|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 24, 2014 20:22:14 GMT -5
Lee, Please explain how "atheism is not a point of view". It sounds kinda cliché , but doesn't really make sense to me, but maybe you could help me understand? To me, it is a point of view, with legitimate observations, even though we might come to different conclusions, or points of view. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 20:25:05 GMT -5
Rational badgers the theists on TMB by a standard interrogation, "Do you have any proof of a paranormal being?" First of all Rational hasn't any proof of his own existence. He changes during his life. He has no evidence he'll ever exist again. He no more exists than God does by his own criteria. All the while he irrationally persists in demanding proof of God from theists. If you look at the record, I think you will find that Rational doesn't play favorites among theists and non-theists. Make an extraordinary claim, and you may be asked to supply supporting evidence. State your beliefs as just that....your beliefs, and you will likely be left alone. The fact/value split of modernity is the cancer of its insufferable, superficiality. It was once assumed that beliefs were held pursuant to an objective truth. Today beliefs are relegated to private lunacies.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 20:30:15 GMT -5
The sin of atheism is its objective-delusion. The sin of atheism is its delusional-arrogance. Lee ~ Please give some examples of what you mean above or explain why you feel this way? I don't exactly get the drift of your statements?
To objectively argue there is no God would require being God yourself. To feign otherwise requires arrogance
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 20:38:54 GMT -5
Paranormal being? And what's so normal about human beings if they change during their lifetimes and desist at death? Change and evolution is normal. Death is normal. Paranormal would be a being that did not change and did not die. If the shoe fits leave no stone unturned because a rolling stone gathers no moss. (I just felt like mixing metaphors!)Again, a timeless measure of truth will measure for eternity. Temporal norms must then be paranormal.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 24, 2014 20:40:13 GMT -5
An "objective truth" would be ONE only correct answer per question for all people , so would not require belief to be held ? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 20:46:28 GMT -5
The sin of atheism is its objective-delusion. The sin of atheism is its delusional-arrogance. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 20:53:00 GMT -5
Lee, Please explain how "atheism is not a point of view". It sounds kinda cliché , but doesn't really make sense to me, but maybe you could help me understand? To me, it is a point of view, with legitimate observations, even though we might come to different conclusions, or points of view. Alvin Atheism is a disbelief. How can it be a POV?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 20:56:03 GMT -5
An "objective truth" would be ONE only correct answer per question for all people , so would not require belief to be held ? Alvin True. It would only require belief to be perceived.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2014 21:04:02 GMT -5
I was probably the one at fault here. I shouldn't have used the word 'we' when talking about anything other than atheists not believing in God. I should have only referred to myself for the rest of it. I apologize. In the context of your post, Snow, I understood that you were speaking about some atheists, not all. Put in a different setting, it wasn't as clear. The message I have been trying to articulate to faune might have been delivered on another thread and not linked to anything you have posted. So I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear. Ok, I haven't been following the whole conversation too closely, just what I said.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2014 21:08:48 GMT -5
Lee, Please explain how "atheism is not a point of view". It sounds kinda cliché , but doesn't really make sense to me, but maybe you could help me understand? To me, it is a point of view, with legitimate observations, even though we might come to different conclusions, or points of view. Alvin Atheism is a disbelief. How can it be a POV? disbelief is a POV. You don't believe in unicorns. Isn't that a POV
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 21:21:05 GMT -5
Its a point of non-view. The view under consideration is the existence of unicorns.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2014 21:42:11 GMT -5
Its a point of non-view. The view under consideration is the existence of unicorns. So the existence of unicorns is a PONV. Ok then...
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 24, 2014 21:43:51 GMT -5
Its a point of non-view. The view under consideration is the existence of unicorns. The view under consideration, being the existence of God, would also be a point of non-view??? How does one differentiate, view vs non-view? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 21:58:34 GMT -5
Its a point of non-view. The view under consideration is the existence of unicorns. The view under consideration, being the existence of God, would also be a point of non-view??? How does one differentiate, view vs non-view? Alvin The pursuit of the truth is a positive preoccupation. It is a passion or love, as the apostle Paul saw it. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. Love and belief are inseparable twins of eternity. A non-view may sharpen our view but a view shall remain. If our view is eternal, it shall remain true for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 24, 2014 21:59:00 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?"
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 24, 2014 22:01:28 GMT -5
I like
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 22:12:26 GMT -5
Its a point of non-view. The view under consideration is the existence of unicorns. So the existence of unicorns is a PONV. Ok then... Actually I believe in unicorns. They were filmed in Vietnam recently.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2014 22:14:21 GMT -5
The view under consideration, being the existence of God, would also be a point of non-view??? How does one differentiate, view vs non-view? Alvin The pursuit of the truth is a positive preoccupation. It is a passion or love, as the apostle Paul saw it. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. Love and belief are inseparable twins of eternity. A non-view may sharpen our view but a view shall remain. If our view is eternal, it shall remain true for eternity. And that's how science should be defined.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 24, 2014 23:41:44 GMT -5
Matisse, yes I don't believe it applies to all atheists. The only thing I know of that applies to all atheists is they don't believe in any god period. I was trying to make the point though that even if I didn't believe there was a God, I still had other beliefs that would be quite similar to theists, those being love, compassion etc. That's how I read it as you posted it, Snow! 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.
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? I'm sure if my posted comment bothered Snow in any way, she would have responded to me personally, along with Lee or Walter over the accidental transposition of their names and quotes? She actually indicated earlier that she "liked" my post in which I quoted her statement verbatim in response to Lee. In addition, I heard from none of these other three people mentioned regarding my "perceived errors" on this thread ~ only you, Matisse ~ over and over again! That's why I referred to it as badgering over some "petty matter" here on TMB. I believe Lee used the same word earlier in response to another atheist doing the same thing to him on this thread, too?
Everybody is bound to make some mistakes on this Board in trying to get their point across or paraphasing what they perceived somebody else has stated. None of us get it right 100% of the time! I don't feel I stand alone here? However, you have gone to great length to point out all my perceived faults, not just on this thread, but indicating this was a pattern of mine on other threads as well. Exactly what is the motivation behind your actions? Does it have anything to do with my Christian beliefs being different from yours? I hope not! However, I think common courtesy in how we phrase our comments, especially when we disagree, is something to strive towards on any public pro-board? I just wanted to share my personal thoughts here tonight, so as there would be no confusion as to how I perceived your comments in this thread. Hopefully, I made myself clear enough so as everyone can understand my point of view?
In conclusion, I also liked what Walker said in response to my earlier post and agree wholeheartedly with him that Christians need to stand their ground for what they do believe here on TMB. I personally agree with Walker on this point and feel that both Lee and Walter clearly demonstrate their convictions on this thread and others. Perhaps the more that Christians share on this Board regarding their personal beliefs and stand by them, their views will eventually be taken more seriously by the unbelievers who also post here? Just my two cents at the end of this day! Hopefully, I conveyed everything I had intended in this reply to your earlier posts?
Walker shared earlier...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 1:48:15 GMT -5
I was probably the one at fault here. I shouldn't have used the word 'we' when talking about anything other than atheists not believing in God. I should have only referred to myself for the rest of it. I apologize. Snow ~ I believe you got your point across very well regardless of the same pronoun used throughout your sentence. I had no problem understanding your meaning and I doubt anybody else did either? That's why I was confused over it ever becoming an issue in the first place within this thread? Granted I did make a few mistakes myself on this thread in getting Walker and Lee names missed up with their quotes. But, such things do happen a lot in threads here on TMB and normally don't cause any great stir with anyone when they do?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2014 6:33:48 GMT -5
That's how I read it as you posted it, Snow! 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!
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Mar 25, 2014 8:31:21 GMT -5
Atheism is a disbelief. How can it be a POV? 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?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Mar 25, 2014 8:43:59 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 9:53:36 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. 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".
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Mar 25, 2014 10:21:34 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.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 11:15:00 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.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 11:18:31 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. Jondough ~ No kidding! That's an understatement in itself!
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Mar 25, 2014 11:26:22 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. 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.
|
|