"What does not believing in God have to offer? Nothing. I believe things because I'm convinced that they are true, not because they make me happy. If I believed in doing things to be happy, I would believe in God."
I think this is a rather odd statement. Do you agree with it? Would believeing in a god make you happy? **************************************************** 01-06-03, 02:00 PM Minnesota Believing in Santa Clause once made me more happy than when I later found out the facts and no longer believed. Same goes for the tooth fairy. But, of course, we shouldn't believe in such otherworldly beings just because it makes us happier than not to. But, would I be happier believing in the Christian god than not? Probably so--Christians seem to enjoy their beliefs---but realizing, as I now do, that it would be at the expense of my rationality it isn't a viable option. So, I gotta agree with Mason, even the fact that not believing has nothing to offer. If it has, I would appreciate knowing just what.
01-06-03, 02:05 PM jusork I think he meant if he was looking for something to believe in that made him happy, he'd believe in god. And he doesn't believe in atheism because it makes him happy.
I don't think believing in god would make me happy. I think it would make me feel like there was someone watching over me.
When I realized Santa wasn't real, I felt the same way as before except this time I felt that I was wrong before.
But from the Christian perspective, if god is real, I'd believe in him because he's real, not because it'll make me happy. Since that's what Christians believe, I don't think they're doing it to be happy.
I guess it's a matter of perspective that depends on what you believe.
01-06-03, 02:49 PM honilov Believing in God doesn't necessarily make you happy. I believe in him and I've had a lot of unhappy times. That's what we all are gonna feel, happiness sometime and unhappiness sometime. But for believers, their joy will come on judgment day. And believe me, there 'will' be a judgment day.
01-06-03, 06:44 PM Minnesota "And believe me, there 'will' be a judgment day."
NO
01-07-03, 10:38 AM niceday
quote:Originally posted by babthrower: Would believeing in a god make you happy?
I don't believe in God because it makes me happy to do so. I believe in God because it makes a great deal of sense to me on a logical level, and also it's what I know to be true on a heart level.
However, having said that, I didn't used to believe in God, and I was less happy than I am now, but I don't think that's just about believing or not believing in God.
It's the teachings of the Baha'i Faith which help me see how things fit together, and what my place is in the great scheme of things and what our purpose is in this life. For me a belief in God doesn't mean abandoning reason. The Baha'i Writings teach that reason and faith should go together and should be like the two wings of a bird.
To me, believing in God means seeing things in a new light. I see all of creation as having divine qualities and I see all people as being related to me, in a sense -- as being the children of one God. When you see this interconnectedness, then you don't feel alone in the universe anymore. Before I felt more like a spiritual orphan. Now I feel like I belong. And that is a good feeling, and yes, it makes me feel happy. Not outwardly happy all the time, but happy in a deep place.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
01-07-03, 11:21 AM helpmate Not believing in god forces one to look at life for what it is; to be able to find joy and gratitude in being alive, without using magic and mythology or the expectation of something better later is the ultimate reward life has to offer. To say, as many here seem to do, that this life is essentially empty of meaning because it's merely prelude to the eternal reward; or to rely on some sort of "you'll get yours and I'll get mine" judgement day to even things out -- all that means that the believer is missing the present. And since the present is all we can be sure of, then the believer is passing on coming to terms with reality. To find meaning in what we see and know -- as scary as it may be -- that is the ultimate reward, and the mark of a person willing to muster the effort. It's like enjoying making love without the need to imagine your partner is someone else.
01-07-03, 01:53 PM babthrower Suzanne, Baha'i is a very gentle and comforting faith. I'm glad you found your niche.
By the way, all faiths rely on reasoning. But I think we can agree that certain things cannot be reasoned, and it is then that some take a 'leap of faith', and say something like 'I cannot prove that god(s) exist, but I choose to believe.
Others reason like this:
I can't imagine how all this stuff going on around me started without a creator. It is this creator who fills me with awe and reverence. Therefore I believe.
As Helpmate says, the non-theist looks at things differently. I feel awe and reverence when I consider the vastness and beauty of the visible universe, and try to imagine its extent.
I have turned to considering the actual living of my life to be the important thing. What, if anything, comes after is of no importance.
01-08-03, 01:50 AM tsaeb babthrower: Dan Mason is making his mocking statement to show that the happiness of the believer rests on the believer's ability to believe what Dan Mason implies cannot be proven.
Personally, I find that prophecy, when put methodically on paper, can provide persuasive demonstrations of many things which until now could not be proven. All that is debatable is whether the persuasive demonstrations are tantamount to proofs. They are all the more convincing when mathematics in addition to English is employed.
01-10-03, 09:50 AM Elexina Not believing in god does not make me happy. Believing in god (i.e. deceiving myself) would not make me happy. Being myself and being comfortable with myself makes me happy. Perhaps Mr. Mason meant that believing in god would make him happy because it would be blind faith, without requiring any real reasons, excuses or explanations. The answer "it's god's will" would suffice for everything. There is no need to explain anything if you believe in your religion. There's just uninformed bliss. A disbelief, however, requires substantiation and backing. Sometimes it's easier and more comfortable to just believe, but disbelief takes courage.
01-16-03, 08:40 AM Mike121 I don’t think it’s odd per se. I think it shows that Dan Mason holds a very limited, naïve view of theism. This is the same sort of simplistic thinking one would find in a red-neck living in the Deep South who thinks all African Americans love watermelon.
02-02-06, 08:54 PM Momma Angel Well, being a redneck living in the Deep South, I don't believe all of anybody loves watermelon. Big Grin Sorry, couldn't resist.
I think Mike's take on Dan Mason is pretty much on target. Being what some would call a theist though, I would think that. Smile
I think Honilov is right on with her comments. Even though one believes in God and follows the teachings of Christ, it doesn't mean life is going to be all sunshine and roses. We are still going to face all the same situations we have always had to face. The difference for me is that I now have the Lord to lean on and He always makes things better for me.
I don't think just because one does not believe in God that means anything other than they don't believe in God.
03-03-06, 05:59 PM HOSS Jesus said " He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." [Matt 5:45]
The bible teaches. In this life we will see good and bad days no matter what we do.
thanks. Hoss
03-17-06, 07:20 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by Minnesota: Believing in Santa Clause once made me more happy than when I later found out the facts and no longer believed. Same goes for the tooth fairy. But, of course, we shouldn't believe in such otherworldly beings just because it makes us happier than not to. But, would I be happier believing in the Christian god than not? Probably so--Christians seem to enjoy their beliefs---but realizing, as I now do, that it would be at the expense of my rationality it isn't a viable option. So, I gotta agree with Mason, even the fact that not believing has nothing to offer. If it has, I would appreciate knowing just what.
That is precisely why I am so fervently against lying to children, tricking them into believing there is a Santa Clause or tooth fairy. This kind of deception can cause in later life, a sense of betrayal and cynicism about any possibilities beyond the physical realm.
03-17-06, 09:39 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by sheanima: That is precisely why I am so fervently against lying to children, tricking them into believing there is a Santa Clause or tooth fairy. This kind of deception can cause in later life, a sense of betrayal and cynicism about any possibilities beyond the physical realm.
Realizing Santa Clause isn't real can cause kids to loose faith in God, you're saying? Do you believe this is a cause of atheism? Is realizing Santa isn't real really such a big disruption or realization? For most kids, they realize that it was just a story for kids and then move on with their beliefs. Once they stop believing, they know it's not supernatural anymore and they know it's their parents. Is it the belief in the supernatural that's disrupted, or the belief in the false that's disrupted? And is it really a bad thing to make kids more skeptical than believing? Does that mean that even if God is real, a child might not be able to believe the truth? Could a children's story really disrupt someone's faith so much?
03-18-06, 02:06 PM babthrower This is what not believing gives me: freedom from superstition and the arbitrary rules of conduct which the gurus and the shamans and the priests and the rabbis and their ilk lay down for us.
And it's such a deal! In return for the hope that I will wake up again after I die, and that the awakening will be a pleasant one, I gain the freedom from the lies and manipulation of the mongers of the various 'faiths'. I can decide what is 'good' based on humanistic grounds. Smile
03-18-06, 03:47 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by jusork:
quote: Originally posted by sheanima: That is precisely why I am so fervently against lying to children, tricking them into believing there is a Santa Clause or tooth fairy. This kind of deception can cause in later life, a sense of betrayal and cynicism about any possibilities beyond the physical realm.
Realizing Santa Clause isn't real can cause kids to loose faith in God, you're saying? Do you believe this is a cause of atheism? Is realizing Santa isn't real really such a big disruption or realization? For most kids, they realize that it was just a story for kids and then move on with their beliefs. Once they stop believing, they know it's not supernatural anymore and they know it's their parents. Is it the belief in the supernatural that's disrupted, or the belief in the false that's disrupted? And is it really a bad thing to make kids more skeptical than believing? Does that mean that even if God is real, a child might not be able to believe the truth? Could a children's story really disrupt someone's faith so much?
Yes it can, and it has. Just listen to the atheists. I've heard many of them refer to believing in God is the same as believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause. Can't you hear the connection? I don't care if it's traditional or not. I call it as I see it. It's a deep-seated, direct association in the mind.
I'm not saying this happens with everyone, of course, but it still has a negative impact on more people than you might think, when they grow up, and begin addressing the more challenging question of a creator. This is the next step up from childhood, of being told to believe something that by then seems, by all appearances to them, just another myth.
Most of them never come out and say anything against those mythical traditions because they don't want to risk sounding like a wet blanket.
It's one thing to tell a child about the fun of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy, but also make sure they understand it's just a game. But it's another to deceive them under the guise of enchantment. When they eventually find out, it can feel like a cruel joke - a betrayal by both their parents and society. But children usually keep those feelings and thoughts to themselves, and try to deal with it as best they can.
03-18-06, 03:57 PM Momma Angel I tend to agree with sheanima on this somewhat. I remember how heartbroken I was when I found out there was no tooth fairy. Sure, my parents explained it all to me and why and everything but it did make me why wonder I had been lied to in the first place. Kids are pretty smart. They connect things adults don't realize. I think as long as the child is told the complete story and allowed to get all their feelings out about this at the time of their initial shock, more than likely they'll be ok. But, how many adults consider what that child is thinking at that time?
03-18-06, 04:09 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by Momma Angel: I tend to agree with sheanima on this somewhat. I remember how heartbroken I was when I found out there was no tooth fairy. Sure, my parents explained it all to me and why and everything but it did make me why wonder I had been lied to in the first place. Kids are pretty smart. They connect things adults don't realize. I think as long as the child is told the complete story and allowed to get all their feelings out about this at the time of their initial shock, more than likely they'll be ok. But, how many adults consider what that child is thinking at that time?
Hi, Momma Angel!! Good to see you! I agree with everything you said, except I would remove the part I've bolded.
Let's look at Easter, for instance. Little children aren't normally told to believe that there is actually an Easter Bunny who leaves colored eggs around the yard for them to find. But they still love the Easter Bunny story, pretend and play along with it, and still enjoy the egg hunt! Other mythical stories like the tooth fairy and Santa Clause should be handled in the same way. This would in no way lessen their excitement or joy. No matter how much you try to smoothe it over later, popping the balloon of their fragile faith and trust will.
This reminds me of a cat I used to know. He would enjoy your presence and let you pet him. Then he would quickly reach out, scratch your hand hard enough to hurt, then lick you where he scratched it.
03-18-06, 06:50 PM frankvan Getting back on topic: What does not believing have to offer? The question suggests that believing (presumably in one religion or other) has, indeed some rewards. I don't presume to have sampled all of the many faiths currently in vogue, but of those with which I have some early experience, I don't think the rewards are worth the effort. As Omar Khayam said, "Some for the pleasures of this world, and some long for the prophet's paradise to come. Ah take the cash and let the credit go, Nor heed the rumble of some distant drum."
I don't think that all the promises of an afterlife is worth denying oneself of the emancipation of being free of unnecessary baggage. Being able to direct one's life by logic and intelligent use of experiment and reasoning, choosing what works and abandoning what doesn't. Ironically, being free of the restraints and rules of most of the tradiional religions, the free-thinking agnostic, atheist, or secular humanist, is in position to embrace any system of beliefs that satisfy and appear to answer all of the doubts and tests that one could possibly imagine, if one should eventually emerge. Being espoused to one religious doctrine and its demands is an intolerable restriction on man's inquisitive nature. Once you have arrived, there is no where left to travel. I think you seek the answer at the end of the search. You don't start with the answer and spend the rest of life trying to justify it.
I certainly have no interest in converting anyone to my way of thinking. I'm sure that there are many people who are happy in the comfort they derive from the routine acceptance of rituals learned in childhood. I wish that the world couild be free of the countless crusades, jihads, inquisitions, intolerance and conflicts that arise from the clash of various religions. The persistence of religious interference with the growth of knowledge and education, the regression that fundamentalist pressures impose on science in areas where they thrive, have been an anchor on progress in most of the civilized world, throughout history.
I am happy. I believe whatever gives me pleasure to believe, just as long as I can subject that belief to any test I can contrive if there is the slightest question of plausibility.
03-18-06, 10:26 PM jusork I see your point, although I still wonder how serious it is. I suppose I should get a survey started to continue my point though but unfortunetely, I don't think I'll have enough time.
quote: Originally posted by sheanima: Let's look at Easter, for instance. Little children aren't normally told to believe that there is actually an Easter Bunny who leaves colored eggs around the yard for them to find. But they still love the Easter Bunny story, pretend and play along with it, and still enjoy the egg hunt! Other mythical stories like the tooth fairy and Santa Clause should be handled in the same way. This would in no way lessen their excitement or joy. No matter how much you try to smoothe it over later, popping the balloon of their fragile faith and trust will.
How old were you when you found out the Easter Bunny wasn't real? I wonder how many kids actually get their childhood beliefs popped, as you say. I thought most kids just gradually grew out of it. Is growing out of them just as disruptive as having them popped?
03-19-06, 05:43 AM clarebear When my son was little he asked me why we had to give to Toys for Tots if Santa brings all the toys for the kids. I explained to him that Santa can only bring one or two gifts and the rest of the presents come from the parents. Every year I take my son to the store and I let him pick out all the toys we donate. I think its a great learning experience and I hope he passes it down to his kids. I don't feel that I betrayed him in anyway by telling him about Santa. You can go to the NASA website and actually track where Santa is. I volunteered to answer Santa letters this year. All of the needy letters got forwarded to the Salvation Army. They provided many Christmas dinners through the help of Santa. Santa is a state of mind. My son is almost 18 and I still wrap a gift from Santa and put it under the tree. He thinks its great. I think its all about having fun. I think some people over analyze things too much. Sometimes a rose is just a rose. I feel sorry for all of you who are saying horrible things about Santa. He IS watching you.
03-19-06, 09:43 AM babthrower When my oldest grandson was seven, his mother and he were visiting me just after Christmas.
I said, "Do any of the kids your age at school still believe in Santa?"
I saw this totally shocked look on his face, and he turned to his Mom and said, "You mean Santa's not real???"
I was amazed when his mom told me that they had told their children about Santa, neglecting to mention that he was just pretend. I had told mine, when they were little, that he was just pretend, but that they had to be careful around other children because most of them thought santa was real.
I had no idea that my daughter had done otherwise.
After we comforted the little fellow, she told me that when she was little, she had always wished that she believed in Santa, just like all her friends.
03-19-06, 01:18 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Getting back on topic: What does not believing have to offer? The question suggests that believing (presumably in one religion or other) has, indeed some rewards. I don't presume to have sampled all of the many faiths currently in vogue, but of those with which I have some early experience, I don't think the rewards are worth the effort. As Omar Khayam said, "Some for the pleasures of this world, and some long for the prophet's paradise to come. Ah take the cash and let the credit go, Nor heed the rumble of some distant drum."
I don't think that all the promises of an afterlife is worth denying oneself of the emancipation of being free of unnecessary baggage. Being able to direct one's life by logic and intelligent use of experiment and reasoning, choosing what works and abandoning what doesn't. Ironically, being free of the restraints and rules of most of the tradiional religions, the free-thinking agnostic, atheist, or secular humanist, is in position to embrace any system of beliefs that satisfy and appear to answer all of the doubts and tests that one could possibly imagine, if one should eventually emerge. Being espoused to one religious doctrine and its demands is an intolerable restriction on man's inquisitive nature. Once you have arrived, there is no where left to travel. I think you seek the answer at the end of the search. You don't start with the answer and spend the rest of life trying to justify it.
I certainly have no interest in converting anyone to my way of thinking. I'm sure that there are many people who are happy in the comfort they derive from the routine acceptance of rituals learned in childhood. I wish that the world couild be free of the countless crusades, jihads, inquisitions, intolerance and conflicts that arise from the clash of various religions. The persistence of religious interference with the growth of knowledge and education, the regression that fundamentalist pressures impose on science in areas where they thrive, have been an anchor on progress in most of the civilized world, throughout history.
I am happy. I believe whatever gives me pleasure to believe, just as long as I can subject that belief to any test I can contrive if there is the slightest question of plausibility.
frankvan, I noticed that when you (very thoughtfully) answered the question, "What does not believing have to offer?" in your previous post, you referred to religion. Yet there are many people who don't ascribe to a particular religion, and still know in their hearts that there is a higher power from which they came, the source of life, itself.
Throughout the ages, certain people have been inspired to take this inner knowing and form it into a religion. I believe that most of them probably meant well, but things like that seem to eventually morph into a corrupted tool for political control.
My question is this: If you had never heard of such thing as religion, and had been raised in a world where most people simply believed in a higher power, what do you think the result of your worldview might have been in that environment?
03-19-06, 01:30 PM juanruiz
quote: Yet there are many people who don't ascribe to a particular religion, and still know in their hearts that there is a higher power from which they came, the source of life, itself.
The inevitable question arising from this is: "How do they know?"
03-19-06, 01:39 PM sheanima juanruiz, that's a good question, and is very difficult to put into words. The best possible answer I can direct you to, is here: (another thread) .
03-19-06, 01:47 PM juanruiz
quote: The best possible answer
Not sure there are any answers there. Lots of speculation from different sides. If someone insists they know a creator exists, that's fine with me. It's when they try to foist that creator off on others that I get a little uneasy.
03-19-06, 07:06 PM frankvan
quote: My question is this: If you had never heard of such thing as religion, and had been raised in a world where most people simply believed in a higher power, what do you think the result of your worldview might have been in that environment?
I think the answer to that question is in the same category as the old rhetorical: "If my aunt had cajones, she'd be my uncle". I do not believe that my world view is any more or less influenced by the prevailing views of the hoi poloi now or in a less enlightened period. Some people, apparently including yourself know things in your heart!. I tend to believe that type of "knowledge" is more emotional than cerebral, and I'm inclined to either dismiss it as unreliable, or question it as dispassionately and scientifically as I'm able.
03-19-06, 07:13 PM Momma Angel FrankVan,
You would dismiss someone's views out of hand because you don't agree with them or because you have preconceived ideas about them?
03-19-06, 07:17 PM sid1114 there was a time, especially during my active medical practice, that I felt that those who were religious were to be admired/envied/tolerated because it allowed them a means to handle certain of life's difficulties; eg, the death of a loved one... So I felt tolerant.
Of late, I've become less so. Not in any active sense: I don't act in any way against those who believe. I still puzzle over it. But I find that, especially those of text-based religions (Bible, Koran), religious people more and more seem to need to extend their views into my space. Worse, I see now that such religions not only are inconsistent with a view of the world that encourages inquiry, which asks of us that we constantly look for better understanding of our world, of life itself -- the actively discourage it. So, those who consider themselves religious moderates, and who consider themselves tolerant of others are, in fact, being that way only by virtue of ignoring much of the teaching of their texts.
So I see religions of that sort as dangerously threatening to inquiry and thought (we have nice discussions of the meaning of this text or that, but it's all inside a little box) and, in the main, as having retarded rather than encouraged the advancement of mankind.
What does not believing have to offer? It requires of me that I focus on the real, the proveable, the testable. It allows me to act based on what is right in and of itself, rather than in anticipation of reward or fear of punishment. It challenges and allows me, in other words, to live a life uncorrupted, a truly moral life. One based on reality, on the knowledge that I have a choice to help or harm my fellow man, and choose the former for its own sake. It lets me sleep at night.
03-19-06, 07:53 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by frankvan:
quote: My question is this: If you had never heard of such thing as religion, and had been raised in a world where most people simply believed in a higher power, what do you think the result of your worldview might have been in that environment?
I think the answer to that question is in the same category as the old rhetorical: "If my aunt had cajones, she'd be my uncle". I do not believe that my world view is any more or less influenced by the prevailing views of the hoi poloi now or in a less enlightened period. Some people, apparently including yourself know things in your heart!. I tend to believe that type of "knowledge" is more emotional than cerebral, and I'm inclined to either dismiss it as unreliable, or question it as dispassionately and scientifically as I'm able.
Frank, "A knowing of the heart" is just another way of describing primal instinct,, which is not science, but akin to intuition.
If as you say, anything which comes from the heart is considered unreliable, then this means love is unreliable, and should be dismissed as well.
Environment does play a factor in the decisions a person makes in life - what we greatly repel from, and in doing so, to what we swing just as forcefully, in the opposite direction.
By the way, it is spelled with two l's: hoi polloi. And one does not use the term preceded with "the". This is redundant, because hoi polloi, literally translated from Ancient Greek, means "the many". By doing so, one would actually be saying, "the the many".
This message has been edited. Last edited by: sheanima, 03-19-06 09:21 PM
03-19-06, 08:09 PM juanruiz
quote: "A knowing of the heart" is just another way of describing primal instinct,, which is not science, but kin to intuition.
I'd be more inclined to call that "a knowing in the head." It probably saved more than one Australopithicus aferensis.
03-19-06, 08:12 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz:
quote: "A knowing of the heart" is just another way of describing primal instinct,, which is not science, but kin to intuition.
I'd be more inclined to call that "a knowing in the head." It probably saved more than one Australopithicus aferensis.
One without the other will lead to failure.
03-19-06, 08:41 PM juanruiz
quote: One without the other will lead to failure.
I find that both anachronistic and anthropomorphic. We, as humans, are always more than ready to refer to the heart. My view would be that early hominids had little time for that, if any at all. Survival from day to day left the heart out of it, as long as it was still beating.
03-19-06, 09:06 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz:
quote: One without the other will lead to failure.
I find that both anachronistic and anthropomorphic. We, as humans, are always more than ready to refer to the heart. My view would be that early hominids had little time for that, if any at all. Survival from day to day left the heart out of it, as long as it was still beating.
Civilized man's loftiest goal is life is not to merely survive, but to live, and live abundantly.
03-19-06, 09:15 PM juanruiz I don't disagree with that. The central question to me seems to be how is that accomplished, and what beliefs do you bring to that? Obviously, this latter question has long preoccupied mankind. Religion has served as means to help answer that question. Some of us are not content with the answer it has supplied.
03-19-06, 10:47 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by sheanima:
Frank, "A knowing of the heart" is just another way of describing primal instinct,, which is not science, but akin to intuition.
If as you say, anything which comes from the heart is considered unreliable, then this means love is unreliable, and should be dismissed as well.
Love definitely is unreliable. It doesn't have to be dismissed though. One should, however, be cautious with it, and question it every now and then as he says.
03-19-06, 11:49 PM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by jusork:
quote: Originally posted by sheanima:
Frank, "A knowing of the heart" is just another way of describing primal instinct,, which is not science, but akin to intuition.
If as you say, anything which comes from the heart is considered unreliable, then this means love is unreliable, and should be dismissed as well.
Love definitely is unreliable. It doesn't have to be dismissed though. One should, however, be cautious with it, and question it every now and then as he says.
LOVE NEVER FAILS.
It is negativity (with fear as the underlying culprit) that fails.
03-20-06, 12:20 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Some people, apparently including yourself know things in your heart!. I tend to believe that type of "knowledge" is more emotional than cerebral, and I'm inclined to either dismiss it as unreliable, or question it as dispassionately and scientifically as I'm able.
Yes, it is believing what we want to believe. It is like the mother who tells the police that she 'knows in her heart' that her son would never do x.
Well, maybe her son never would do x. But the mother's faith in her son is not what we go by.
Because it so often has been proved wrong that one's faith in another is well placed, we go by physical evidence, and hard data in the physical world. Not by the faith that is in someone's heart.
Of course, it is the mother's choice if she wants to have faith in her son in spite of evidence. Her love for her son is its own reward. But the rest of us need not be bound by it.
03-20-06, 12:37 AM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by babthrower:
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Some people, apparently including yourself know things in your heart!. I tend to believe that type of "knowledge" is more emotional than cerebral, and I'm inclined to either dismiss it as unreliable, or question it as dispassionately and scientifically as I'm able.
Yes, it is believing what we want to believe. It is like the mother who tells the police that she 'knows in her heart' that her son would never do x.
Well, maybe her son never would do x. But the mother's faith in her son is not what we go by.
Because it so often has been proved wrong that one's faith in another is well placed, we go by physical evidence, and hard data in the physical world. Not by the faith that is in someone's heart.
Of course, it is the mother's choice if she wants to have faith in her son in spite of evidence. Her love for her son is its own reward. But the rest of us need not be bound by it.
No, I've never heard any mother say "I know in my heart little Johnny would rob a bank."
No, they don't say that. They always only say, "My son wouldn't do that."
You have to have a clear mind, a pure heart, and wisdom (which does not mean intellectual knowledge) to be able to "know in your heart". Otherwise, fear and other negative energies cloud the reception. A mother who says that about her son but is wrong, was in no condition to say so, in the first place.
03-20-06, 12:43 AM babthrower What does not believing have to offer? She said:
quote: No, I've never heard any mother say "I know in my heart little Johnny would rob a bank."
You and MA are eerily alike, She.
I didn't say that a mother would say "I know in my heart my son would rob a bank."
I said - and you quoted it in your post just above your reply --
"It is like the mother who tells the police that she 'knows in her heart' that her son would never do x.
03-20-06, 02:59 AM sheanima
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: She said:
quote: No, I've never heard any mother say "I know in my heart little Johnny would rob a bank."
You and MA are eerily alike, She.
I didn't say that a mother would say "I know in my heart my son would rob a bank."
I said - and you quoted it in your post just above your reply --
"It is like the mother who tells the police that she 'knows in her heart' that her son would never do x.
Smile I know, Bab. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean for you to think that I was quoting you completely verbatim, because I wasn't.
Although one-half of it was specifically targeted at the knowing of the heart, the other half was just a conveyance of the general idea, using my own words.
(and thank you for the compliment..)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: sheanima, 03-20-06 03:32 AM
03-20-06, 03:24 AM babthrower Actually it was the exact opposite of what I said, not the general idea at all.
But you're welcome.
03-20-06, 01:48 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by sheanima: LOVE NEVER FAILS.
It is negativity (with fear as the underlying culprit) that fails.
Doesn't that go to show that love can be easily influenced by fear, and therefore can be difficult to work with in certainty?
03-20-06, 02:17 PM sheanima When a person dwells in pure love, fear can't exist. What you focus on most is what you get.
03-20-06, 02:29 PM Momma Angel Well put, Sheanima. If you focus on the fear, then fear is all you get.
03-21-06, 08:44 PM aminator2002 I don't think Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny have anything to do with why people become atheist.
Kids all find out about Santa Claus and most don't feel trauma over it. Most kids have some anxiety that the adults are fooling them or that there is a world that they are being excluded from. That is because they are being excluded and they are being protected, and they are offered an opportunity to make-believe. Many kids have learned about Santa and without missing a beat have turned around and gone back to making a fort in their living room or some other pretend activity. I'm sure there are kids that feel disappointed. I'm sure adults thinking back about it feel more than they did at the time... kids get disappointed about many things. No cookie for dinner, no more cartoons... it's part of learning about the world. Just like the whole Santa charade is one of those things that teaches kids many things and it might sting a little but it's no big deal.
Religion is much more serious than any of that. Kids are told that if they don't have faith that they'll go to hell. Hmmm.... is there really any comparison? They are taught that unbaptized or other religions are going to hell after death.
Is a story of a little kid being disappointed about Santa really similar to a kid who prays for hours each night trying to find "faith" and cries for hours because they can't find it. It really has nothing to do with finding out the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy and Santa are imaginary creations of adults to delight children.
I imagine that for most people the decision to become an atheist is actually a moment of pure joy. A great relief.
12-21-06, 05:33 AM ZIK Would any atheists here care to say precisely what they mean by the word "God"? I'm not at all sure they know.
12-21-06, 10:23 AM XaurreauX
quote: Originally posted by ZIK: Would any atheists here care to say precisely what they mean by the word "God"? I'm not at all sure they know.
I'm guessing by your tone that no matter what definition is given by anyone it will not meet with your approval and then we'll go around and around with atheists/agnostics, etc. actually wasting their time trying to overcome what will most likely be your facile dismissals.
12-22-06, 07:10 PM frankvan
quote: Would any atheists here care to say precisely what they mean by the word "God"? I'm not at all sure they know.
And I'm not at all sure you know what you mean by "any atheists here". This particular thread raised the question, "What does not believing have to offer", and it was raised by Babthrower almost exactly 4 years ago. You must realize that some of us have left for parts unknown, some have died, and some of us just can't imagine what prompts someone to post in every atheist thread, with thinly veiled condescending and unresponsive remarks (like the above) during a 6 hour barrage of posts??? You want the atheists definition of God? Which god is that? The figment of your imagination, or someone else's?
12-23-06, 03:30 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by frankvan:
quote: Would any atheists here care to say precisely what they mean by the word "God"? I'm not at all sure they know.
And I'm not at all sure you know what you mean by "any atheists here". This particular thread raised the question, "What does not believing have to offer", and it was raised by Babthrower almost exactly 4 years ago. You must realize that some of us have left for parts unknown, some have died, and some of us just can't imagine what prompts someone to post in every atheist thread, with thinly veiled condescending and unresponsive remarks (like the above) during a 6 hour barrage of posts??? You want the atheists definition of God? Which god is that? The figment of your imagination, or someone else's?
If you're an atheist, when you use the word "God" what do YOU mean? That's my question. If you're not an atheist, the question is not for you at all, and you can ignore it if you wish. Whether the topic was started a century ago is rather irrelevant, isn't it?
12-23-06, 03:36 PM frankvan
quote: If you're an atheist, when you use the word "God" what do YOU mean? That's my question. If you're not an atheist, the question is not for you at all, and you can ignore it if you wish. Whether the topic was started a century ago is rather irrelevant, isn't it?ZIK
Since you seem to attach a great deal of importance to definitions, how about: you define for me what YOU mean when you use the word atheist?? Until then I have no way of knowing whether or not I fit your "description". When I know I can decide whether or not to ignore the question, or just ignore you.BTW, it isn't necessary to repeat the entire post every time you want to comment on it.
12-23-06, 03:39 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by frankvan:
quote: If you're an atheist, when you use the word "God" what do YOU mean? That's my question. If you're not an atheist, the question is not for you at all, and you can ignore it if you wish. Whether the topic was started a century ago is rather irrelevant, isn't it?ZIK
Since you seem to attach a great deal of importance to definitions, how about: you define for me what YOU mean when you use the word atheist?? Until then I have no way of knowing whether or not I fit your "description". When I know I can decide whether or not to ignore the question, or just ignore you.BTW, it isn't necessary to repeat the entire post every time you want to comment on it.
I define an atheist as: One who declares with conviction that there is no God - or gods.
12-23-06, 07:09 PM frankvan How you define me is unimportant and meaningless. What is important is how I define myself. Realistically, I define myself as an atheist - if an atheist is one who entertains no belief in an anthropomorphic deity, omnipotent, omniscient, and requiring adoration, supreme judge of all mankind, dispenser of rewards and punishments in a life after death. I can't describe my lack of beliefs because the list would be infinitely long. It would include Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns etc. And just to be complete, I believe there is more justification to being an atheist with conviction, than a theist, or deist or anyone convinced of the existence of any mythical being - without any supporting evidence.
Now, if we can get back on the topic of this 4 year old thread, "What does not believing give me?" Sid has answered that several pages back far better than I ever can. I feel exactly the same uncluttered freedom to pursue truth, without "threats of hell and hopes of paradise".
12-24-06, 02:58 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: How you define me is unimportant and meaningless. What is important is how I define myself. Realistically, I define myself as an atheist - if an atheist is one who entertains no belief in an anthropomorphic deity, omnipotent, omniscient, and requiring adoration, supreme judge of all mankind, dispenser of rewards and punishments in a life after death. I can't describe my lack of beliefs because the list would be infinitely long. It would include Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns etc. And just to be complete, I believe there is more justification to being an atheist with conviction, than a theist, or deist or anyone convinced of the existence of any mythical being - without any supporting evidence.
Now, if we can get back on the topic of this 4 year old thread, "What does not believing give me?" Sid has answered that several pages back far better than I ever can. I feel exactly the same uncluttered freedom to pursue truth, without "threats of hell and hopes of paradise".
You're free to define yourself as you wish. And I'm free to define atheists I wish.
You're free to believe whatever you wish - and take responsibility for that. Thats' all I'm saying. So, if you make certain claims publicly which are regarded by some as false, you must appreciate that they will be firmly challenged - sooner or later. And, only if your claims represent truth will they prevail in a well-ordered debate against your opposition.
12-24-06, 09:28 AM frankvan
quote: And, only if your claims represent truth will they prevail in a well-ordered debate against your opposition.
Is it your idea of a 'well-ordered debate, where a late entry, completely oblivious to the years and pages of prior discussions and opinions, keeps insisting on an answer to a one dimensional and repetitious question of his own?? Is it your sole interest and purpose to challenge "convinced atheists" as defined by yourself? Why don't you just go ahead and present your arguments in a thread you start yourself; see if you can't persuade us to join you in an actual discussion.
12-31-06, 02:05 PM XaurreauX
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: [QUOTE]And, only if your claims represent truth will they prevail in a well-ordered debate against your opposition.
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Is it your idea of a 'well-ordered debate, where a late entry, completely oblivious to the years and pages of prior discussions and opinions, keeps insisting on an answer to a one dimensional and repetitious question of his own?? Is it your sole interest and purpose to challenge "convinced atheists" as defined by yourself? Why don't you just go ahead and present your arguments in a thread you start yourself; see if you can't persuade us to join you in an actual discussion.
You know as well as I that repeating the same questions over and over again while refusing to accept any answer given and refusing to post any alternative theory is a tactic right out of the superstitionist playbook. This is merely whistling past the graveyard. They can reassure themselves that they've "won" the debate because atheists refuse to chase their moving goalposts. No doubt the fact that atheists can't prove with absolute certainty that there is no god is taken by the superstitious as being tantamount to an admission that there is a god. So be it. It's their faith that needs to be reinforced, not our lack of it.
12-31-06, 03:33 PM gizmogram I really like that answer too! I've been trying to find a way to say that it's not possible to make an athiest explain WHY they don't believe in a higher power, when the simple answer is...they don't. And hashing and rehashing and argument is rude and is only going to annoy people. Nobody is going to be converted unless they want to be.
Thank you Xaurreaux
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6356 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
