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.
That is just putting Faith -based speculation claimed to be truth by faith in 'Intuition' (which may or many not be the same as God given wisdom) above what we can actually demonstrate to be valid. And i need hardly reiterate how many of these faith -based speculations have been debunked by science.
If it is taken to 'Shame' and 'coercion' to point out how people are signing up for a con trick, then so be it. But it would be wrong, I beleive, to keep quiet and not at least give them the alternative info. so they can decide. Coercion is rather more even than what religion does - give on;y one side of the argument. Coercion is when temporal authority is used to force people to follow these beliefs or pretend they do.
This is not what atheism does. We just give people the other side. Both side use stick and carrot - proffering advantages and warning of what one might be missing out on. That's par for the course and neither can honestly accuse the others of being the only ones doing it.
In the end it comes down to which side has the best case and that's all it has ever really come down to.
That is just putting Faith -based speculation claimed to be truth by faith in 'Intuition' (which may or many not be the same as God given wisdom) above what we can actually demonstrate to be valid. And i need hardly reiterate how many of these faith -based speculations have been debunked by science.
If it is taken to 'Shame' and 'coercion' to point out how people are signing up for a con trick, then so be it. But it would be wrong, I beleive, to keep quiet and not at least give them the alternative info. so they can decide. Coercion is rather more even than what religion does - give on;y one side of the argument. Coercion is when temporal authority is used to force people to follow these beliefs or pretend they do.
This is not what atheism does. We just give people the other side. Both side use stick and carrot - proffering advantages and warning of what one might be missing out on. That's par for the course and neither can honestly accuse the others of being the only ones doing it.
In the end it comes down to which side has the best case and that's all it has ever really come down to.
by all means give the "alternative"
by all means give "the best case" and the "other side"
because when it is "you are mentally ill if you believe in the Creator"
because when it is "if you believe differently than i do then you are mentally ill"
when it is "reincarnation is a fraud" and everyone partaking of religion and spirituality "is just making stuff up" "its imaginary" "a con" "a trick"
then as you say, people can determine the wisdom and credibility of a source.
very easily. i couldn't agree with you more.
have at it. such posts definitely make a case. very clearly.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 08-25-2019 at 01:37 PM..
i also want to comment to Trans that in posts of his over the years, there are areas where he demonstrates sound and excellent "spiritual logic." for instance in several areas he looks into things deeply and thinks into things deeply and draws his own conclusions. Such as were there to be a single Creator, it would be the same Creator for everyone. No single group or religion or historic person or prophet "owns" or has proprietary access to God. he values and recognizes something in "religious" art, music, beauty, altar. those are examples. i am a fan of his posts. whether we agree or not on this or that, i recognize and appreciate his sound spiritual logic.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 08-25-2019 at 01:56 PM..
Thank you for your response, nicely on point. Brief comments only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the problem is with your flawed logic of "they can't agree therefore it does not exist and is imaginary." to say there must be total agreement is like saying there must be total agreement on one kind of music or only one way to experience love, only one expression of courage or integrity or healing or benevolence.
Just to be clear, I don't have any expectation of "total agreement." But here's my problem. I suspect that, if we were somehow able to break down and catalog everyone's individual picture/understanding of their creator and relationship to same, there may not be any TWO that were exactly the same. If that is the case, it is a short hop (for me, at least) to wonder if it isn't "all in the mind," without any basis in reality?
[ETA: This is not the same, btw, as saying they are all "making stuff up," with its implication of willful fraud. But allowing ourselves to think things still doesn't make it real.]
You are obviously correct things like music and love and courage are experienced variably and subjectively. I continue to hold that those are not entirely apt analogies, because... even with all that variability and subjectivity... people can at least agree those things exist, agree on some common definitions, describe some common attributes, etc, etc. That cannot be said for the "creator and the soul."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
there is depth and nuance and richness in religion and spirituality, in the Creator and the soul, in the All That Is, the Creative Source, the life force that flows through all of creation. Those interested in exploring and discussing certainly do address questions such as the ones you listed below. great questions! any of them could be thread topics here on CD.
All in one's perspective, I guess. Where you see nuance and richness, I see so much variability and subjectivity as to call it all into question, as a creation of the human mind (times a billion).
I will also leave it to others to explore those great questions. I offered only as rhetorical evidence that our "common understanding" is far from... common.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 08-25-2019 at 02:10 PM..
That is just putting Faith -based speculation claimed to be truth by faith in 'Intuition' (which may or many not be the same as God given wisdom) above what we can actually demonstrate to be valid. And i need hardly reiterate how many of these faith -based speculations have been debunked by science.
If it is taken to 'Shame' and 'coercion' to point out how people are signing up for a con trick, then so be it. But it would be wrong, I beleive, to keep quiet and not at least give them the alternative info. so they can decide. Coercion is rather more even than what religion does - give on;y one side of the argument. Coercion is when temporal authority is used to force people to follow these beliefs or pretend they do.
This is not what atheism does. We just give people the other side. Both side use stick and carrot - proffering advantages and warning of what one might be missing out on. That's par for the course and neither can honestly accuse the others of being the only ones doing it.
In the end it comes down to which side has the best case and that's all it has ever really come down to.
Intuition is something used by people for a wide variety of reasons. Its is also called gut instinct.
I don't know what the heck the rest of your post was about.
Thank you for your response, nicely on point. Brief comments only...
Just to be clear, I don't have any expectation of "total agreement." But here's my problem. I suspect that, if we were somehow able to break down and catalog everyone's individual picture/understanding of their creator and relationship to same, there may not be any TWO that were exactly the same. If that is the case, it is a short hop (for me, at least) to wonder if it isn't "all in the mind," without any basis in reality?
[ETA: This is not the same, btw, as saying they are all "making stuff up," with its implication of willful fraud. But allowing ourselves to think things still doesn't make it real.]
You are obviously correct things like music and love and courage are experienced variably and subjectively. I continue to hold that those are not entirely apt analogies, because... even with all that variability and subjectivity... people can at least agree those things exist, agree on some common definitions, describe some common attributes, etc, etc. That cannot be said for the "creator and the soul."
All in one's perspective, I guess. Where you see nuance and richness, I see so much variability and subjectivity as to call it all into question, as a creation of the human mind (times a billion).
I will also leave it to others to explore those great questions. I offered only as rhetorical evidence that our "common understanding" is far from... common.
"people can at least agree those things exist, agree on some common definitions, describe some common attributes, etc, etc. That cannot be said for the "creator and the soul."
except yes that can be said for the Creator and the soul.
"do you believe in God" or "do you believe in the Creator" is the simple question. those who say yes are in agreement about the existence of God.
same for the soul. is there a non physical soul that departs the physical body at "death" and continues to exist in some sort of afterlife.
again, simple question, and those who say yes are in agreement about the existence of soul.
"people can at least agree those things exist, agree on some common definitions, describe some common attributes, etc, etc. That cannot be said for the "creator and the soul."
except yes that can be said for the Creator and the soul.
"do you believe in God" or "do you believe in the Creator" is the simple question. those who say yes are in agreement about the existence of God.
same for the soul. is there a non physical soul that departs the physical body at "death" and continues to exist in some sort of afterlife.
again, simple question, and those who say yes are in agreement about the existence of soul.
Oh certainly, there would be those who agree. But here is how I would predict the response to our hypothetical survey:
1. "Is there such a thing as music?".... nearly universal agreement
2. "Does Mordant have a wife?"... roughly the same number, given the opportunity to know that
3. "Do you believe in a god/creator?"... much smaller number (even smaller if survey done in a way that people can be completely honest)
4. "Do you believe in a soul that departs the body and exists in some sort of afterlife?".... much much smaller number than #3
5. "Do you think the creator or soul has this particular set of attributes, as described by Tzaphkiel?"... tiny number, maybe as small as N=1
Which is why I have trouble equating #1 and #5. And yes, I acknowledge that now I am "making stuff up," but at least this is a testable hypothesis.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 08-25-2019 at 04:37 PM..
Oh certainly, there would be those who agree. But here is how I would predict the response to our hypothetical survey:
1. "Is there such a thing as music?".... nearly universal agreement
2. "Does Mordant have a wife?"... roughly the same number, given the opportunity to know that
3. "Do you believe in a god/creator?"... much smaller number (even smaller if survey done in a way that people can be completely honest)
4. "Do you believe in a soul that departs the body and exists in some sort of afterlife?".... much much smaller number than #3
5. "Do you think the creator or soul has this particular set of attributes, as described by Tzaphkiel?"... tiny number, maybe as small as N=1
Which is why I have trouble equating #1 and #5. And yes, I acknowledge that now I am "making stuff up," but at least this is a testable hypothesis.
#3
Pew Research 2018
"Nine-in-ten Americans believe in a higher power" that is 90% and
"To explore the U.S. public’s beliefs about God, the survey first asked, simply: 'Do you believe in God, or not?' Those who said 'yes' – 80% of all respondents" https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/...-do-they-mean/
i don't consider 80% and 90% to be small numbers at all
no need for hypothetical surveys, when there are actual surveys from neutral sources.
since the topic is anathema to you, it makes sense that you would not be aware of the common elements among the indigenous nations and the planet's oldest religions. nevertheless such elements do exist.
i also want to comment to Trans that in posts of his over the years, there are areas where he demonstrates sound and excellent "spiritual logic." for instance in several areas he looks into things deeply and thinks into things deeply and draws his own conclusions. Such as were there to be a single Creator, it would be the same Creator for everyone. No single group or religion or historic person or prophet "owns" or has proprietary access to God. he values and recognizes something in "religious" art, music, beauty, altar. those are examples. i am a fan of his posts. whether we agree or not on this or that, i recognize and appreciate his sound spiritual logic.
since the topic is anathema to you, it makes sense that you would not be aware of the common elements among the indigenous nations and the planet's oldest religions. nevertheless such elements do exist.
Darn, you were doing so well, resisting that urge to make assumptions and lecture others.
As a wise person told me not long ago... "who you "think" people are, is very often not who they actually are."
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.
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.
