|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 11:36:14 GMT -5
Matisse ~ Me, too! So what really was the problem here other than "making a mountain out of a mole-hill" over my interpretation of Snow's post in the first place? I understood quite well the meaning behind her post without any further explanation from her. You missed the point. It reaches beyond this thread. There are better examples in other threads. This thread just happened to contain the "last straw" for me. Yes, I do believe in letting others speak for themselves. I respected Snow's words by stating clearly that what I was saying was my interpretation and that I might have it wrong. I also asked Snow for feedback about what I was saying. She confirmed later, that I had interpreted the meaning correctly. If she had told me I had gotten it wrong, I would have stood corrected. Do you see how this is different from presuming one can "educate" others about what a person just posted? (Of course not, silly Matisse!) I should have known better than to think I would be able to give you some constructive feedback. Subtle has never worked. Banging you over the head clearly doesn't work either. I should have known. My bad! Matisse ~ Thanks for your display of honesty and your sense of humor. I figured it had nothing to do with Snow's earlier post or my accidental transposition of names accredited to a post within this thread. I'm sure you made your "point of view" regarding my posting style very clear to me and others on this Board in a nutshell.
Matisse shared earlier...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 11:42:35 GMT -5
From the way I understand the definitions, the atheist does have a POV: that there is no God. It is the agnostic who is closer to having no POV as their position is "don't know one way or the other". What I have come to realize is that none of us knows for sure.....so some/most make a choice what feels right to believe. Like you said, the Agnostic doesn't even go this far. They take more of the stance that - there is no way of knowing for sure, so what's the point of guessing. Christians use the theory - You can't see the wind blow, but you know it's there because of the evidence of it. So many will say they DO know for sure. Of course it is debatable what the so called evidence is indicating. Matt10 describes it pretty well when questioning miracles. He has said (paraphrasing), "I'll believe it when I see someone that has lost a leg or a foot, and see someone heal it". I use to be one of those that would say they knew for sure, but now I am not quite that arrogant anymore. I do/have made a choice in what I believe, but will never state that I know this to be true - for sure. In the past, I would have bet my children's life on it. Today, I would not. I do however feel that if we choose what to believe with good and honest intensions, trying our very best to do what is right, the outcome will be good. Clearday ~ Thanks for sharing your thoughts above. I liked your concluding paragraph and feel the same way about my own beliefs to a certain extent. There have been some changes over the years due to new knowledge I have gained, but I still hold to my original belief in a Higher Power or Creative God over this universe by faith. It doesn't have to be proven to be real to me. I just accept it as my belief by choice and pattern my life accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 13:22:38 GMT -5
How can licentiousness be licensed if there's no God? Well, fortunately, licensing is usually done by society and hopefully without the input of those who believe in a deity or deities. Licensing is simply a form of control and society has a right, perhaps even a responsibility, to control and monitor activities to protect its members. Regarding licentiousness, society would be better of is some forms of this behavior were licensed instead or existing illegally in the shadows.I think the question you meant to ask was: "How did it happen that some people retain their free will while others are constrained by some ancient text and by their perception of what the paranormal being(s) they believe in want the believer to do?"
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 13:24:51 GMT -5
You do realize that sin is not something that atheists experience. It is possible to become so inured to the truth you're no longer aware of it. You demonstrate this frequently.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 13:27:47 GMT -5
Atheism is a disbelief. How can it be a POV? This is not quite true. For something to be a disbelief implies that there is, or was, something to believe in and not that belief is no longer held as true. Speaking for myself, there is no disbelief. God just does not exist for me.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 13:33:56 GMT -5
The pursuit of the truth is a positive preoccupation. Yes, and it must be separate from the pursuit of beliefs. Truth is the same for everyone and needs to be reproducible and testable, like the speed of light in a vacuum. Anyone can set up a test case and verify the truth. A test case for the existence of the paranormal is not the same. Clever Hans seemed indeed to be a paranormal horse but in reality without Orlov Trotter it was just a horse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 13:36:54 GMT -5
What I have come to realize is that none of us knows for sure.....so some/most make a choice what feels right to believe. Like you said, the Agnostic doesn't even go this far. They take more of the stance that - there is no way of knowing for sure, so what's the point of guessing. Christians use the theory - You can't see the wind blow, but you know it's there because of the evidence of it. So many will say they DO know for sure. Of course it is debatable what the so called evidence is indicating. Matt10 describes it pretty well when questioning miracles. He has said (paraphrasing), "I'll believe it when I see someone that has lost a leg or a foot, and see someone heal it". I use to be one of those that would say they knew for sure, but now I am not quite that arrogant anymore. I do/have made a choice in what I believe, but will never state that I know this to be true - for sure. In the past, I would have bet my children's life on it. Today, I would not. I do however feel that if we choose what to believe with good and honest intensions, trying our very best to do what is right, the outcome will be good. Clearday ~ Thanks for sharing your thoughts above. I liked your concluding paragraph and feel the same way about my own beliefs to a certain extent. There have been some changes over the years due to new knowledge I have gained, but I still hold to my original belief in a Higher Power or Creative God over this universe by faith. It doesn't have to be proven to be real to me. I just accept it as my belief by choice and pattern my life accordingly. JD gets the credit for the paragraph you like!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 13:40:42 GMT -5
Also, if you believe so much in letting others speak for themselves, why did you take it upon yourself to speak for Snow in the first place? ??? Quoting someone's post and them voicing your opining regarding their post is generally how a discussion board works. I think the bojections you have been reading is when you paraphrase a post and attempt to explain what the original poster was saying.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 13:56:28 GMT -5
It seems strange to me that because someone doesn't believe in something....this would mean that they have no point of view.....Do you really believe this? One thing the Atheist on this board HAVE demonstrated is that they definitely have a point of view. I think one of the reasons why discussions like this start and continue with such passion is because for an atheist the whole idea that there is no god is not a factor that is taken into account in their daily lives. They do not dwell on the absence of gods nor does this absence drive them to meet weekly (daily?) to tell others about this lack of belief and discuss the meanings of the text in some ancient book. Theists on the other hand, often incorporate their beliefs into their daily life (from hair styles, to clothing styles, to the availability of a mate, to the sex of the person they wish to date, etc.) and they cannot imagine how they would function without these guidelines in place guiding their lives. They cannot envision having a moral compass that they have developed and for which they take responsibility. For some, without a belief in god(s) nothing has meaning. Like people born and raised in a cave, viewing the world as shadows on the wall, they can not envision what is outside their cave. The prospect of doing so is so frightening that many will not even allow themselves to question. One of the things people say regarding restricting membership to the TLC is that questioning might cause people to lose their faith and they are hoping to have a group of supportive people only - much like going to church where everyone in the group confirms the beliefs of the other members.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 14:01:10 GMT -5
Then there are differing interpretations or understandings as to what "God" is. While I have not made the leap to the atheist camp I no longer believe in the same "God" that I was raised with. Too many inconsistencies arose around the anthropomorphic "big invisible guy in the clouds" that I had been taught as a child, enough that I could no longer live under this idea and remain sane and happy. Once you start redefining god haven't you really landed squarely in the middle of the atheist camp? It's like the question - "Would you, as shown in the bible, kill your son or daughter because god said to or because of a vow you made to god?" Once you say "No" what does it say about your belief in an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 14:06:39 GMT -5
Christians use the theory - You can't see the wind blow, but you know it's there because of the evidence of it. So many will say they DO know for sure. Of course it is debatable what the so called evidence is indicating. The interesting thing is that christians continue to use this example even after visualization of wind has been made possible. Comparing the wind to god and using that example to make their point really just highlights the fact that while visualization of the wind is possible, reproducible and testable, they still have no proof of god(s).
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 25, 2014 15:29:45 GMT -5
Christians use the theory - You can't see the wind blow, but you know it's there because of the evidence of it. So many will say they DO know for sure. Of course it is debatable what the so called evidence is indicating. The interesting thing is that christians continue to use this example even after visualization of wind has been made possible. Comparing the wind to god and using that example to make their point really just highlights the fact that while visualization of the wind is possible, reproducible and testable, they still have no proof of god(s). Do you ONLY believe in PROVABLE concepts, ideas, or "things"? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 15:43:25 GMT -5
Once you start redefining god haven't you really landed squarely in the middle of the atheist camp? It's like the question - "Would you, as shown in the bible, kill your son or daughter because god said to or because of a vow you made to god?" Once you say "No" what does it say about your belief in an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god? I don't think so. Saying that you don't believe some of the things the bible says about God doesn't mean that there is no way you can believe in a God. Even if I knew the bible was 100% a work of fiction, it wouldn't prove that there is no God. It would just prove God doesn't exist as described in the bible. Honestabe ~ I agree with your point of view. Not every Christian believes the Bible is inerrant and to be taken literally from Genesis to Revelation. In fact, I would guess there are few Christians who hold this view today, myself among them. Science has revealed a lot about creation itself that defies the 6 day creation of the earth. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a Higher Power or creative force responsible for human existence and the universe. A lot of New Age teachings go along these lines, as I mentioned earlier. I'm just beginning to try to understand their actual teachings recently, since I never gave it much thought before. However, I like to explore the history behind religions and beliefs to see how many similarities I can find between the different teachings.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 18:21:04 GMT -5
So the existence of unicorns is a PONV. Ok then... Actually I believe in unicorns. They were filmed in Vietnam recently. So they have become a POV. Well then, do you believe in the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? Would that be a PONV?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 18:22:39 GMT -5
I'm likely missing the point because I don't care to go back and digest every post on this thread. BUT: A restatement of my understand of another person's post can help both me and the original poster. If I don't get it quite right, it gives the original a chance to clarify, and me, a chance to learn. If I do get it right, it carries the message forward with a new voice. If we all limited our responses to the "like" button, this would become a dreary site, indeed. For example, I could simply "Like" any one of Lee's posts. Or I could restate it: The dystopian point of view of disbelief in the antithetical prethallic unicorn notwithstanding, the moral dissimilitude of the primordial synthesized instance disturbs the oscillatory membrane of armadillos. There. Wasn't that so much better than "Like?" I'm just going to say, I have no idea what you just said... Now that there are unicorns, my whole world view has changed from a PONV to a POV. I'm reeling, I tell you, reeling...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 18:26:46 GMT -5
disbelief is a POV. You don't believe in unicorns. Isn't that a POV The Bible tells us about unicorns, therefore it must be true. It just requires faith......right? Just as an aside I am wondering if the unicorn is "clean" or "unclean" according to the Law of Moses? Oh Gosh! I must have missed that verse! That's what I love about this place, I continually get to learn something new!! Clean or unclean, well now that's a different discussion I'm sure!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 18:36:18 GMT -5
Then there are differing interpretations or understandings as to what "God" is. While I have not made the leap to the atheist camp I no longer believe in the same "God" that I was raised with. Too many inconsistencies arose around the anthropomorphic "big invisible guy in the clouds" that I had been taught as a child, enough that I could no longer live under this idea and remain sane and happy. I am agnostic. I guess that means by definition I don't have a point of view. However, I think I do know that I don't know. I think if everyone was honest, they really should be saying, I don't know. There is no proof there is a God like the Christian God or any other definition of God for that matter. However, there are possibilities that there is a God by some other definition. I just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 18:39:06 GMT -5
Then there are differing interpretations or understandings as to what "God" is. While I have not made the leap to the atheist camp I no longer believe in the same "God" that I was raised with. Too many inconsistencies arose around the anthropomorphic "big invisible guy in the clouds" that I had been taught as a child, enough that I could no longer live under this idea and remain sane and happy. Gecko45 ~ There is also the New Age belief that is catching on quite a lot these days regarding God as being some intelligent energy Source in the heavens to which we return when we die. From what I have read on this subject recently, we have the choice to either reincarnate into another body and return to this earth at a later time to experience human existence all over again or remain as part of this eternal Source, if we so desire? According to this philosophy, we all have souls or "Light Beings" within us which symbolize "the Kingdom of God within." In fact, we all are considered like "little gods" in a sense, since we all originated from the same eternal source. These "Light Beings" return to this energy Source and merge together as one. However, there is no afterlife in Hell or Heaven or Judgment Day as Christians believe in Christianity. The thread I started on those who claim to be Christ reincarnated deals with this same idea. Most of the followers of these self-proclaimed Messiahs who supposedly reincarnated from a past life are into such New Age teachings. I'm still trying to figure out what New Age involves, but this is what I have gathered so far from some books I've been reading on this subject. faune, that is ONE version of New age thought, but there are an abundance of them too, all of them just a little different. In many ways, New Age thought is based on ancient beliefs about what God was. New age is really old.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 25, 2014 18:41:27 GMT -5
Then there are differing interpretations or understandings as to what "God" is. While I have not made the leap to the atheist camp I no longer believe in the same "God" that I was raised with. Too many inconsistencies arose around the anthropomorphic "big invisible guy in the clouds" that I had been taught as a child, enough that I could no longer live under this idea and remain sane and happy. I am agnostic. I guess that means by definition I don't have a point of view. However, I think I do know that I don't know. I think if everyone was honest, they really should be saying, I don't know. There is no proof there is a God like the Christian God or any other definition of God for that matter. However, there are possibilities that there is a God by some other definition. I just don't know. I may be totally off-base on the following, but it seems to me that if the atheist says "there is no god" and the agnostic says "it's impossible to know if there is a god," there should be a third option: "I have not yet seen any verifiable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a god or gods." Or is that third statement the position of some atheists? I think that's the closest to my own non-POV (since Lee has told me I am not allowed to have a POV )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 18:43:58 GMT -5
your third option is what i've heard a number of agnostics say...
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 25, 2014 18:44:57 GMT -5
your third option is what i've heard a number of agnostics say... Interesting. So, Rational -- what say you?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 19:01:09 GMT -5
I am agnostic. I guess that means by definition I don't have a point of view. However, I think I do know that I don't know. I think if everyone was honest, they really should be saying, I don't know. There is no proof there is a God like the Christian God or any other definition of God for that matter. However, there are possibilities that there is a God by some other definition. I just don't know. I may be totally off-base on the following, but it seems to me that if the atheist says "there is no god" and the agnostic says "it's impossible to know if there is a god," there should be a third option: "I have not yet seen any verifiable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a god or gods." Or is that third statement the position of some atheists? I think that's the closest to my own non-POV (since Lee has told me I am not allowed to have a POV ) For me it's because I haven't seen any verifiable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a god or gods that I am agnostic. Maybe it makes me an atheist?? In any case, I still don't know.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 19:37:18 GMT -5
Gecko45 ~ There is also the New Age belief that is catching on quite a lot these days regarding God as being some intelligent energy Source in the heavens to which we return when we die. From what I have read on this subject recently, we have the choice to either reincarnate into another body and return to this earth at a later time to experience human existence all over again or remain as part of this eternal Source, if we so desire? According to this philosophy, we all have souls or "Light Beings" within us which symbolize "the Kingdom of God within." In fact, we all are considered like "little gods" in a sense, since we all originated from the same eternal source. These "Light Beings" return to this energy Source and merge together as one. However, there is no afterlife in Hell or Heaven or Judgment Day as Christians believe in Christianity. The thread I started on those who claim to be Christ reincarnated deals with this same idea. Most of the followers of these self-proclaimed Messiahs who supposedly reincarnated from a past life are into such New Age teachings. I'm still trying to figure out what New Age involves, but this is what I have gathered so far from some books I've been reading on this subject. faune, that is ONE version of New age thought, but there are an abundance of them too, all of them just a little different. In many ways, New Age thought is based on ancient beliefs about what God was. New age is really old. Snow ~ Thanks for bringing that fact out about New Age being based in ancient beliefs, many of them going back to ancient Egypt.
I find it interesting that we are seeing two schools of thoughts about God emerging today ~ New Age and New Thought. They both have their similarities and differences as shown in this article below and have a certain appeal with the masses.
websyte.com/alan/newage.htm
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2014 20:38:43 GMT -5
I may be totally off-base on the following, but it seems to me that if the atheist says "there is no god" and the agnostic says "it's impossible to know if there is a god," there should be a third option: "I have not yet seen any verifiable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a god or gods." Or is that third statement the position of some atheists? I think that's the closest to my own non-POV (since Lee has told me I am not allowed to have a POV :))) For me it's because I haven't seen any verifiable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a god or gods that I am agnostic. Maybe it makes me an atheist?? In any case, I still don't know. I think one can find considerable overlap among liberal Christians, agnostics and "soft" atheists. One word hardly seems adequate. If I can only use one word, I choose atheist - at least here on TMB. Two, and I would probably call myself an agnostic atheist. A few, and I might say I am a culturally Christian agnostic atheist. By then, why not just have a conversation! I think the one-word labels unnecessarily divide. I refuse to use the word "god" to describe my experience. IMO, humans need new words to communicate across differences of belief - a word or words that will work for everyone, including atheists. IMO, the word "god" gets in the way more than it helps. It divides more than it brings together. It has way too much baggage. Calling myself an atheist is at some level a kind of boycott of the word "god."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 20:46:14 GMT -5
your right GOD, meant there to be a division for his people from the world...
Mat_10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Mar 25, 2014 20:51:00 GMT -5
matisse can you elaborate what exactly is a "soft" atheist. thanks
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2014 20:56:17 GMT -5
your right GOD, meant there to be a division for his people from the world... Mat_10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. You offer a great example of why I do not use the word "god" to describe any aspect of my experience!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 21:14:59 GMT -5
The interesting thing is that christians continue to use this example even after visualization of wind has been made possible. Comparing the wind to god and using that example to make their point really just highlights the fact that while visualization of the wind is possible, reproducible and testable, they still have no proof of god(s). Do you ONLY believe in PROVABLE concepts, ideas, or "things"? Alvin No, I am fond of theories that have some supporting proof and correctly predict ongoing discoveries. But I would not use an erroneous example over and over as an analogy to support my point.
|
|