What about what benefits all concerned as one reference point? Or a refrerence point being things that avoid hurting or abusing people? How about "Do no harm"?
If you go over many of the biblical morals and the goals of such morals, you remove God as the originator of said morals, you'll come up with much the same expected behavior, both personal and societal (sp?), as that of many atheists and that of other religions/philosophies. Now there are other biblical 'morals' and behaviors that are at odds with this, and even (if you'll be honest enough to admit it) at odds with the everyday behavior of todays Judeao/Christians, many who claim that the Bible is the foundation of their moral behaviors. (Ie., how many today readily stone those who have extra marital sex, hmmm? Yet that rule is explicitaly in the Bible.):
Oh my Garth, whatever shall we do? Does this mean stoning is not cool anymore? There is more than one form of stoning, people mouthing off about it is another form of stoning. Ever see that old cop thing scared straight? I think that is what God was looking to achieve, that not working, the Jesus of the New Testament fit the bill, but how do we ever get rid off all the adultry? Maybe someone (perferably an atheist) should just lopp off Hugh Hefner's pee pee? think that might work? Maybe obedience was the pivotal point.
This being the case, one must wonder what God uses as a reference for His morals. :unsure
Well judging by the conduct of Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner, its probably a good call that someone established a moral framework. To me the choice looks brilliantly made, to you it looks like you think God made a hard call. Either way, nice job Oh God.
Delusion - A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.
Are you really that certain that absolutely everything you believe is absolutely true? That there is no way even one thing you believe in isn't false, fanciful, or perhaps derived from deception?
I believe that there is no delusion for me, yet the understanding or knowledge of it can grow and change in an increasing way. Ahh Abi, faith is so valuable, you can shut out all noise when times are difficult, and watch the stroke of the Almighty make things plain when he chooses.
Sure it is possible to have the furniture re-arranged, but the tenants remain the same and get stronger. Thats my nickels worth.
What about what benefits all concerned as one reference point? Or a refrerence point being things that avoid hurting or abusing people? How about "Do no harm"?
If you go over many of the biblical morals and the goals of such morals, you remove God as the originator of said morals, you'll come up with much the same expected behavior, both personal and societal (sp?), as that of many atheists and that of other religions/philosophies. Now there are other biblical 'morals' and behaviors that are at odds with this, and even (if you'll be honest enough to admit it) at odds with the everyday behavior of todays Judeao/Christians, many who claim that the Bible is the foundation of their moral behaviors. (Ie., how many today readily stone those who have extra marital sex, hmmm? Yet that rule is explicitaly in the Bible.)
This being the case, one must wonder what God uses as a reference for His morals. :unsure:
Why do you keep bringing God back up? Is your point that there is a common reference for all people (other than a god or religion)?
Is your reference "do no harm", why did you choose it? Did it choose you?
I don't claim to be an atheist, just an agnostic. It seems to me that atheism connotes a certainty that I just don't think it's possible to have. If there indeed was a being powerful enough to create all of the universe, would remaining anonymous be all that difficult for Him? But, I don't view myself as still "searching" either, as I think, as the classical definition goes, that resolving the "God question" is beyond our capabilities.
And I don't know why one would be expected to offer up some sort of "proof" for his unbelief either. It would seem to me that a belief in God, or astrology, or rabbit's-foot-life-enhancement would certainly require some at least rudementary sort of proof, but should simple non-acceptance of these sort of tenets require any explanation at all? I don't have the a-priori mindset that any of that sort of stuff has any credibility whatsoever. Why should one have to explain non-belief other than to say, "I haven't seen any evidence to support such a notion"?
And I understand - at least a bit - where you're coming from Socks. I know lots of folks who have really strong beliefs in all sorts of stuff, and they always have lots of reasons why. I had girlfriend in my twenties that was absolutely devoted to astrology, chart-making, and naturally, foretelling the future. She had all sorts of experiences with it that convinced her that it was the real deal. Things she claimed, just couldn't be explained any other way. Likewise with another friend who joined as ashram and practiced Yoga and Zen Buddhism and the like. I also knew a guy who was convinced of "Pyramid Power" and slept under a copper pyramid frame every night. All of it seems so entirely subjective, and hence, not worth much for anyone else.
Me? I never had any of those. From my earliest recollections I remember HATING church. By the time I was a teenager in a Methodist Church, I was pretty well burned out on the whole concept. Then I got sweet on a Wayfer girl, and - well, you know how that story goes. And when it came to Speaking in Tongues, I thought I had finally found some evidence. But was it? I don't think so. What was it evidence OF anyway? Always seemed goofy to me, though I did buy it for awhile.
And ADan, well the guy DOES have an English accent, but I didn't see much else in his story that was very compelling. Maybe it was an off day for him? I mean, all I got was that once he was an atheist, but now he knows that that was wrong. Uh, O.K. Could he elaborate a bit maybe? Maybe it was just the interviewer who was a dud?
Regarding "proof", or anything else that would convince one:
Different people regard different things as sufficient evidence for the existance or non-existance of a god. Many people who believe in the biblical god would scoff at "proof" offered by a Hindu for a pantheon, or by a ESP practioner for mind reading, or by a UFO enthusiast for the existance of extra-terrestrials.
What one views as undeniable "proof" is often completely subjective.
Great comments, George. Your sincerity is clear, and your reasoning sound. A fine agnostic you are! And still, one of my favorite people here. Sincerety may not be a guarantee for truth, but it is a guarantee of eloquence.
I sympathize with anyone who has to endure church, as you have, the mini-corps and junior corps sharings on this site, as well. That was not my experience, but I do feel your pain, so to speak. I was raised a nominal Catholic, and as I began to think, I realized that it was not for me. As a hippy in the ’70’s, I "bumped into" God. I can’t say I found Him... I do think the better way of saying it is that He finds us, but I find that terminology rather lacking, as well, and leads to "Why me? Am I special?" the answer to which is yes and no. Unfortunately. The Way was mostly a long costly mistake for me. I’ve tried to strain out the dregs from the holy water, and I still have a way to go.... still making sense of it all. Religion can be and often is evil, just as so many people say, like Dawkins. Easy target. It’s true. Dr. Wierwille even said it! Ha!
The other guy, as you noted, did not have much to offer as proof, except his testimony. His argument is no better than Dawkins’, and I would have to agree with your assessment. The interview was somewhat flat. I think the interviewer, for all his boyish looks, is a good one. He gives his guests plenty of room to say something, if they have something to say, and he did then. I haven’t read or listened to more of Alistar’s stuff, but if I do, maybe I’ll post something. I think I have a book or two by him, but my books are packed. I'm moving. Don’t know if it has to do with the regions or what, but frankly, his accent is less appealing than Dawkins’, as well.
Let me just mention something about "feeling" in relation to God. When approaching it from the "proof" category, there is nothing wrong with that. I sometimes find it amusing. I’m a believer because I’m an experiencer. I didn’t make this stuff up. It came to me, just as colors come to my eye. If someone says that the red dress and the blue dress are the same color, and that they've tested it and found that to be true, I just have to accept that we see things differently. Of course, that’s a mystery that is worth exploring, but absent any explanation that satisfies both of us, I guess we have to leave it lie, and hope to understand in the future.
But about feelings. As much as I would like to "practice the presence of God," like so many believers before me, I cannot seem to simply "dwell in Him" at will, and that is where faith comes in. Hebrews 11, of course, comes to mind. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Going you-know-not-where just because you trust. But at intervals no more regular than the waves at the beach, I do encounter God. And (here it is) my feeling, then, is often one of shame. That is correct. Not the kind of feeling to be desired. Here are other feelings: total release, total safety, total understanding that all things are as they should be. That God is infinitely wiser than I, and yet I partake of it.
Where the shame comes in is that I feel I should have ‘remembered’ the last time. I shouldn’t have doubted. But that shame is momentary (we speak in temporal terms; we’re temporal beings, or should I say we are eternal beings in a temporal universe). That shame is "immediately" wiped away and insignificant. It’s like when we misjudge the fidelity of a friend, and come to find that we obviously misread him or her.
My theory is that it is POSSIBLE that some (if not all) of us have "been there" and forgotten. I simply do not know. The world is loud. The presence of evil is undeniable. Life is hard, yadayada. Life is not fair. Disproves the love of God or the omnipotence of God? Not to me. I’m a believer, and I have hope for myself, and for others.
Dawkins and Carlin are self-revealing about their rejection of the Judeo-Christian God. (I don’t include the Islamic God.... not that there’s anything wrong with Allah. If he is the one God they say he is, and Abraham’s God, they’ve made some serious blunders in understanding him. I’m content to interface with muslims as believers, and, like Dawkins, they make some good points pointing out the silliness of Trinitarian thinking, but they are right about there being only One. I think some are true believers.) What Dawkins and Carlin don’t like is that God is their judge, and they are sinners. That they need salvation. It’s damaging to the self-esteem, you know, and that can’t be right. Not in the 21st century.
Sounds like you are still bound by 'the way int.'.
In a weird sort of way.
All of us are, I suppose, to some degree. I admit it personally. But how do you view George as being so? Because he's bound by the straw picture of God from the Way Ministry? If you're going to make an "observation" like that, you probably should be more clear. Oak saw it as an insult; I saw it as an incomplete thought, and perhaps a bit judgmental. Care to explain?
Crying? :blink: I don't see him crying. Sounds like an insult to me.
He's giving his opinion and what he's thought in the past.
I have proof, but you can't see it, though laid out openly.
:unsure: Sounds like an insult to me.
Sounds like you are still bound by 'the way int.'.
In a weird sort of way.
<_<
You have a funny way of citing "observations" if that's not insulting. Maybe a course on communication would help you get your point across in such a way as to not be mis-read yet again.
**************
Dan, I listened to much of the first two clips and, I do agree with some of what the guy has to say. I don't have any specifics off the top of my head as I was shocked to read cman's post and it's kinda thrown me for a loop.
I will say that I do believe that the traditional mono-theistic religions have really perverted views of their "god" and that it's less than desirable to want to believe in a god that's so eager to "punish" or "allow" bad things to happen to folks. God, as western religion teaches, has more rules, requirements and demands than my own Daddy. There seems to be no way to win with that kind of god.
I agree with Oakspear, proof is highly subjective and just about every belief system has excuses or reasons for why it doesn't seem to "work" for everyone or with any kind of regularity.
I've seen some things similar to the article that P-Mosh posted and I do think there's a lot we don't know. I find the study of energy fields, brain synapses and the mind-body connection (a la Candace Pert) fascinating. I also find it more logical and reasonable than what most western religions teach.
Let me just mention something about "feeling" in relation to God. When approaching it from the "proof" category, there is nothing wrong with that. I sometimes find it amusing. I’m a believer because I’m an experiencer. I didn’t make this stuff up. It came to me, just as colors come to my eye. If someone says that the red dress and the blue dress are the same color, and that they've tested it and found that to be true, I just have to accept that we see things differently. Of course, that’s a mystery that is worth exploring, but absent any explanation that satisfies both of us, I guess we have to leave it lie, and hope to understand in the future.
But about feelings. As much as I would like to "practice the presence of God," like so many believers before me, I cannot seem to simply "dwell in Him" at will, and that is where faith comes in. Hebrews 11, of course, comes to mind. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Going you-know-not-where just because you trust. But at intervals no more regular than the waves at the beach, I do encounter God. And (here it is) my feeling, then, is often one of shame. That is correct. Not the kind of feeling to be desired. Here are other feelings: total release, total safety, total understanding that all things are as they should be. That God is infinitely wiser than I, and yet I partake of it.
Another Dan:
Those are a few great points. I especially like the part about "that is where faith comes in" I also like the part about experience. Experience is an individual thing. Atheists dont accept it because it is not supposedly there 'experience" but the fact remains they can have that experience too, it is like old duckster VPW used to say " available"
The disciples asked Jesus to "Increase our faith". Perhaps a better question would have been, what is faith?, besides the commentary provided in Hebrews. One of the best examples in my view is juxtaposing the difference in Jacob vs Esau. Jacob placed a great value on the promises of God; he also had interest in them and respect for them. If faith were simple interest, respect and value in the promises of God, that fits my experience. Indeed, to think that interest respect and value can increase and grow because it is faith is an experience. It's like you get more confident about what God is doing in the mist of the worst turmoil. Man do i luv this stuff called faith. Its terrific.
who is pushing their views on you? Jehovah's witnesses? twi? 95% of people I run into don't want to talk about religion or Jesus, and if they do, in a very superficial sense.
It's a vocal minority of people who are out to change our nation and force us to essentially be a Christian version of the Taliban. You're lucky that you don't have to deal with these people at all, but as an atheist whenever a Christian finds out, I am usually treated differently. I have pretty much stopped discussing religion altogether with most people as a result. However, that doesn't stop these groups like the Army of God of trying to take over our country, or the less evil but still doing harm to our nation folks like Pat Robertson that are trying to push their religion into our laws. Think about it -- why don't we allow federal funding of stem cell research? What reason could we possibly have not to allow it when the federal government funds all kinds of medical research, and should be funding one that holds a lot of promise like this one?
It's difficult to understand what it's like to be a non-Christian in this country if you're a Christian because these loudmouths have convinced so many people that this nation was founded upon Christianity when it clearly was not. However, if it would help you see things from my way, look at the statement George H. W. Bush made concerning atheists:
I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
George H. W. Bush does not consider me a citizen despite the fact that I was born here and care about my nation. George H. W. Bush does not consider Pat Tillman, who heroically abandoned the NFL to go fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 and lost his life, a citizen or a patriot. This type of hostility is typical. If you're an atheist and people at your job know, they will intentionally sabotage things and try to get you fired or be mean to you in order to try to get you to quit.
to me atheism is this: you will cease to exist any minute, if you don't get caught before you die, you win. morals, love, and loyalty may be part of a social structure but they are to be played, not followed, to the best of your ability.
I want to know why should I think otherwise?
If you require the belief that someone is watching over you and will punish you for bad behavior in order to be a good person, then you have some pretty major psychological problems. Morals, love, and loyalty are natural instincts and feelings. I hear statements like yours all the time and hope that people don't really believe that to be the case, but it seems like a very strange idea.
In either case, the reason you should think otherwise is because it's common sense to expect human beings to have human feelings and emotions, especially if you see things as I do. In my view, religion was invented by humans in order to help explain social structures, morals, feelings, etc. not the other way around.
It's a vocal minority of people who are out to change our nation and force us to essentially be a Christian version of the Taliban. You're lucky that you don't have to deal with these people at all, but as an atheist whenever a Christian finds out, I am usually treated differently. I have pretty much stopped discussing religion altogether with most people as a result. However, that doesn't stop these groups like the Army of God of trying to take over our country, or the less evil but still doing harm to our nation folks like Pat Robertson that are trying to push their religion into our laws. Think about it -- why don't we allow federal funding of stem cell research? What reason could we possibly have not to allow it when the federal government funds all kinds of medical research, and should be funding one that holds a lot of promise like this one?
It's difficult to understand what it's like to be a non-Christian in this country if you're a Christian because these loudmouths have convinced so many people that this nation was founded upon Christianity when it clearly was not. However, if it would help you see things from my way, look at the statement George H. W. Bush made concerning atheists:
George H. W. Bush does not consider me a citizen despite the fact that I was born here and care about my nation. George H. W. Bush does not consider Pat Tillman, who heroically abandoned the NFL to go fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 and lost his life, a citizen or a patriot. This type of hostility is typical. If you're an atheist and people at your job know, they will intentionally sabotage things and try to get you fired or be mean to you in order to try to get you to quit.
I'm sure the roles will be reversed within a few generations. Religion will become a minority.
If you require the belief that someone is watching over you and will punish you for bad behavior in order to be a good person, then you have some pretty major psychological problems. Morals, love, and loyalty are natural instincts and feelings. I hear statements like yours all the time and hope that people don't really believe that to be the case, but it seems like a very strange idea.
In either case, the reason you should think otherwise is because it's common sense to expect human beings to have human feelings and emotions, especially if you see things as I do. In my view, religion was invented by humans in order to help explain social structures, morals, feelings, etc. not the other way around.
You used the term "bad behavior" and "good person". Did you read the article about the Japanese culture where suicide was considered a duty?
In feudal Japan, the samurai class had the right to execute those who offended them. They had a duty to obey their lord in all things, up to and including death. If they disgraced their lord, they had a duty - a moral obligation - to extirpate their transgression by committing suicide. Peasants had a moral duty to support their lord by farming rice (which was also used as currency). The lord had a moral duty to protect his lands and his people from invaders - but the individuals under his aegis were ultimately expendable.
"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary. No, no god needed. "psychological problems" are an opinion. "natural instincts and feelings" -sounds genetic, so what's natural to you won't be the same for everyone.
I seriously doubt that GW Junior wants to take away your citizenship. Do you have a link of a text where GW said that?
What happens with you guys is this: Sure there is some people like David Koresh or the guy of the cult who tried to catch Halleys comet or some wack job somewhere spouting off. This is not a reflection of Christian views which in almost all cases are most happy that you and I and everyone share in civil liberties. Christians could make the same mistake by saying people like Jeffery Dahlmer are reflective of atheists, but mostly we dont because we dont see a lot of cannibal zombie atheists running around. Lets have some harmony but stopping futile stereotyping. Ok?
I'm sure the roles will be reversed within a few generations. Religion will become a minority.
I say that's Bolshevic.
Lots of people have predicted that and have been wrong. Not that I'm happy about that. I'd like "religion" to end in some sense.
Regardless of trends, I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ ensures that what atheists call "religion" will survive. The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.
Then it is largely irrelevant now isnt it? Senior is getting up there in years. I have a little problem with the publication too Oak, they with there Hitler comments. Hitler cited both Christian and evolution sources so with him it never gets settled.
I'll take your word for it tho, and believe he said it. I always thought Senior was more of a politician than Junior was. Wasnt Senior against abortion yet Barbra was for it? Thats what I remember. Maybe senior was just really trying to convince what they call the right? I dunno, but you cant take citizenship away from people based on religion, thats just plain wrong.
Maybe its just because hes from Texas. The lovable thing about Texans is, no matter how hard they try every once in a while they all spill there guts to you. At least with those guys you can get 4 years of honesty. Hopefully Instead of "I did not have sex with that woman" No i am not talking about innocent Monica, but all the other ones he denied.
Lots of people have predicted that and have been wrong. Not that I'm happy about that. I'd like "religion" to end in some sense.
Do you know how long these predictions have being made? (are they modern predictions or ancient ones?)
Regardless of trends, I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ ensures that what atheists call "religion" will survive. The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.
It seems to me some people spend as much time and effort trying to explain religion away as false as others do trying to explain it as a reality. It's like trying to decide which direction on the hamster wheel to run. :wacko:
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
23
30
Popular Days
Oct 19
23
Oct 16
19
Oct 17
17
Oct 23
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 22 posts
cman 12 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
anotherDan 30 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
23 posts
Oct 16 2007
19 posts
Oct 17 2007
17 posts
Oct 23 2007
16 posts
Posted Images
sky4it
Oh my Garth, whatever shall we do? Does this mean stoning is not cool anymore? There is more than one form of stoning, people mouthing off about it is another form of stoning. Ever see that old cop thing scared straight? I think that is what God was looking to achieve, that not working, the Jesus of the New Testament fit the bill, but how do we ever get rid off all the adultry? Maybe someone (perferably an atheist) should just lopp off Hugh Hefner's pee pee? think that might work? Maybe obedience was the pivotal point.
Well judging by the conduct of Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner, its probably a good call that someone established a moral framework. To me the choice looks brilliantly made, to you it looks like you think God made a hard call. Either way, nice job Oh God.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
I believe that there is no delusion for me, yet the understanding or knowledge of it can grow and change in an increasing way. Ahh Abi, faith is so valuable, you can shut out all noise when times are difficult, and watch the stroke of the Almighty make things plain when he chooses.
Sure it is possible to have the furniture re-arranged, but the tenants remain the same and get stronger. Thats my nickels worth.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Why do you keep bringing God back up? Is your point that there is a common reference for all people (other than a god or religion)?
Is your reference "do no harm", why did you choose it? Did it choose you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
the gift and curse of the western enlightenment ...
...I, WE, and IT
...beauty, goodness, and truth
our ordinary inheritance of 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives
we largely separated these 3 strands of knowing in the western enlightment
where art, morals and science no longer lived under the same roof
where each strand was free to evolve and specialize like never before
..so they did, leaving trails of arts, artifacts, languages, and history in their wake
creating a new world being shared by 3 different dualisms
each moving along their own waves
the leading and remote edges of those different strands of discovery
have been growing farther and farther from each other even since
becoming less and less able to connect with each other
out of this new gift/curse arose the need for a wave of a more universalizing post-modern pluralism
...and so we got one, and it came with the gift/curse of the boomers and the last half century of civil rights
but while its nice to discover that do we each have a right to our own view and experience of the universe
post-modernism is not interested in the differences between art morals and science...and can do little to help solve their dilemna
...and so now we have a full blown 4-way war of worldviews making a new kinda mess out of language
as one might expect, all the strands are naturally resistant to notions of reunion with the others
and while this is often mistaken for a romantic attempt to return to eden,
as one might imagine...a conscious synthesis of the 4 is quite significantly different than anything before
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yes, as I've said many times,
I don't claim to be an atheist, just an agnostic. It seems to me that atheism connotes a certainty that I just don't think it's possible to have. If there indeed was a being powerful enough to create all of the universe, would remaining anonymous be all that difficult for Him? But, I don't view myself as still "searching" either, as I think, as the classical definition goes, that resolving the "God question" is beyond our capabilities.
And I don't know why one would be expected to offer up some sort of "proof" for his unbelief either. It would seem to me that a belief in God, or astrology, or rabbit's-foot-life-enhancement would certainly require some at least rudementary sort of proof, but should simple non-acceptance of these sort of tenets require any explanation at all? I don't have the a-priori mindset that any of that sort of stuff has any credibility whatsoever. Why should one have to explain non-belief other than to say, "I haven't seen any evidence to support such a notion"?
And I understand - at least a bit - where you're coming from Socks. I know lots of folks who have really strong beliefs in all sorts of stuff, and they always have lots of reasons why. I had girlfriend in my twenties that was absolutely devoted to astrology, chart-making, and naturally, foretelling the future. She had all sorts of experiences with it that convinced her that it was the real deal. Things she claimed, just couldn't be explained any other way. Likewise with another friend who joined as ashram and practiced Yoga and Zen Buddhism and the like. I also knew a guy who was convinced of "Pyramid Power" and slept under a copper pyramid frame every night. All of it seems so entirely subjective, and hence, not worth much for anyone else.
Me? I never had any of those. From my earliest recollections I remember HATING church. By the time I was a teenager in a Methodist Church, I was pretty well burned out on the whole concept. Then I got sweet on a Wayfer girl, and - well, you know how that story goes. And when it came to Speaking in Tongues, I thought I had finally found some evidence. But was it? I don't think so. What was it evidence OF anyway? Always seemed goofy to me, though I did buy it for awhile.
And ADan, well the guy DOES have an English accent, but I didn't see much else in his story that was very compelling. Maybe it was an off day for him? I mean, all I got was that once he was an atheist, but now he knows that that was wrong. Uh, O.K. Could he elaborate a bit maybe? Maybe it was just the interviewer who was a dud?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Crying about proof George, again.
I have proof, but you can't see it, though laid out openly.
Sounds like you are still bound by 'the way int.'.
In a weird sort of way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Geez cman, where's the need to insult George, just for offering his opinion?
Part of his point is that non-belief in God shouldn't have to be justified.
**********************************************************
Regarding "proof", or anything else that would convince one:
Different people regard different things as sufficient evidence for the existance or non-existance of a god. Many people who believe in the biblical god would scoff at "proof" offered by a Hindu for a pantheon, or by a ESP practioner for mind reading, or by a UFO enthusiast for the existance of extra-terrestrials.
What one views as undeniable "proof" is often completely subjective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Great comments, George. Your sincerity is clear, and your reasoning sound. A fine agnostic you are! And still, one of my favorite people here. Sincerety may not be a guarantee for truth, but it is a guarantee of eloquence.
I sympathize with anyone who has to endure church, as you have, the mini-corps and junior corps sharings on this site, as well. That was not my experience, but I do feel your pain, so to speak. I was raised a nominal Catholic, and as I began to think, I realized that it was not for me. As a hippy in the ’70’s, I "bumped into" God. I can’t say I found Him... I do think the better way of saying it is that He finds us, but I find that terminology rather lacking, as well, and leads to "Why me? Am I special?" the answer to which is yes and no. Unfortunately. The Way was mostly a long costly mistake for me. I’ve tried to strain out the dregs from the holy water, and I still have a way to go.... still making sense of it all. Religion can be and often is evil, just as so many people say, like Dawkins. Easy target. It’s true. Dr. Wierwille even said it! Ha!
The other guy, as you noted, did not have much to offer as proof, except his testimony. His argument is no better than Dawkins’, and I would have to agree with your assessment. The interview was somewhat flat. I think the interviewer, for all his boyish looks, is a good one. He gives his guests plenty of room to say something, if they have something to say, and he did then. I haven’t read or listened to more of Alistar’s stuff, but if I do, maybe I’ll post something. I think I have a book or two by him, but my books are packed. I'm moving. Don’t know if it has to do with the regions or what, but frankly, his accent is less appealing than Dawkins’, as well.
Let me just mention something about "feeling" in relation to God. When approaching it from the "proof" category, there is nothing wrong with that. I sometimes find it amusing. I’m a believer because I’m an experiencer. I didn’t make this stuff up. It came to me, just as colors come to my eye. If someone says that the red dress and the blue dress are the same color, and that they've tested it and found that to be true, I just have to accept that we see things differently. Of course, that’s a mystery that is worth exploring, but absent any explanation that satisfies both of us, I guess we have to leave it lie, and hope to understand in the future.
But about feelings. As much as I would like to "practice the presence of God," like so many believers before me, I cannot seem to simply "dwell in Him" at will, and that is where faith comes in. Hebrews 11, of course, comes to mind. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Going you-know-not-where just because you trust. But at intervals no more regular than the waves at the beach, I do encounter God. And (here it is) my feeling, then, is often one of shame. That is correct. Not the kind of feeling to be desired. Here are other feelings: total release, total safety, total understanding that all things are as they should be. That God is infinitely wiser than I, and yet I partake of it.
Where the shame comes in is that I feel I should have ‘remembered’ the last time. I shouldn’t have doubted. But that shame is momentary (we speak in temporal terms; we’re temporal beings, or should I say we are eternal beings in a temporal universe). That shame is "immediately" wiped away and insignificant. It’s like when we misjudge the fidelity of a friend, and come to find that we obviously misread him or her.
My theory is that it is POSSIBLE that some (if not all) of us have "been there" and forgotten. I simply do not know. The world is loud. The presence of evil is undeniable. Life is hard, yadayada. Life is not fair. Disproves the love of God or the omnipotence of God? Not to me. I’m a believer, and I have hope for myself, and for others.
Dawkins and Carlin are self-revealing about their rejection of the Judeo-Christian God. (I don’t include the Islamic God.... not that there’s anything wrong with Allah. If he is the one God they say he is, and Abraham’s God, they’ve made some serious blunders in understanding him. I’m content to interface with muslims as believers, and, like Dawkins, they make some good points pointing out the silliness of Trinitarian thinking, but they are right about there being only One. I think some are true believers.) What Dawkins and Carlin don’t like is that God is their judge, and they are sinners. That they need salvation. It’s damaging to the self-esteem, you know, and that can’t be right. Not in the 21st century.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
It's not an insult Oakspear.
It's an observation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
All of us are, I suppose, to some degree. I admit it personally. But how do you view George as being so? Because he's bound by the straw picture of God from the Way Ministry? If you're going to make an "observation" like that, you probably should be more clear. Oak saw it as an insult; I saw it as an incomplete thought, and perhaps a bit judgmental. Care to explain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I'll talk with George about it more then I would anyone else.
I see what he said, as someone seeking proof, which is what I did in the way.
He's not getting any, and neither did I, while in the way.
It wasn't until I totally destroyed the ideas from the way that I could see to look for this proof.
So it sounds like, to me, by experience, that it's something from the way still hanging in there.
And it is binding and blinding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
No, as per usual Cman, you understand me about as well as I do you - as in - not too very much...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Crying? :blink: I don't see him crying. Sounds like an insult to me.
He's giving his opinion and what he's thought in the past.
:unsure: Sounds like an insult to me.
<_<
You have a funny way of citing "observations" if that's not insulting. Maybe a course on communication would help you get your point across in such a way as to not be mis-read yet again.
**************
Dan, I listened to much of the first two clips and, I do agree with some of what the guy has to say. I don't have any specifics off the top of my head as I was shocked to read cman's post and it's kinda thrown me for a loop.
I will say that I do believe that the traditional mono-theistic religions have really perverted views of their "god" and that it's less than desirable to want to believe in a god that's so eager to "punish" or "allow" bad things to happen to folks. God, as western religion teaches, has more rules, requirements and demands than my own Daddy. There seems to be no way to win with that kind of god.
I agree with Oakspear, proof is highly subjective and just about every belief system has excuses or reasons for why it doesn't seem to "work" for everyone or with any kind of regularity.
I've seen some things similar to the article that P-Mosh posted and I do think there's a lot we don't know. I find the study of energy fields, brain synapses and the mind-body connection (a la Candace Pert) fascinating. I also find it more logical and reasonable than what most western religions teach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Another Dan:
Those are a few great points. I especially like the part about "that is where faith comes in" I also like the part about experience. Experience is an individual thing. Atheists dont accept it because it is not supposedly there 'experience" but the fact remains they can have that experience too, it is like old duckster VPW used to say " available"
The disciples asked Jesus to "Increase our faith". Perhaps a better question would have been, what is faith?, besides the commentary provided in Hebrews. One of the best examples in my view is juxtaposing the difference in Jacob vs Esau. Jacob placed a great value on the promises of God; he also had interest in them and respect for them. If faith were simple interest, respect and value in the promises of God, that fits my experience. Indeed, to think that interest respect and value can increase and grow because it is faith is an experience. It's like you get more confident about what God is doing in the mist of the worst turmoil. Man do i luv this stuff called faith. Its terrific.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It's a vocal minority of people who are out to change our nation and force us to essentially be a Christian version of the Taliban. You're lucky that you don't have to deal with these people at all, but as an atheist whenever a Christian finds out, I am usually treated differently. I have pretty much stopped discussing religion altogether with most people as a result. However, that doesn't stop these groups like the Army of God of trying to take over our country, or the less evil but still doing harm to our nation folks like Pat Robertson that are trying to push their religion into our laws. Think about it -- why don't we allow federal funding of stem cell research? What reason could we possibly have not to allow it when the federal government funds all kinds of medical research, and should be funding one that holds a lot of promise like this one?
It's difficult to understand what it's like to be a non-Christian in this country if you're a Christian because these loudmouths have convinced so many people that this nation was founded upon Christianity when it clearly was not. However, if it would help you see things from my way, look at the statement George H. W. Bush made concerning atheists:
George H. W. Bush does not consider me a citizen despite the fact that I was born here and care about my nation. George H. W. Bush does not consider Pat Tillman, who heroically abandoned the NFL to go fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 and lost his life, a citizen or a patriot. This type of hostility is typical. If you're an atheist and people at your job know, they will intentionally sabotage things and try to get you fired or be mean to you in order to try to get you to quit.If you require the belief that someone is watching over you and will punish you for bad behavior in order to be a good person, then you have some pretty major psychological problems. Morals, love, and loyalty are natural instincts and feelings. I hear statements like yours all the time and hope that people don't really believe that to be the case, but it seems like a very strange idea.
In either case, the reason you should think otherwise is because it's common sense to expect human beings to have human feelings and emotions, especially if you see things as I do. In my view, religion was invented by humans in order to help explain social structures, morals, feelings, etc. not the other way around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
How well do you understand me, George?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm sure the roles will be reversed within a few generations. Religion will become a minority.
You used the term "bad behavior" and "good person". Did you read the article about the Japanese culture where suicide was considered a duty?http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/scien...moralrelativism
"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary. No, no god needed. "psychological problems" are an opinion. "natural instincts and feelings" -sounds genetic, so what's natural to you won't be the same for everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Misterp-mosh
I seriously doubt that GW Junior wants to take away your citizenship. Do you have a link of a text where GW said that?
What happens with you guys is this: Sure there is some people like David Koresh or the guy of the cult who tried to catch Halleys comet or some wack job somewhere spouting off. This is not a reflection of Christian views which in almost all cases are most happy that you and I and everyone share in civil liberties. Christians could make the same mistake by saying people like Jeffery Dahlmer are reflective of atheists, but mostly we dont because we dont see a lot of cannibal zombie atheists running around. Lets have some harmony but stopping futile stereotyping. Ok?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Were you insulted George?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...ments.html#bush
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I say that's Bolshevic.
Lots of people have predicted that and have been wrong. Not that I'm happy about that. I'd like "religion" to end in some sense.
Regardless of trends, I believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ ensures that what atheists call "religion" will survive. The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Then it is largely irrelevant now isnt it? Senior is getting up there in years. I have a little problem with the publication too Oak, they with there Hitler comments. Hitler cited both Christian and evolution sources so with him it never gets settled.
I'll take your word for it tho, and believe he said it. I always thought Senior was more of a politician than Junior was. Wasnt Senior against abortion yet Barbra was for it? Thats what I remember. Maybe senior was just really trying to convince what they call the right? I dunno, but you cant take citizenship away from people based on religion, thats just plain wrong.
Maybe its just because hes from Texas. The lovable thing about Texans is, no matter how hard they try every once in a while they all spill there guts to you. At least with those guys you can get 4 years of honesty. Hopefully Instead of "I did not have sex with that woman" No i am not talking about innocent Monica, but all the other ones he denied.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Do you know how long these predictions have being made? (are they modern predictions or ancient ones?)
It seems to me some people spend as much time and effort trying to explain religion away as false as others do trying to explain it as a reality. It's like trying to decide which direction on the hamster wheel to run. :wacko:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?q...mp;qs_version=9
Nothing wrong with using the word 'cry'.
My proof is mine not George's. He will be shown his own proof, when is not my call, nor how.
That's why I said he can't see it. Though he may later, I don't know, nor does it matter to me.
Bound in a weird sort of way. Yes, bound, not free, weird because I don't know what it is.
Could have used a different word then 'weird' I suppose, it's just unknown to me.
And none of my business. But it is George's and the Lord that will come.
Could have said nothing but the proof thing keeps coming up.
I care, so I responded, not the right way for some apparently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.