It must be nice to believe something, to accept it so innocently, naively.
Without the burden of proof, the reasoning and rational, that comprize the adult mind. To be as a child is fun, to live as a child must be hell. To never know logic and to only assume truth, based on the writings and words of another, taught by those that only wish to gain a following. It must be nice to never face one's own mortality, to fear an imaginary place and aspire to another. Fear and pride are strange bed fellows, together they lead to suffering, apart, they are only words.
It was a battle within myself for me to accept Christ. I hope you don't assume all believers are naive and ready to believe the first thing that comes along. Mine was a years long process of reading and listening. My beliefs were more in line with Judaism when I was exposed to Jesus Christ.
It was a study of His life, His death, and His resurrection, along with accepting that God was here before man, that led me to Him.
Most people that know me consider me to have a keen mind. Not an easily trusting sort. Amazing how God can reach out to anyone at anytime, and win them over to His purpose.
Unfortunately, the statement is simply your perception. The question is, why do you feel the need to view it this way? Would it be fair, in your opinion, if others viewed your conclusions with such negativity? If so, why? If not; why not?
I prefer any opinion... It is a baiting tactic, the intended purpose of which is to introduce a form of reasoning. I said nothing hateful in the above statement, though I admit it is a bit harsh.
Right. That makes perfect sense. So, here's my opinion.
You misunderstand the meaning of the statement in the text where Christ speaks of becoming like children. It has nothing to do with being naive and illogical. Think about the positive attributes of children.
Children don't judge you. They accept you for who you are. They love you unconditionally. They do take things at face value, when they are positive things. Negative things....they willingly seek to accept a positive spin. They are not closed to alternative opinions, and willingly learn.
Imagine if we could do that. Would the world be a better place?
I know where I stand... right in the middle. I have no one God, yet I have no gods at all. I see what I believe, as a making of my own imaginings and perceptions.
"They are not closed to alternative opinions, and willingly learn."
Wow! Emile! Would that EACH of us could become as a little child, don't you think?
Definitely. I'm sure you meant that with sincere sarcasm, but I wholeheartedly agree. What we have to keep in mind is that they are all simply opinions, so the only learning that will take place is a better understanding of each other. Sorry if my 'in your face' style offends you. I dislike hypocrisy. I'll point it out when I see it and apologize when I recognize it in my own posts.
Im not sure mischevous was referring to christs saying about being like a child.
I think he was making a comparison with the blind trust and belief because if you look at children, they all have it.
As for you claiming that he is mocking, he only pointed out that blind belief and trust in anothers words is exaclty what children have.
You should never be offended by the truth.
The truth doesn't offend me.
You might read the OP again. It says that those who believe in anything do it without rational or reasonable thought. It lacks logic.
I simply pointed out that he falls into the same category. As do you and I. What any of us think, on a cosmic scale, is the result of reading the words of others. Coming to conclusions from our thoughts on the words. And why do people bother to share their thoughts in books, seminars or sermons? To convince others. To gain a following. No one can claim truth, except the most egotistical.
So, tell me. What is truth on the cosmic scale? It's a matter of opinion. And you know what they say about those?
I simply say "I dont know". I dont claim to know, I dont claim to hold any truth that I cannot demonstrate to be true.
Unfortunately, in my experience, and maybe in mischeivous' experience as well, theists tend to ignore plenty of logical and reasonable explanations and favour the assumation that it must all make sense even if they cant understand it because they think they know the truth.
I am not saying that all theists are like this, but in my experience, a lot are.
Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. Is it reasonable, logical or rational to say they all are?
Ask the same question about any philosophical or religious stance you disagree with. Does it make sense to blindly claim any who agree with the person you disagree with is irrational, illogical and naive?
He's already admitted to baiting. He simply hasn't presented a rational, logical or reasonable explanation as to why he felt the need to do it.
If someone is ignoring rational and logical reasons then how can you say that they are being logical and rational?
You'd have to give me an example of what you consider illogical and unreasonable. I do consider the OP unreasonable, as stated. Illogical to boot.
I think that people who deny evolution are illogical considering the amount of evidence that they hav to dismiss in order to maintain their belief that evolution does not happen.
My personal favourite is the argument that lifeforms do evolve a little bit but they never change enough to make a new species.
Anyone with half a brain can understand that the more you change something the more different it will be from the original.
There is no logic, rational, or evidence at all that can explain that belief.
I'll bite on that one. I have no problem accepting the premise of evolution; but one of the stickings points remains how and why.
I was watching a documentary on Discovery about the North and South poles. One of the scenes showed caribou fighting over a female. Massive and intricate horns adorned both stags. Why? What was the first point where a mutation that caused a nub to stick out would have been considered advantageous? Did a nub help a bud buck? Maybe. Maybe the other bucks got to whispering. Warning each other that the acoutriment could poke an eye out. The does, all enthralled with the fancy piece of a horn, ran over and joined his harem. History was made.
What about migratory birds? It's as if the place they need to go is coded in their DNA. How? We don't know yet, but as it stands, it appears birds have a trick up their sleeve that we can't do ourselves. Some DNA coding ability might have been a handy tool for Cro Magnon man.
And birds of paradise. That's a real mystery to me.
And did you know science has yet to understand how a firefly lights its butt up?
We will attain the answers one day. To every question we have. But, until we do, a little god had a hand in it isn't hurting anything; as long as it doesn't inhibit the search for answers. One can think God intervened and still seek the answers to how and why.
Now, as to the creationists and young earth proponents. I'd have to go with irrational and illogical. Simply because they appear to want to pull us back into the dark ages.
How, DNA mutations.
Why, who says there needs to be a reason?
It could be that the "nub" was a neutral mutation. Since it didnt harm the animal, it would be passed on to its offpsring. There is no reason why it should die out straight away.
Birds migrate to warmer climates because that is where the food is.
What is there to understand? Aren't they just birds that live in tropical climates?
Type "how do fireflies light up" in google. It is actually quite common knowledge. Why you think that scientists dont know this is beyond me.
If the answer is "god did it" then you would think you already have the answer so why would you need to keep searching?
Well we agree there.
You ignore the parts you can't explain. I get that. But, I'm not afraid to say 'What?'
Birds do not simply migrate to warmer climates. Birds have very specific places they go. Take an egg, hatch it in captivity and when the time for migration comes; they start turning to the specific angle that correlates to the direction they will need to go. Not simply south. On top of that, let it go and it will fly to that specific spot where the other birds are congregating. It doesn't search it out. It is programmed to fly to that specific spot.
That's the problem. Many people oversimplify. There is nothing simple about it. It shows a lack of curiosity on both ends to simply say either 'God did it' or 'Well, birds just do that'.
I'm incredibly interested in the how and why.
What did I ignore please?
Birds can see the earths magnetic field. It is like turning towards a light.
I never said "birds just do that".
I have answered your every question. The internet is awash with all the information you are looking for. Do I really have to find it all for you? You cant be looking very hard if you havent found anything yet.
You are still oversimplifying. I'd point you to the appropriate articles, but hey. If you truly want to know, you'll find them yourself.
Of course I am simplifying my answers. I am not going to educate you on the entire field of biology and genetics.
I still however, provided answers for all of your questions that you can easily look in to in more detail.
I am somewhat bemused as to why you are not doing that. I thought you said you were interested to know the answers?
You know the entire field of genetics and biology. Get out of here. That's hilarious.
You haven't answered any questions above a third grade understanding. I'm glad that suffices for you...for the rest of us? Not so much.
I'm not attempting to debate you. As I stated in the beginning; I have no problem with evolution. I have full confidence we are on the right track. But, there is still a lot that honest and intelligent people admit we need to learn.
Of course I dont but that is what you seem to be asking of me. I answer a question and you say I didnt answer it so I elaborate and you still say I didnt answer it. What do you want from me? Do I have to explain every single thing from the action of a neutron?
Like I said, You can read in to it in more detail IF you are interested but it is becoming evident that you are not since you prefer to mock me based on what you THINK is my level of knowledge even though you have no idea what I have studied and what level of knowledge I have in regards to genetics.
Yes, and the things that you pointed out and claimed that scientists do not know about are actually already understood quite well.
Look JWH. I like you. I wasn't mocking your level of education, simply the answers you supplied. And continue to supply.
I don't claim to know more than I do. And I can assure you, some things are still a mystery. I tried to find an interesting and informative link for you, but I'm half watching a movie and not that motivated.
Final point and then I'll permanently yield the floor. If we had all of the answers, I doubt science would waste time in research.
I think you'd be surprised that many continue in their faith because of the experiences they encounter. They make it the logical and rational thing to believe.
Mental homes are a standing testament as to how our experiences cannot always be trusted.
Whoa there. Dangerous to close your mind and not listen. As a fellow atheist! Hitler truly believed he was right, remember...
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was simply pointing out that personal experiences cannot be trusted.
What you inferred by going on about hitler is beyond me.
Sorry for being unclear, what I meant is that being absolutely certain you're right and not listening to others can be very dangerous for the world. When you wrote mental homes, I'd thought you were implying that everyone but people who believed things similar to you had a place in them. That's what prompted the Hitler thing, as an extreme example of what could happen when people forget tolerance and respect. Sincere apologies if I read too much into it.
JWH, you say you don't know and you don't claim to know, and you also imply that theists don't know either. So you both start off from the same place essentially of not knowing. But here you criticise the theist for claiming they know the truth.
Well the theist is at least having a go even if ultimately they might be wrong. They haven't said they don't know and stopped there. So who do you think is happier, the one that says they don't know and goes no further, or the one who has explored beyond the provable and is content?
Who is happier is totally irrelevant. Why on earth do people insist on bringing emotions on to the debate as if it bears some sort of relevance on the truth?
Claiming to hold the truth is not "having a go". Are you saying that because I dont claim to hold the truth I am not "having a go" at finding out?
That is a pretty odd assertion.
My observation is that I have seen some agnostics criticise theists for sharing their beliefs whilst they themselves are content to sit on the fence.
There is nothing wrong with criticising something without being able to provide a better explanation.
For example, if something dissappeared from your house, and you had no idea how it dissappeared, would you not criticise someone for claiming that a pink elephant being ridden by a five legged monkey came in and stole it?
It isn't logical is it? If the people making these claims can BACK THEM UP with logical and rational reasons then there wouldnt be any criticism would there?
I've no right to speak for other atheists, but personally I do have beliefs, such as in the big bang, gravity, nuclear fusion, and evolution, with chance and accident in there. It's true I can't prove these, but I feel I have enough evidence to be very confident in my worldview.
Happiness has everything to with it. What is the purpose of religion, or to extend this, the meaning of life? As an atheist, I believe it's simply to find happiness and I respect all religions that don't encroach on indvl rights. For me, atheism is the only thing that makes sense, but if it doesn't make sense to someone else, who am I to judge? Bible thumpers and the atheist equivalent are equally wrong.
Happiness has nothing to do with what is true in my experience. Emotions cannot change facts. Please explain how it does if you want me to agree with your claim.
Ah, no I agree with you on that. Emotions don't change facts, wanting the sky to be green doesn't make it so.
But seeing as the purpose of religion is to find truth and the meaning of life is to find happiness (my basis), feeling happier when practicing a certain religion is a piece of evidence.
Sorry misunderstood your original post. If I'm still unclear, tell me I can clarify.
Think I see where Emile R is going. Do you mean that at a certain point, you can't know who's really right? Like whether I just can't see something you can, or I'm misunderstanding, or to really pull it to an extreme, go all Descartes and "I think, therefore I am" and that's it?
Well personally I believe in truth and reality, and I'm also an atheist, so I don't agree with Christians or Muslms or Buddhists or any other religion. But in gov. and society I respect the rights of everyone to believe as they wish. I'm pretty sure Hitler really, really believed he was right, along with Mao Zedong and Stalin.
by marinealways24 12 years ago
Is your belief based on faith, logic, or both?Can a person be logical if they have an illogical belief or faith?
by marinealways24 12 years ago
Can a person be considered logical if the persons religious belief isn't logical? If a person is logical in some things, but not logical in religious belief, are they still considered logical or illogical?
by paarsurrey 11 years ago
Mick Menous wrote:So, my main point is that any non-believer who has nothing nice to say about religions, don't say anything at all. It's time to stop. Let's show some tolerance. Is that so much to ask?Paarsurrey says:I think the Atheists should listen to this sane piece of...
by securityproducts3 6 years ago
Is there a difference between an opinion and an informed stance on a subject?
by SaiKit 11 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
by aka-dj 10 years ago
So many Atheists and Agnostics refute faith/religion with living by logic and reason. But, to be really honest, it is totally impossible.What do you say?
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.|