Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:26 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,396 posts, read 16,251,050 times
Reputation: 10467

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett View Post
Here's the thing: I would rather be wrong about God than be angry all the time like most atheists I know. I would rather be wrong and happy than right and angry.

But, I don't think I'm wrong about God.

I'm agnostic and I'm one of the happiest, generally content people you'll ever meet.

Sounds like maybe you've met some pretty out of the norm atheists? What would they have to be angry about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:30 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,609,257 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Gldn removed his brain, allowed himself to become religious.
Nope. Again...deliberate ignorance.
Pretending not to know the difference between one who subscribes to twisted dogma...and one who can simply perceive a generic "Source God".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:30 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,490,387 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
I'm agnostic and I'm one of the happiest, generally content people you'll ever meet.

Sounds like maybe you've met some pretty out of the norm atheists? What would they have to be angry about?
I get that image too, "angry atheists," but generally because when people make it out that they are atheist--it's usually in response to something absurd or ridiculous. You can keep poking the brown fuzzy bush, but eventually it's going to rear its head and become a bear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:38 AM
 
Location: playing in the colorful Colorado dirt
4,486 posts, read 5,205,573 times
Reputation: 7012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
I was very religious for 30 years. I "saw". I was "spiritually tuned in". I "knew God". I "saw His hand" in everything. I spoke to Him through prayer many times throughout every day. I believed God worked miracles through me. I "saw" and felt the "love of God" so intensely. I lived in the mindset of a believer and perceived things and understood events as believers do.

Then, I came to realize, it was all just an illusion, every bit of it. I am not "blind", I can flip into "spiritual believer" mode at anytime. But, now I see better than those who claim they are sighted. I see the whole "spiritual sight" for what it truly is, not what "sighted believers" think it is.

So, to my fellow atheists, I say, as one who has been on both sides, and knows exactly what the believers are talking about, because I was once just as in tune as the best the them, what they think is real isn't real. They misperceive the source of what they think they "see". What they see are nothing more than illusions. So, don't worry that you can't see the illusions they see. If you are blind to illusions, consider yourself gifted.

I realize that this may be one of the harsher posts I have made, but it makes me angry when believers call non-believers blind. A better analogy than a blind person and a sighted person would be a person who hallucinates and one who does not.
The truth generally is harsh, but only to those who are afraid to hear it.

I'm not an Atheist. I was raised in a religious home, my grandparents and an uncle were ministers. I was fortunate in that I was taught to follow the path that felt right for me. After many years I realized that Christianity wasn't it. I prefer to "worship" what is visible, the earth, life, family , rather than a being with no substance who's only voice is that given to it by my fellow humans.

The basic principles of Christianity have merit, you can't go wrong by treating people the way you want to be treated. The problem however lies in how many of these good Christians interpret these principles and misuse them. There have been far too many atrocities committed in the name of God.

As far as i'm concerned, the Bible is more of a fictional account of history which has been changed, over the passage of time, to support the claims of those who 'believe". It does however have a few good etiquette lessons in there, a few of the commandments.
I have my own beliefs, I don't expect that people agree with them but I do expect people to respect my right to believe as I wish. I don't shove them down anyone's throat, don't tell others that my way is the only way nor do I harass people in parking lots by handing out literature.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm gonna go let my inner pagan out for a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 11:43 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,609,257 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
I was very religious for 30 years. I "saw". I was "spiritually tuned in". I "knew God". I "saw His hand" in everything. I spoke to Him through prayer many times throughout every day. I believed God worked miracles through me. I "saw" and felt the "love of God" so intensely. I lived in the mindset of a believer and perceived things and understood events as believers do.

Then, I came to realize, it was all just an illusion, every bit of it. I am not "blind", I can flip into "spiritual believer" mode at anytime. But, now I see better than those who claim they are sighted. I see the whole "spiritual sight" for what it truly is, not what "sighted believers" think it is.

So, to my fellow atheists, I say, as one who has been on both sides, and knows exactly what the believers are talking about, because I was once just as in tune as the best the them, what they think is real isn't real. They misperceive the source of what they think they "see". What they see are nothing more than illusions. So, don't worry that you can't see the illusions they see. If you are blind to illusions, consider yourself gifted.

I realize that this may be one of the harsher posts I have made, but it makes me angry when believers call non-believers blind. A better analogy than a blind person and a sighted person would be a person who hallucinates and one who does not.
No one who is TRULY "sighted"...and subsequently "goes blind"...claims everything they saw when they were sighted "was all just an illusion".

You were like the child "playing house"...they act as though they are all grown up and own a home and are taking care of their babies...but they REALLY aren't...it's just all pretend.
But no one...who REALLY owns a home, has children they raise and take care of, etc...if they were to ever lose the children, home, and all the trappings...would say that the home, and the children, and all they did, were "hallucinations".

You are confused as to who was experiencing the "illusion/hallucination"...and who wasn't.

You never REALLY were on the "other side"...you were just "playing house"...and now claim NO ONE actually owns a house or raises children, and that all those ACTUAL homeowners and parents are just "hallucinating"...now that you realize you never REALLY did it yourself, and are obviously suffering some angst over that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,336 posts, read 6,915,350 times
Reputation: 2084
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
No one who is TRULY "sighted"...and subsequently "goes blind"...claims everything they saw when they were sighted "was all just an illusion".

You were like the child "playing house"...they act as though they are all grown up and own a home and are taking care of their babies...but they REALLY aren't...it's just all pretend.
But no one...who REALLY owns a home, has children they raise and take care of, etc...if they were to ever lose the children, home, and all the trappings...would say that the home, and the children, and all they did, were "hallucinations".

You are confused as to who was experiencing the "illusion/hallucination"...and who wasn't.

You never REALLY were on the "other side"...you were just "playing house"...and now claim NO ONE actually owns a house or raises children, and that all those ACTUAL homeowners and parents are just "hallucinating"...now that you realize you never REALLY did it yourself, and are obviously suffering some angst over that.
the analogy is bad because one can prove that people actually do have families and houses
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,108 posts, read 2,882,482 times
Reputation: 1027
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
No one who is TRULY "sighted"...and subsequently "goes blind"...claims everything they saw when they were sighted "was all just an illusion".

You were like the child "playing house"...they act as though they are all grown up and own a home and are taking care of their babies...but they REALLY aren't...it's just all pretend.
But no one...who REALLY owns a home, has children they raise and take care of, etc...if they were to ever lose the children, home, and all the trappings...would say that the home, and the children, and all they did, were "hallucinations".

You are confused as to who was experiencing the "illusion/hallucination"...and who wasn't.

You never REALLY were on the "other side"...you were just "playing house"...and now claim NO ONE actually owns a house or raises children, and that all those ACTUAL homeowners and parents are just "hallucinating"...now that you realize you never REALLY did it yourself, and are obviously suffering some angst over that.
Ahh... and now GoldenRule plays the fallacy "no true Scotsmen".

You don't know me and you don't know what I have experienced, and it is inconceivable to you that someone who once experienced and thought about life as you do could ever later think about it differently. That is fine and understandable. I thought the same way back then. Perhaps, someday, you will see the light and see that it was all just an illusion, and you will someday be facing someone else who will claim that you never "really saw".

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)
A simpler rendition would be:
Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis. Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis! Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 12:47 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,490,387 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
Ahh... and now GoldenRule plays the fallacy "no true Scotsmen".

You don't know me and you don't know what I have experienced, and it is inconceivable to you that someone who once experienced and thought about life as you do could ever later think about it differently. That is fine and understandable. I thought the same way back then. Perhaps, someday, you will see the light and see that it was all just an illusion, and you will someday be facing someone else who will claim that you never "really saw"...
0 - fallacy in ten seconds flat. Gldn really is gifted.

Gldn, you've never really been the sharpest tool in the shed (considering your gullibility to Mystic's 'theories'), but this takes the cake. I love reading your drivel, it puts a smile on my face.

That light is a projector, and the charade little more than Scoobie-Doo-esque monsters and ghosts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,905 posts, read 5,997,689 times
Reputation: 3533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett View Post
You won't hear what's coming through the radio waves if the radio is turned off. You pick up God through your person. If you're not "turned on", you won't feel the presence of God.

I can introduce you to plenty of people who have felt God, but since their instrument is their body, there's no way for them to "prove" it to you in the way you want them to.
If you make this exception for god then you have to make it for any and all other weird claims that people make, but are not empirically proven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 01:24 PM
 
17,183 posts, read 22,773,830 times
Reputation: 17472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but after 10 minutes of studying your post, I have to disagree. There is evidence of God, but some refuse to accept it.

Logically everything has a cause. It is illogical to say the universe "just came to be".

And no, people didn't just invent the spiritual world.
That argument undercuts itself

Everything requires a cause.
To avoid infinite regress, there must be a first cause.
But this first cause is something that has no cause.
Therefore not everything requires a cause.
Therefore the premise is invalid.

If there is a being which does not require a cause, why shouldn't the universe itself be the first cause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top