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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-31-2018, 06:50 PM
 
12,918 posts, read 16,872,913 times
Reputation: 5434

Advertisements

A few days ago I saw an old episode of Little House on the Prairie. It was the second of a two part episode. In the previous episode which I didn't see all of, Laura had lost a baby brother to sickness after she felt jealous of the attention from his parents. She had neglected to pray for him during his illness, and she felt guilt over his death. But that's not where the story begins.

It begins in the second part. Laura runs away from home and climbs up a mountain to be "closer" to God, after speaking with the preacher. While on the mountain she meets a kind older man (Ernest Borgnine) who encourages her to commune with God. He makes a cross for her with her name carved on it. Meanwhile her dad and his friend go searching for her on horseback. They stop at the river where she had crossed and Charles assumes she wouldn't have gone to higher ground. But then he sees her cross in the stream. She had lost it upstream and it had drifted down. They go to higher ground and see a fire that Laura and the man had started, after his suggestion that it would get the attention of "God" better for him to hear Laura.

When her dad finds her after seeing the smoke on the mountain, she is hesitant. But the man tells her that her prayers have been answered. She greets her father but when she turns around the man is gone. All that remains are the fire, the lean-to shelter, and the little cross he made for her. Maybe she had done it all herself, it's not clear.

Now, it's not clear whether this man was real, an angel, or a vision Laura received. But to me it doesn't really matter. I believe it is an accurate portrayal of how the divine forces work in our lives. You might think that the cross would indicate too much of a religious messages since it is a Christian symbol. But I don't agree. It was just a relic that had importance to Laura, and it was used by God to help her father find her. The faith that Christians have is just as valid as any other person's religious faith, and so their story telling will be just as accurate as someone with less of a religious leaning.

What do you think of this interpretation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2018, 07:29 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,088 posts, read 20,744,698 times
Reputation: 5930
It's a nice story about how apparently natural events "Inexplicably" combine to achieve a good result.

This is of course a made up story, and so of course it comes out underlining the point the writer wanted to make.

But this sort of thing is the "events in their lives" that are often presented as proof of God. And if it doesn't turn out so well....that's just forgotten. Hold hands in the ruins of your house and say a tearful prayer to God. The church collapsed, but the statue stood up. Even that can be wagged about as evidence for God, though of course it's nothing of the kind (1).

"Count the hits and ignore the misses" is the name of the game. it's a clear chain of illogic in 3 steps

(1) God exists (faith -claim)

(2) look round for evidence to support the claim ("This is the conclusion;what evidence can we find to support it?").

(3) fiddle the facts to make it look like evidence. The analogy is Fire an arrow into a tree and then paint a target around it. This is done every time by fiddling the evidence from creationism and Bible validity to 'prayer works' and the evidence for design. They all require an element of selecting the hits (and fiddling it to make it look like a hit) and ignoring the misses, (such as the evidence that might undermine the claim. Explaining it away by any means (2) is standard apologetic procedure.

An obvious example is funny feelings. They might be contact with a god or they might not. But 'might not' is dismissed and it becomes Unquestionable Evidences, and anyone who suggests that it might be imagination is slapped dow as biased and closed - minded.

Or the supposed statistical evidence for Design. 1,0000.0000 to one, they say. But Only if you assume an intended result to start with. If you assume that the result is just the result, the statistics are 1/1. It was the same with the Mars (Cydonia) face - the statistics were astronomical against Random Chance producing an image of a human face. But if you don't assume it is Like a human face and it was seeing faces in wallpaper (3,) then it looking how it looked naturally was 1/1. Exactly the same wrong reasoning.

This really is the basic Faith -based illogic of the theist position in just about every apologetic i can think of. And finding God' hand in everyday events is just another of them. Just fix on one or two lucky coincidences or things that look bad turning out ok, and ignoring it when it turns pout bad or nothing happens.

And if nothing happens a bit too often, there are religious apologetic -laden episodes of little house on the Prarie or the Waltons to write a story that will support the belief in God intervening in Mysterious ways that the viewer so dearly wants to see supported.

(1) And of course hurt and aggrieves denunciations of anyone pointing out that this isn't evidence are easy if it is a tragedy and people are looking for comfort. "How can you be so heartless as to rob them of their cherished illusions?"

(2)"Witnesses don't always agree" and "Lucy is a handful of scattered bones" are two examples of invalid dismissal of the evidence against.

(3) this is why keeping it a gap for god/unexplained/a Mystery is so important. The subsequent photos of the Mars face were so unlike a face that the believers screamed 'cover -up'. They screamed denial over the NAMI Ark. They are still in denial about crop circles. They are still in denial about Archaeopteryx (4) . In each case the Faith-claim has been debunked and the scientific/natural claim validated.So (apart from the diehard denialists) they drop that and rummage around for the next bit of "Evidence". NDEs is the Flavour of the Month evidence for God atthe moment and any Alternative explanations are of course dismissed as closed minded skeptical bias.

(4) - i luv doing that - before the feathers were validated, they were dismissed by anti -evolutionists ("Fakery") and it was clearly a "Lizard". Now the feathers are validates, it is a "Bird" and the reptilian features are simply ignored.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-31-2018 at 08:00 PM.. Reason: lots of edits and afterthots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2018, 08:40 PM
 
12,918 posts, read 16,872,913 times
Reputation: 5434
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
...In each case the Faith-claim has been debunked and the scientific/natural claim validated...
Your science is that of Atheists like Richard Dawkins.
My science is that of Theists such as Darwin and Einstein.

So your statement is a little misleading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2018, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,265,083 times
Reputation: 7528
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
Your science is that of Atheists like Richard Dawkins.
My science is that of Theists such as Darwin and Einstein.

So your statement is a little misleading.
Einstein was not a theist...he was an agnostic.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

You will find that most highly intellectual folks are not theist.

Next: Darwin was not a theist once he thought deeply about it. Keep in mind we was born and raised in a country that was heavily influenced and ruled by the Church of England.

Religious views of Charles Darwin

I know you would love for these highly intellectuals to be theists but like I said most intellectuals are not theists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2018, 11:17 PM
 
12,918 posts, read 16,872,913 times
Reputation: 5434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Einstein was not a theist...he was an agnostic.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

You will find that most highly intellectual folks are not theist.

Next: Darwin was not a theist once he thought deeply about it. Keep in mind we was born and raised in a country that was heavily influenced and ruled by the Church of England.

Religious views of Charles Darwin

I know you would love for these highly intellectuals to be theists but like I said most intellectuals are not theists.
I've read all of that and more. I'm sorry that your conclusions are different than mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2018, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,265,083 times
Reputation: 7528
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
I've read all of that and more. I'm sorry that your conclusions are different than mine.
No need to be sorry.

I prefer to keep it real and don't cover up reality with my own wishful personal narrative on Einstein or Darwin's religious stance.

Although I have to admit that wearing blinders and creating personal narratives in a world that makes little sense can go a long way for the psyche.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2018, 02:13 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,088 posts, read 20,744,698 times
Reputation: 5930
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
I've read all of that and more. I'm sorry that your conclusions are different than mine.

We should be interested to see some support for your contention that Einstein and Darwin were Theists. I am quite sure it is not based on out of context references to "God" by Einstein or Lady Hope Grant's claim that Darwin (who lost his faith through the problem of Evil -not through evolution theory) recanted on his deathbed - a story that was refuted by Darwin's family.

As to science, there is no My science and Your science. There is only science and Non-science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2018, 07:21 AM
 
12,918 posts, read 16,872,913 times
Reputation: 5434
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
We should be interested to see some support for your contention that Einstein and Darwin were Theists. I am quite sure it is not based on out of context references to "God" by Einstein or Lady Hope Grant's claim that Darwin (who lost his faith through the problem of Evil -not through evolution theory) recanted on his deathbed - a story that was refuted by Darwin's family.

As to science, there is no My science and Your science. There is only science and Non-science.
Okay, I should have said my science and your "science". Just kidding.

No, I don't believe in the Darwin deathbed nonsense either. You and I both know that Darwin and Einstein were not "religious". They might even be called "Atheists" by the fundamentalists. I just don't agree with them. I look at the same evidence.

The famous ex-evangelical Frank Shaeffer Jr calls himself an "atheist who believes in God". That makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2018, 07:37 AM
 
Location: On the brink of WWIII
21,088 posts, read 29,235,302 times
Reputation: 7812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Einstein was not a theist...he was an agnostic.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

You will find that most highly intellectual folks are not theist.

Next: Darwin was not a theist once he thought deeply about it. Keep in mind we was born and raised in a country that was heavily influenced and ruled by the Church of England.

Religious views of Charles Darwin

I know you would love for these highly intellectuals to be theists but like I said most intellectuals are not theists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
I've read all of that and more. I'm sorry that your conclusions are different than mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
No need to be sorry.

I prefer to keep it real and don't cover up reality with my own wishful personal narrative on Einstein or Darwin's religious stance.

Although I have to admit that wearing blinders and creating personal narratives in a world that makes little sense can go a long way for the psyche.
So who gets the right to label one a theist or agnostic?

I see Einstien as Darwin as theists and folks like Franklin Graham and Falwell as wolves in sheep's clothing.

Any "believer" who dares to contain god and sets limits on how god interacts with humanity is either seriously uninformed, bought into a very bad interpretation or is just our right foolish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2018, 07:45 AM
 
12,918 posts, read 16,872,913 times
Reputation: 5434
Walt Whitman is another good example. Probably a better example. I see him as someone who was loved by all, and who loved all men.
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. The time now is 09:01 PM.

© 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