RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 12:09:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Moreover, the atheist is motivated as much by faith as the evangelical Christian--his belief is merely phrased in the negative rather than the affirmative. Nonsense. I don't believe that there is no god, I simply have no belief. Anti-A =/= Not-A.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 12:12:06 AM)
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.... I just love quoting Rush.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 12:48:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.... I just love quoting Rush. Wow, that is profound. Probably came from a Fortune Cookie.

MsCfromMelbourne -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 1:03:50 AM)
Not being a philosopher or practising religion, most of this debate is too obscure for me I do believe in a Higher Power (now) because when I opened my mind to the possibility, it flooded me. And has kept walking with me since (even though I get comfortable and forget about it). In the depths of unbearable pain and despair in 2003, I called out to a God I didn't believe in to please help me. It was my absolute last resort, being a proud aetheist. And in that moment of half-hearted belief, my immense emotional pain was lifted all by itself. I was filled with peace (or something - words cannot do the feeling justice). And then I got up (literally) and set about re-building my life from the ground up. No-one - especially not me - could have done that alone. It was a power greater than me or any other mere mortal. Does this make any sense? Probably not, but spiritual experiences don't have to make sense in words. Trying to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God is impossible and pointless. You have to experience the divine for yourself and then you will know if God is real. No-one amount of words can prove anything to you until you give it a go. And if spirituality could work for me, given my half assed effort all by myself, it can work for anyone. Our higher power is always available, but you have to open the door a crack to let it in. Nowdays I do not blame God for the idiocy and evil of his followers. They are just humans. I believe that it is every adult's journey to totally reject the "God" taught to us as children (the OP's Santa Claus) by parents, school and church and go in search of a higher power of your own understanding. My idea of God doesn't promise heaven or hell in the next life. They are right here; right now in this life. My God can turn this hell into heaven for me any time, anywhere, if I swallow my know-it-all pride and ask.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 2:09:02 AM)
Not to criticize at all. Just.. a prospective? It seems that the "higher power" you've found is an aspect of your own ego. ("Ego" as in consciousness, not in the selfish sense.) Perhaps this power to control your own emotions was something rather new to you that you found in deseperation; a strength that came out when needed, as an enraged man might be able to push back a school bus. I think it's important to remember that your own interpretation- your own emotions and feelings- are all in your head. When you can learn to control them like you did.. when you can break yourself out of a destructive rut.. that's an aspect of maturing as an individual. For my point.. I wouldn't call that "God" or any other sort of higher power outside of yourself. Not spirits nor anything else supernatural. It was an aspect of you being able to control yourself and see clearly as a maturing individual.

MsCfromMelbourne -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 2:20:47 AM)
And not to criticise at all ...just a perspective? How do you know my experience was not something greater than neuro-electric brain activity ? Millions of peope have had spiritual experiences and have a better life as a result. They don't need more "proof" to be happy. Adult maturity - I would suggest- is to open your mind and give faith (not organised religion) a try before you dismiss it as worthless fantasy If "God" is actually some kind of light filled hallucination (from what some scientists claim to have located in our brains as 'the God Spot"), so what? It still works fine. The person who "proves" what God is exactly (internal or external, natural or supernatural phenomenon) will win the Nobel prize [:)] I have no wish to debate high school level moral philosophy. Everyone knows its presently impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, so my definition is as plausible (or implausible!) as the next person's.

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 2:31:41 AM)
As long as you having a floating definition of "God".. in which "God" is any random feeling, emotion, or experience someone has that they refuse physical interpretation of.. one can not prove God, nor even know what it is. Because.. "God" has just become a meaningless word. Still. If you're happy believing the peace you found was supernatural.. I'm just not going to push the point on you.

MsCfromMelbourne -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:13:42 AM)
Can you believe this thread lives under "Casual Banter" I don't think so!!!!

CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 3:15:54 AM)
Hah, yeah, I know. It's almost like these robotic matrices which I'm crunching in my lap (hence the late night) are child's play next to these grand philosophical questions.

LadyEllen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 4:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It seems that the "higher power" you've found is an aspect of your own ego. ("Ego" as in consciousness, not in the selfish sense.) What can I say? There is hope for you atheists everywhere if you grasp this and then quest a little further...... Clues for your quest- Throw away your Bible; Stephen Hawking and The Bhagavad Gita are more useful Dispense with all you've been told about "God"; little of any of it is useful Take rests, but dont stop searching You'll know when you get there E

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 6:02:54 AM)
I am confused. What "evidence" would the 'faith-less' accept that a purely internal contact between myself and a deity occurred? Can anyone prove they "love" a parent rather than ingratiate themselves so as to inherit upon the death of a parent? Love/Selfishness are purely internal processes which may or may not manifest in a manner that leads to a correct diagnosis of the motivation. Assuming for the moment the existence of a deity, that this deity executes its plans through the use of physics and evolution (ie. well-known scientific principles), that the spiritual connection between deity and all life exists and that under certain conditions we can become aware of it, and that other than our awareness of this connection (assuming we become aware of it) there is no "evidence" to suggest the existence of a deity, what evidence can anyone provide? Hell, I can't even prove the existence of my wife and son through this medium, and I have folks like MadRabbit insisting they are nothing more than figments of my imagination. Which, when you think about it, is a very apt analogy for the difficulties facing people of faith when challenged to provide "evidence". on edit: emphasis added to "prove" and correction of a typo

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 6:17:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed What "evidence" would the 'faith-less' accept that a purely internal contact between myself and a deity occurred? Objective evidence maybe? Religious experience can be artificially stimulated, the area of the brain where it occurs is well known. There are also compelling theories as to why the brain experiences internal voices and voices it considers beyond itself, it is how the brain is hardwired. The brain appears to be wired to put intent on inanimate things and creations of the imaginition. This intent would enable people to react quickly to possible danger and so help survival. As Dwarkins points out, people often mistake a shadow for a burglar but never mistake a burglar for a shadow. Religious belief is thought by some to be a side effect of the way our brain is wired. What you have to ask yourself, is why does god intervene with some people and not with others. Why does he allow millions of innocent children to die horrible deaths yet allows corrupt rich people to live long and one assumes, fullfilled lives. Does he have favourites? It certainly seems that way. People who believe talk about miracles when someone is suddenly cured or miraculously saved or apparently spared by god in an accident. However, the same people who talk about thse miracles never consider othe other side of miracles such as the miracles of sudden and inexplicable deaths, the miracle of that 100,000,000-1 freak accident that kills someone. Yep, if god intervenes for the positive things, he must also intervene for the negative things. Or is that the roll of the devil? But it can't be because god is more powerful than the devil and must have allowed the devil to do his evil deed. An interventionist god makes no sense at all.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 7:22:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed What "evidence" would the 'faith-less' accept that a purely internal contact between myself and a deity occurred? Objective evidence maybe? If you figure out how to put thoughts and feelings under a miscroscope, to be duplicated under the same stimuli so that others can verify the results, let me know. quote: Religious experience can be artificially stimulated, the area of the brain where it occurs is well known. There are also compelling theories as to why the brain experiences internal voices and voices it considers beyond itself, it is how the brain is hardwired. The brain appears to be wired to put intent on inanimate things and creations of the imaginition. This intent would enable people to react quickly to possible danger and so help survival. As Dwarkins points out, people often mistake a shadow for a burglar but never mistake a burglar for a shadow. Religious belief is thought by some to be a side effect of the way our brain is wired. Which does not nullify the argument that the brain is wired to connect with a Divine Spirit of some kind. Telepathy and precognition have been reported since the dawn of history and yet no physical apparatus has been found to explain it. I am not of the opinion that we have achieved the epitome of knowledge and there is nothing new to learn. It is an argument both theists and non-theists make, that because something is not proven now it can never be proven. quote: What you have to ask yourself, is why does god intervene with some people and not with others... You are alluding to the anthropomorphic gods, and I do not subscribe to a belief in any of them. This is certainly a difficulty for the atheists, for they must not just prove the non-existence of such gods, but they must prove the non-existence of any and all concepts of a Divine Spirit, even those concepts which accept a scientific explanation for the universe.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:03:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy So, animal behaviour is a function of being an animal......it is not a function of being a plant or a brick or a piece of string. It is an intrinsic quality. Yes. And, similarly, language is an instinct in humans- a function of being human. Rights, however, are a social construction that has developed over time, and a lot of it is simply continuing along the vector that the church started introducing. They are projected onto others, not intrinsic to them. Which is part of the reason why they have not been a constant throughout our history. quote: It may be stating the bleeding obvious, but some people here don't see the bleeding obvious. To the hijackers on Flight 93, a lot of things were bleeding obvious. To the rest of us, they were just bloody stupid. quote: Human rights, in the context of this discussion, is a function of being human rather than being a function of some God or other. They are neither. Human rights are a construct we have created, which we enforce through the threat of violence. Simple as that. Can't really recall any god positing human rights at any point either, although it is an obvious continuation of the vector you would obtain from the difference between the OT and the NT, if those were considered points in idea-space and real time. A vector that we've not yet followed all the way, I might add. Ironically enough, the secular Humanists have done far more of what was suggested in the NT than the so-called Christians ever did (well, at least past their very beginnings). quote: You may, rudely, describe me having to point out the obvious as vapid.....but i think you just missed the point. I did not describe *you* as vapid. I described your statement as vapid. That was not rude, just blunt. Would you prefer I sugar-coat it? Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:05:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado The colloquial usage of 'materialism' as a generic term for'greedy' can easily be applied to members of a religious faith, while the dictionary makes the distinction between spiritual and material that you seem to be referencing. Good point. [:D] The one I tried to make, though, was that the colloquial usage of "atheism" corresponds to the second sense of "materialism." Health, al-Aswad.

meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:14:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed You are alluding to the anthropomorphic gods, and I do not subscribe to a belief in any of them. This is certainly a difficulty for the atheists, for they must not just prove the non-existence of such gods, but they must prove the non-existence of any and all concepts of a Divine Spirit, even those concepts which accept a scientific explanation for the universe. No, this is not a difficulty for athiests. Most atheist I know don't get off on proving there is no god because they don't get worked up about nothing. There is no reason to believe in god anymore than there is to believe in a pink elephant in a tutu dancing Swan Lake on my garden fence.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:19:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm just not going to push the point on you. Now, this is something to make me question my sanity. [;)] I mean no offense, but haven't you spent a bunch of time on these boards doing exactly that? Health, al-Aswad.

luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:23:11 AM)
I should have used the term materialism instead of determinism or pre determinism on the other thread, the second definiton is exactly what I was talking about. Down to specifically noting the thoughts in the head are part of it.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:24:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's almost like these robotic matrices which I'm crunching in my lap (hence the late night) are child's play next to these grand philosophical questions. Philosophy contains irreducable problems, including antinomies. Robotics are a more tangible and reducable problem. Doesn't make either more grand than the other. Just makes one more difficult than the other. Health, al-Aswad.

Sinergy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/21/2008 9:26:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Telepathy and precognition have been reported since the dawn of history and yet no physical apparatus has been found to explain it. This is not quite true. Elephants would find a water hole or food source and it was noticed for time immemorial that elephants miles and miles away would suddenly turn and head in the direction of the elephant that found the water source. People assumed (for lack of a better word) that elephants have telepathy. No other explanation made sense to humans. Then some clown started recording ultra-low frequency (the kind that travels miles and miles) sound waves and discovered that elephants spend all their time chattering to each other at these frequencies. Not being able to explain why something happens does not equate to something not happening. It simply means we do not know how to empirically prove it. I have my own beliefs. I dont always share them. I am supportive of what other people believe. I do not say they are wrong, hold myself up as some paragon of intellectual lucidity, or create some conversational sandbox where I dictate the rules of discussion because I am some self-important, hyper-intelligent, uber-person, legend-in-my-own-mind. I am an agnostic. I do not insist that something I cannot empirically prove does not exist, nor do I insist that something I cannot empirically prove does exist. I dont even start off with the assumption that I am owed an explanation. As far as people leading charmed lives while other people die, perhaps the issue is that the CEO of Walmart or Saddam Hussein were made to exist by God because 100,000 years from now some cockroach derived hyper-intelligent being invents a better mousetrap. So many people who insist on the existence or non-existence of an immortal super being refuse to contemplate a longitidinal explanation. It is like these people have to know The Answer in their short, ephemeral, living existence. Maybe the whole God thing is not all about you and what you percieve? Sinergy

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125