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.
Remember the POE effect, Arach.
It is Arq's avowed purpose here.
It is. Arach's comment was sarcasm parroting Arq's avowed purpose here.
If you say so...
Time for me to sign off again, but wouldn't it be nice if instead of the focus forever on how we see things differently, we might attempt a discussion about how we manage those differences? If not as I suggest by way of these truths, then how different or better?
Again we're all free to think whatever we want. Believe whatever reality we perceive reality to be, and that's all fine and good in the privacy of our own home, but what about if/when we generate conflict as a result of those differences? At the more macro level? In the aggregate? What best way to do to avoid such conflict, violence, war, if not as I suggest?
Time for me to sign off again, but wouldn't it be nice if instead of the focus forever on how we see things differently, we might attempt a discussion about how we manage those differences? If not as I suggest by way of these truths, then how different or better?
Again we're all free to think whatever we want. Believe whatever reality we perceive reality to be, and that's all fine and good in the privacy of our own home, but what about if/when we generate conflict as a result of those differences? At the more macro level? In the aggregate? What best way to do to avoid such conflict, violence, war, if not as I suggest?
And what I bolded gets into ethics, which exist with or without religion.
Not that I'm surprised now that I generally know where most people are coming from in this forum before they even post a single keystroke, but what we can all clearly see here is how one person's outstanding post is another person's meaningless word salad while still others think just a bad tasting salad dressing...
Not sure who is seeing the effort described in these truths to address a better way to go about addressing all variety of different "realities" as also described in this thread, but the goal is to find an approach that can be applied for all concerned in the most reasonable, objective and peaceful manner possible.
We can't necessarily reconcile our differences, our different beliefs, but in the aggregate (as opposed to what we do as individuals in the privacy of our own home) we can adopt a better way of seeking the truth while keeping the peace. All I'm saying...
Starting the discussions at the best base line truths we have.
Holding ourselves to the same standard we holds others to.
Addressing our own when they hypocritical. I call policing our own first.
that will keep the peace better than towing a party line. IMO. This towing the party line stuff will only lead to war and you are going to force people like me to pick a side. Militant atheism is not my kind of folk. Neither is fundy theism, but at some point I am going to have to choose who to pick.
I probably am going to lean towards those that speak to, and go to war, under the flag of freedom of religion, love, compassion, and understanding for all people. anti-religion is just too dangerous.
Let me give you a challenge. Frankly I doubt you can do it. But let's try.
Part 1. You may remember that as a boy I was a methodist (no choice there), and then a catholic. That was my choice. And eventually, over a period of literally two decades my faith in christianity began to diminish. In 1986 I began to try to somehow meld together Buddhism and christianity, since even then I was not willing to give up on christianity. Finally, about fifteen years later I gave up the attempt at melding and abandoned christianity in favor of Buddhism. But if tomorrow, something happened -- doesn't matter what it is -- that proved there is a theistic god, I would have no problem saying, "Well, I was wrong". And then I would have to deal with how to interact with a god I had given up on. Now sure how I'd go about that, but just as I changed from methodist to catholic to a mix, to Buddhist, I would once again adapt. I'm flexible when there's a need to be flexible.
Part 2: Now we're going to turn it around. Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., something happens in the world that proves without any doubt that god does not exist. Now you can't say that would never happen; that's not part of the exercise. Think of all the things that you've said about atheism...such as life only has meaning with god. But all the other things you said, as well. What would you do? How would you reshape your life if you found out you had been living a lie, and you now had to accept all the beliefs that you now see with such disdain?
Sure, no problem. I'll respond.
How would I reshape my life if something happens in the world that proves without any doubt that God does not exist?
I feel very confident that Christianity is our reality, so if Christianity was proved to be untrue it would definitely be a shocker to me. I don't know how long the shock would last but it would take some time for me to acclimate to a different view of reality.
I would probably manage another paradigm shift reasonably well, though, since it was only a few years ago that I became a Christian and I have fresh memories about how impacting that was to my thinking at the time and for a long time after. It also had negative impacts on some relationships with people who knew me for decades when I was an agnostic. It wasn't easy, but having already gone through that somewhat recently I think I would manage. My goal has always been the clearest view of reality that I can have. If another worldview was able to provide a clearer view of reality I would adopt it.
none of this matters. For personal practical reasons we need to stop religion so this kind of stuff is meaningless. If anything it make atheism harder to sell.
Yes, questioning the quasi-religion of scientism does make atheism harder to sell.
We need to stop religion for practical reasons? What does that mean? What if theism, or some particular religion, or some combination of religions, are actually true? What if there actually is a God who is personally involved in the world and has expectations for his creatures? What if prayer actually works?
What could be more practical than attempting to understand the nature of ultimate reality and the way our world relates to it?
I always have a difficult time grasping the atheist vision. What would a purely atheistic world look like except human nature running amuck and a bunch of secular ideologies competing with each other, pretty much exactly as religions now do but without the restraining influence of religion?
What if I were to say "Think how great it would be if we could eliminate atheism and all other religions in favor of Christianity. Everyone would just love God and his neighbor as himself." What could be better than that? What could be more practical than that?
Atheists (and many others) would squawk, quite reasonably, "We're never going to go along with that because we don't think Christianity is TRUE!"
And so, I'm not silly enough to say anything like that even though it may be my fondest fantasy. But atheists say things like that all the time, as though atheism were self-evidently true. But it isn't self-evidently true, either in philosophical or scientific terms or in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people who have ever lived.
Yes, questioning the quasi-religion of scientism does make atheism harder to sell.
We need to stop religion for practical reasons? What does that mean? What if theism, or some particular religion, or some combination of religions, are actually true? What if there actually is a God who is personally involved in the world and has expectations for his creatures? What if prayer actually works?
What could be more practical than attempting to understand the nature of ultimate reality and the way our world relates to it?
I always have a difficult time grasping the atheist vision. What would a purely atheistic world look like except human nature running amuck and a bunch of secular ideologies competing with each other, pretty much exactly as religions now do but without the restraining influence of religion?
What if I were to say "Think how great it would be if we could eliminate atheism and all other religions in favor of Christianity. Everyone would just love God and his neighbor as himself." What could be better than that? What could be more practical than that?
Atheists (and many others) would squawk, quite reasonably, "We're never going to go along with that because we don't think Christianity is TRUE!"
And so, I'm not silly enough to say anything like that even though it may be my fondest fantasy. But atheists say things like that all the time, as though atheism were self-evidently true. But it isn't self-evidently true, either in philosophical or scientific terms or in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people who have ever lived.
something more, not more deities, is by far, the most reasonable starting point for "is there or is there not" a god. Then we list what we are claiming and our life events to show why we are saying what we are saying.
Atheist and theist that avoid comparing each others claims are to be avoided. Especially if they avoid comparing theist-theist and/or atheist-atheist. When you here team unity ... start listening. They have agenda's.
Aligning a god claim to the universe is actually the most reasonable position. when a god claim matches the what we know about the universe that god claim is more valid than god claims that don't. Its interesting to note that we are not allowed to aligned belief about god to the universe. That really should give it away to people. The ones that believe that (blind faith) are really the ones that are fighting the hardest.
but that being said. You brought up prayer. This is how atheist talk about prayer. Yes, on the most basic level prayer, like mindfulness type stuff, it works. But the prayer that is going to change how the universe works is not going to work.
so see how you mixed the two. "something more, not more deities" is not influencing how I feel about prayer. any prayer that speaks to the ability to pray away the physics we know is not the best we can do.
The fact that you did mix them with each other is why some atheist want to deny everything for practical reasons. I am just more of a person that thinks, "If one can't handle it, why be so pushy about our beliefs"
Sure, no problem. I'll respond.
How would I reshape my life if something happens in the world that proves without any doubt that God does not exist?
I feel very confident that Christianity is our reality, so if Christianity was proved to be untrue it would definitely be a shocker to me. I don't know how long the shock would last but it would take some time for me to acclimate to a different view of reality.
I would probably manage another paradigm shift reasonably well, though, since it was only a few years ago that I became a Christian and I have fresh memories about how impacting that was to my thinking at the time and for a long time after. It also had negative impacts on some relationships with people who knew me for decades when I was an agnostic. It wasn't easy, but having already gone through that somewhat recently I think I would manage. My goal has always been the clearest view of reality that I can have. If another worldview was able to provide a clearer view of reality I would adopt it.
so you are telling me that finding out a guy didn't die and rise for our sins and didn't actually raise a man from the dead literally, you would be shocked?
Starting the discussions at the best base line truths we have.
Holding ourselves to the same standard we holds others to.
Addressing our own when they hypocritical. I call policing our own first.
that will keep the peace better than towing a party line. IMO. This towing the party line stuff will only lead to war and you are going to force people like me to pick a side. Militant atheism is not my kind of folk. Neither is fundy theism, but at some point I am going to have to choose who to pick.
I probably am going to lean towards those that speak to, and go to war, under the flag of freedom of religion, love, compassion, and understanding for all people. anti-religion is just too dangerous.
Yes, thanks. What to support and what to reject. Kind of boils down to that...
For me the line to hold or tow is that of truth above the rest, at least instead of the falsehoods, propaganda and agendas that are more about power, influence and self-interest rather than the common good. At the same time it's hard not to recognize that sometimes we need to be a little "militant" to push back against misguided and backward-thinking influence. Take all these protests for example.
Sometimes push comes to shove even for those with the best of intentions and want to keep the peace...
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.
