclusion before hearing both sides of a story?What did you learn through your experience? Consider: Proverbs 18:17 The first to present his case seems right, till another...
by Sp Greaney5 years ago
Why are some people able to see both sides of an argument?Are you a peacemaker.
by janesix6 years ago
I've come to notice that there are certain traits that religious fanatic share, especially Christians.IrrationallityStubbornnessNot being able to answer a question directlyObnoxious quoting and misquoting the Bible...
by safiq ali patel4 years ago
The topic of Israeli and Palestinian relations comes up often. Be it when bombs and shelling kick off in the disputed territories, or be it when either side steps up a campaign for recognition. We have all over the...
by Rosualdo Ponce11 days ago
Does atheists lack knowledge or ignorant about God?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.