|
Post by quizzer on Apr 13, 2013 23:17:51 GMT -5
No one has free will as long as a god can say, "oh, you have free will to do what you want, BUT, if you don't do it my way, I'll throw you into a big fire & get rid of you." ;D
That way, whatever happens is the fault to the person & not the fault of the god! Ya gotta admit that saying, "God doesn't exist" is rather freeing from that big fire, though.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 1:49:18 GMT -5
Are we talking about me or you? Remember, I do not believe in a being that, in addition to creating and controlling the universe, is also omniscient and omnipotent. My life is filled with choices that I make and for which I am totally responsible. It is a logical deduction. If you are all knowing you know everything. That includes all past, present, and future events. Since being omniscient is one of the traits of our god, it stands to reason that your god knows the outcome of your life. What you are saying contradicts the attributes of an omniscient being. Saying that god does not know the outcome limits the power of god. Are you trying to say that god does not know the outcome of your life? It all flows from your definition of god. Maybe it would be better if your god was not omniscient but simply did not know everything. Interesting that your definition of God stems from one adjective which you frame in the most controversial usage imaginable. Nice work, as it does make atheism look like a good choice. It's not just enough to pretend God doesn't exist, but you need to frame God in such a way that we, as humans, would prefer that it would be better if God didn't exist? What I find amazing is that you find only one set of choices possible for a human lifetime. These choices are made the same way, always. Sort of like using hindsight rather than foresight, but hey...again, a great way to show that it would be better for God not to exist. So, congratulations on all this but you might want to take a few more seminary courses.See, your definition of All-Knowing limits God in many ways. It shows a detached God who could care less about His creation. There's no need for repentance, forgiveness, salvation, choice, or anything of the stuff we read in the Bible. After all, from your definition, we're all cogs in the wheel just going through the motions until we die. Again, nice job, as it places God in a box. On the other hand, I find All-Knowing to mean that God understands that humans have free will. It was a shock with Him to find that humans could be tempted and would choose not to have companionship with Him. As a result, God does understand this occurs. He does not force us to serve Him - He simply waits for us to choose Him. He will draw us to Him, understanding that some need more persuasion than others. To me, this makes God more loving and patient - far larger than your god in a box. "It was a shock with Him to find that humans could be tempted and would choose not to have companionship with Him." Good Lord! Do you actually mean that? Shocked? because he/ she didn't know the creature that he/she created could be tempted?
Wow, I guess that we didn't know that god could be shocked!
"seminary courses."Seminary courses?
How about some Psychology courses so you could can figure out why people believe in such tales to start with.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 3:06:49 GMT -5
There are plenty of psychologists that are Christians so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. Maybe you need find a different course to change people's thinking.
James Dobson, Henry Cloud, are just 2 psychologists who are well known in Christian circles.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 5:03:43 GMT -5
There are plenty of psychologists that are Christians so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. Maybe you need find a different course to change people's thinking. James Dobson, Henry Cloud, are just 2 psychologists who are well known in Christian circles. The study of Psychology helped me to understand why people believe & act the way that they do, how they are affected by their conditioning through their environment- with me because I was born & raised in the "TRUTH" being a major factor.
By understanding why I believed what I believed, I could see the fallacy of my thinking & the harm that it was doing, not only to myself, bu t my family as well.
In the broader sense, I was able to extrapolate that to all humankind and understand better the horrors that religious beliefs caused though out history.
psychology from wiki "Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors.[1][2] Psychology has the immediate goal of understanding individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases,[3][4] and by many accounts it ultimately aims to benefit society.[5][6] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors." wiki. There are many psychologists, some of the are bound to be Christians- All that tells you is that they know more about how and why people act the way that they do better than the average person.
Here is an article on Dobson- He is an evangelical minister first & foremost. I know his thinking well. I use to receive his newsletter myself.
Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:56 AM PST A demoralized James Dobson admits his defeat by SteveningenFollow Maggie Gallagher isn't the only religious conservative to be feeling a loss of optimism in the new year. In his January newsletter, the hate group Focus on the Family founder, James Dobson comes out and admits that "Nearly everything I have stood for these past 35 years went down to defeat." What he fails to understand, or more likely admit to, is why. In his newsletter he proceeds to lay the blame for his failures on the doorstep of President Obama, the Democratic Party and the disappointing Judas Iscariots of the Republican party. There is no acknowledgement that in re-electing this President, the country provided a sound repudiation of Dobson's brand of extremism. It wasn't any of the factions he cited in his newsletter that brought about his defeat. It was the electorate, who, among other things, has grown weary of the distortions and ugly tactics employed by social conservatism.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 14, 2013 6:40:23 GMT -5
Interesting that your definition of God stems from one adjective which you frame in the most controversial usage imaginable. Nice work, as it does make atheism look like a good choice. It's not just enough to pretend God doesn't exist, but you need to frame God in such a way that we, as humans, would prefer that it would be better if God didn't exist? What I find amazing is that you find only one set of choices possible for a human lifetime. These choices are made the same way, always. Sort of like using hindsight rather than foresight, but hey...again, a great way to show that it would be better for God not to exist. So, congratulations on all this but you might want to take a few more seminary courses.See, your definition of All-Knowing limits God in many ways. It shows a detached God who could care less about His creation. There's no need for repentance, forgiveness, salvation, choice, or anything of the stuff we read in the Bible. After all, from your definition, we're all cogs in the wheel just going through the motions until we die. Again, nice job, as it places God in a box. On the other hand, I find All-Knowing to mean that God understands that humans have free will. It was a shock with Him to find that humans could be tempted and would choose not to have companionship with Him. As a result, God does understand this occurs. He does not force us to serve Him - He simply waits for us to choose Him. He will draw us to Him, understanding that some need more persuasion than others. To me, this makes God more loving and patient - far larger than your god in a box. "It was a shock with Him to find that humans could be tempted and would choose not to have companionship with Him." Good Lord! Do you actually mean that? Shocked? because he/ she didn't know the creature that he/she created could be tempted?
Wow, I guess that we didn't know that god could be shocked!
"seminary courses."Seminary courses?
How about some Psychology courses so you could can figure out why people believe in such tales to start with.
rational's an ordained minister. I don't know why an atheist chose such a field of study but you could ask rational. As for God being shocked, just re-read Genesis. Adam and Eve didn't appear before God after eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God found them later. This was the beginning of free will. To me, the Bible is full of such events and I enjoy reading them as well as psychology material when I can. Again, though, rational is better suited as to answer why an atheist is also an ordained minister.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2013 9:53:51 GMT -5
Interesting that your definition of God stems from one adjective which you frame in the most controversial usage imaginable. It is your god. I have often asked for a definition but none is forthcoming. If I have incorrectly defined your god I apologize and will await you definition to continue the discussion. Not sure I see the logic here. Oh, I am not pretending. But as I said, since I have heard a number of definitions theists apply to god I usually use the one most often stated. Why don't you provide a definition so that we can frame your god in a way you feel is appropriate. I don't. It flows from the definition I was using for god. Well, if they are not then they would come as a surprise to an omniscient being. I think we need to look at this using your definition of god. Your god is not all knowing? I await your definition.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2013 10:23:16 GMT -5
rational's an ordained minister. I don't know why an atheist chose such a field of study but you could ask rational. Long ago there was a site and after you filled in your name they sent you a certificate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 10:38:04 GMT -5
Rat, what are you ordained to do???
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 14, 2013 12:31:36 GMT -5
This statement pretty much nullifies the rest of the article!
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 16:59:53 GMT -5
This statement pretty much nullifies the rest of the article! Agree Emy, easy to see which is the hate group. dmmichgood wrote: " How about some Psychology courses so you could can figure out why people believe in such tales to start with."So what tale do you believe dmmi or is it that only Christians believe a tale and you don't? what is your tale on how and why we exist? dmmi wrote: "The study of Psychology helped me to understand why people believe & act the way that they do, how they are affected by their conditioning through their environment- with me because I was born & raised in the "TRUTH" being a major factor.
By understanding why I believed what I believed, I could see the fallacy of my thinking & the harm that it was doing, not only to myself, but my family as well.
In the broader sense, I was able to extrapolate that to all humankind and understand better the horrors that religious beliefs caused though out history."What about the horrors that non religious people cause? Don't you think non religious people cause horrors on people? So growing up in the 2x2s has helped shape your thinking in to being an atheist? For others it has helped them shape their thinking into being a 2x2. What about those who have been brought up in the 2x2s who have remained Christians although they have left the 2x2s? If our environment shapes our thinking (which as a psychologist I believe environment does have a big impact) then which way has growing up in the 2x2s shaped us? Don't you think there are many other factors? Some are able to see the 2x2 group as being the problem and still retain their belief in God but you have thrown God out with the 2x2s. For some being brought up in the 2x2s may have contributed to putting them off God while for others of us it has not put us off God as we see the problem as not being God but a controlling legalistic church. So there are other factors in our upbringing which affects us in different ways which shows there are also other factors involved. My environment did not put me off God only controlling religions. So how do you account for the fact that you do not believe in God but others of us do although we were all brought up in the 2x2s? Also being exposed to other info outside of the 2x2s has not put us off God. Don't you think our home life, genetic makeup and many other factors all contribute to the outcome? Many people are able to sift through the info. and see that God is not the problem but mans interpretation of God. Don't you think there are more factors involved. As you quoted physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors." I do notice you said being raised in the 2x2s is a major factor not the only factor but I am pointing out that there are others raised in the 2x2s who still believe in God so how much did the 2x2s influence you in being an atheist seeing that many who have left still believe in God?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 17:26:06 GMT -5
I am sure the distortions and ugly tactics employed by social conservatives would have little bearing on the final outcome of the general population. People would be naive to suggest such a thing given that these bills pass whether there are Christian conservatives campaigning or not. Ultimately people choose what they want to do. That is part of being in a free society and conservatives speaking out is also a part of that freedom.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 17:33:36 GMT -5
This statement pretty much nullifies the rest of the article! "hate group Focus on the Family"
No, it doesn't nullify the rest of the article.
For quite a long time I received Dobson's "Focus on the Family" newsletter-
The newsletter was more "focused" on people that Dobson had no use for -of course always sweetly couched in terms like "love the the homosexual but not homosexuality" etc.
The term by the author of that article was absolutely correct.
Dobson & Focus on the Family "hate" to see people be able to live their own lives, make choices about their own lives without the interference of the government which they, Dobson and Focus on the Family, want under their control.
That was the reason Dobson was bemoaning the fact that Romney lost the election.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 17:46:08 GMT -5
Another laden word "bemoaning".
dmmi wrote: All that tells you is that they (psychologists) know more about how and why people act the way that they do better than the average person.
You seem to be minimising the role of psychologists here. Do you apply that to all professions or just psychologists? Do you think that understanding human behavior is just a matter of reading some psychology books and journals? How would you know for example when a person needs medication versus counselling - think of the damage that can be done when you might spend years listening to a person and trying to help then when it is a chemical imbalance? You have no understanding of the extent and types of issues that psychologists deal with if you can say "All that tells you ......better than the average person." Would you say that about doctors for example? Getting to the root of some problems can take months or even years. How much empathy does the average person have month after month with the same person, how much insight into abuse issues does the average person have? Observe the work of a psychologist for even a day and you will see what work they do when working with people. Many people have deep issues.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 18:55:14 GMT -5
Here is the evidence that, yes, they certainly do want to affect the political agenda of the the government to style it to their beliefs.
Focus on the Family From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is a tax-exempt non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It is active in promoting an interdenominational effort toward its socially conservative views on public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.
Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide."[2]
Focus on the Family opposes abortion, divorce, gambling, LGBT rights,[3] LGBT adoption,[4][5] pornography, pre-marital sex, and substance abuse.
It supports abstinence-only sexual education, non-LGBT adoption, corporal punishment, creationism, school prayer, and strong gender roles.
Psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists have accused Focus on the Family of misrepresenting their research to bolster FOTF's political agenda and ideology.
The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by its president, Jim Daly, and his colleagues, providing free resources according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 19:03:54 GMT -5
Another laden word "bemoaning". dmmi wrote: All that tells you is that they (psychologists) know more about how and why people act the way that they do better than the average person. You seem to be minimizing the role of psychologists here. Do you apply that to all professions or just psychologists? Do you think that understanding human behavior is just a matter of reading some psychology books and journals? How would you know for example when a person needs medication versus counsel ling - think of the damage that can be done when you might spend years listening to a person and trying to help then when it is a chemical imbalance? You have no understanding of the extent and types of issues that psychologists deal with if you can say "All that tells you ......better than the average person." Would you say that about doctors for example? Getting to the root of some problems can take months or even years. How much empathy does the average person have month after month with the same person, how much insight into abuse issues does the average person have? Observe the work of a psychologist for even a day and you will see what work they do when working with people. Many people have deep issues. "You seem to be minimizing the role of psychologists here." I'm doing just the opposite! reread what I wrote about how much the study of psychology helped me!
You are taking out one quote & completely misrepresenting it!
You are misstating what I said, making it say I said just the opposite of what I did say![/color]
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 19:04:30 GMT -5
Don't most sectors of society want to affect the political agenda of the government?
Don't gays for example, want to do the same thing?
Didn't American Africans want to do the same thing? Don't we all want a say in government policies? Isn't voting doing just that or do you not vote?
Dobson has never made it secret that he is campaigning for the rights of the heterosexual family.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 14, 2013 20:01:56 GMT -5
Don't most sectors of society want to affect the political agenda of the government? Don't gays for example, want to do the same thing? Didn't American Africans want to do the same thing? Don't we all want a say in government policies? Isn't voting doing just that or do you not vote? Dobson has never made it secret that he is campaigning for the rights of the heterosexual family. But by campaigning for the rights of the heterosexual family, he is ignoring a whole other group of people. My question is this. Why does he need to campaign for something that he already has. The heterosexual family already have all the rights. The gay community do not, and will not, if he has his way. No one is trying to take away the rights of a heterosexual family, they are just trying to get some rights for those families that don't fit into that category. Long overdue, but if he had his way, people who do not think like him will not get any rights. I am sure if it was him in that situation, he'd be squawking loudly.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 14, 2013 20:08:42 GMT -5
Speaking out for conservative social values is hardly equal to being a hate group, even if they lobby governmental entities.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 21:18:01 GMT -5
Don't most sectors of society want to affect the political agenda of the government?Don't gays for example, want to do the same thing[/b]? Didn't American Africans want to do the same thing? Don't we all want a say in government policies? Isn't voting doing just that or do you not vote? Dobson has never made it secret that he is campaigning for the rights of the heterosexual family.[/quote] Gays and Blacks, by asking that their rights be recognized are not taking away any of the rights of heterosexual families!
Heterosexual families are not having any of their rights being taken away simple because other groups want their rights.
This is just a smoke screen by groups like Focus on the Family to keep other groups that they dislike from obtaining their own rights!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 21:26:49 GMT -5
Speaking out for conservative social values is hardly equal to being a hate group, even if they lobby governmental entities. They aren't just "speaking out for their values, they are speaking out against the rights & values of others which do not affect them at all nor take away any of their rights, including their right to believe anything that they want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 21:31:57 GMT -5
I am sure the distortions and ugly tactics employed by social conservatives would have little bearing on the final outcome of the general population. People would be naive to suggest such a thing given that these bills pass whether there are Christian conservatives campaigning or not. Ultimately people choose what they want to do. That is part of being in a free society and conservatives speaking out is also a part of that freedom. Happy feet wrote:
"Ultimately people choose what they want to do." And that is exactly what they did this past election & that was what Dobson was complaining about! ;D
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 21:37:46 GMT -5
There are plenty of psychologists that are Christians "so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. "Maybe you need find a different course to change people's thinking. James Dobson, Henry Cloud, are just 2 psychologists who are well known in Christian circles. happy feet wrote:"so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. "Well let's hope it changed you thinking about some things- if it didn't ask for your money back! ;D t
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 22:28:42 GMT -5
This statement pretty much nullifies the rest of the article! Agree Emy, easy to see which is the hate group. dmmichgood wrote: " How about some Psychology courses so you could can figure out why people believe in such tales to start with."So what tale do you believe dmmi or is it that only Christians believe a tale and you don't? what is your tale on how and why we exist? dmmi wrote: "The study of Psychology helped me to understand why people believe & act the way that they do, how they are affected by their conditioning through their environment- with me because I was born & raised in the "TRUTH" being a major factor.
By understanding why I believed what I believed, I could see the fallacy of my thinking & the harm that it was doing, not only to myself, but my family as well.
In the broader sense, I was able to extrapolate that to all humankind and understand better the horrors that religious beliefs caused though out history."What about the horrors that non religious people cause? Don't you think non religious people cause horrors on people? So growing up in the 2x2s has helped shape your thinking in to being an atheist? For others it has helped them shape their thinking into being a 2x2. What about those who have been brought up in the 2x2s who have remained Christians although they have left the 2x2s? If our environment shapes our thinking (which as a psychologist I believe environment does have a big impact) then which way has growing up in the 2x2s shaped us? Don't you think there are many other factors? Some are able to see the 2x2 group as being the problem and still retain their belief in God but you have thrown God out with the 2x2s. For some being brought up in the 2x2s may have contributed to putting them off God while for others of us it has not put us off God as we see the problem as not being God but a controlling legalistic church. So there are other factors in our upbringing which affects us in different ways which shows there are also other factors involved. My environment did not put me off God only controlling religions. So how do you account for the fact that you do not believe in God but others of us do although we were all brought up in the 2x2s? Also being exposed to other info outside of the 2x2s has not put us off God. Don't you think our home life, genetic makeup and many other factors all contribute to the outcome? Many people are able to sift through the info. and see that God is not the problem but mans interpretation of God. Don't you think there are more factors involved. As you quoted physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors." I do notice you said being raised in the 2x2s is a major factor not the only factor but I am pointing out that there are others raised in the 2x2s who still believe in God so how much did the 2x2s influence you in being an atheist seeing that many who have left still believe in God? dmmi wrote: "The study of Psychology helped me to understand why people believe & act the way that they do, how they are affected by their conditioning through their environment- with me because I was born & raised in the "TRUTH" being a major factor.
By understanding why I believed what I believed, I could see the fallacy of my thinking & the harm that it was doing, not only to myself, but my family as well.
In the broader sense, I was able to extrapolate that to all humankind and understand better the horrors that religious beliefs caused though out history."
I still stand by the above.[/color] " As you quoted physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors."
This was quoted, as I stated from wiki, but true
[/color] "so how much did the 2x2s influence you in being an atheist seeing that many who have left still believe in God? " Was all that post of yours some kind of psychological test?
Will I get evaluation & recommendations & therapy free of charge?
Can I ask you how did being an member of the "Truth" affect you & your religious viewpoint now?
Can you, as a psychologist, explain the many different views that ex-members of the "Truth" have come to?
Are you still in fellowship of the "Truth"? (all your answers, of course, are confidential & not shared with anyone else without your permission, if they are in PM form.) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 22:37:12 GMT -5
There are plenty of psychologists that are Christians "so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. "Maybe you need find a different course to change people's thinking. James Dobson, Henry Cloud, are just 2 psychologists who are well known in Christian circles. happy feet wrote:"so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. "Well let's hope it changed you thinking about some things- if it didn't ask for your money back! ;D t
Changing our thinking regarding believing in God. You think we should get our money back because we still believe in God?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2013 22:41:37 GMT -5
happy feet wrote:"so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. "Well let's hope it changed you thinking about some things- if it didn't ask for your money back! ;D t
Changing our thinking regarding believing in God. You think we should get our money back because we still believe in God? Well, if you didn't change your thinking about "some things" you didn't get the education that you paid for, or I presume you paid for. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 22:44:30 GMT -5
You have not answered the questions I asked you above. Are you planning to answer them?
No I am not a 2x2.
I see the 2x2 group as being the problem and still retain my belief in God. I have not thrown God out with the 2x2s.
I do not see God as the problem but the 2x2 church.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 14, 2013 22:48:14 GMT -5
You have not answered the questions I asked you above. Are you planning to answer them? No I am not a 2x2. I see the 2x2 group as being the problem and still retain my belief in God. I have not thrown God out with the 2x2s. I do not see God as the problem but 2x2 church. I don't see God as the problem either. However, I see the religions that have formed up around God as a definite challenge to ever having a united humanity at peace with one another. I'm not talking about a Utopia, just learning how to tolerate each other for our differences would be a great start for me.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 14, 2013 22:51:22 GMT -5
I was writing that it didn't change my thinking about Christianity.
Quote: There are plenty of psychologists that are Christians "so guess you would say that psychology courses didn't change their/our thinking. (I will add about God just for you).
It reminds me of a young girl who said to me she didn't know why she had to go to school as they never learned anything. I said so you know nothing more now than when you started school. She agreed she had learned things. Kind of like university don't you think, but as far as my belief in God it didn't change that.
|
|