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.
it is also true. If one understands the "emotional need" within themselves they are open to make some more choices, or at least be honest with others and speak to that need openly.
But they are never the ones forcing a belief down people's throats. They are usually the rational one saying "err, no, we need to teach "evolution" because its all we have proof of.
But they are never the ones forcing a belief down people's throats. They are usually the rational one saying "err, no, we need to teach "evolution" because its all we have proof of.
It's been my experience that not requiring anyone to believe what I believe is considered "shoving down throats" by my more rabid relatives. If you think this doesn't make sense then join the club.
It's been my experience that not requiring anyone to believe what I believe is considered "shoving down throats" by my more rabid relatives. If you think this doesn't make sense then join the club.
no I see it. I can see a fundymental telling people you are forcing evolution on them. We have to hold that line in schools, so yeah, it can look that way. teaching "poof there it is" is not reasonable so they have unreasonable expectations.
You just never know. I have seen a number of deconverts and questioning and then doubting was very much the path to deconversion. Conversion or reconversion seems to be often (but not always) an emotional need.
I think you have touched on the essence - or heart of the matter here.
Belief involves emotion - desire or fear.
Emotions are basically intepretations of our thoughts that translate physiologically.
A friend described emotion as a rocket going off.
Once the rocket goes off, you can't choose for it to go off or not - it's already going! (Emotion is already being processed in your body.)
But with some reasoning (emotional intelligence/management), the rocket (emotion) can be guided which way you'd prefer it to go.
And you can also plan ahead for the next rocket (emotional) launch.
What is it that I want? Really - ultimately?
Paul Tillich defined god as one's "ultimate concern."
What is my ultimate concern? My beliefs will follow suit.
Some say that they worship God, but in reality, they spend their time, money, energy & emotion on some addiction or something else.
Actions speak louder than words.
I choose to believe in God/GOoD - in everyone, in life - in the big picture.
But sometimes, my belief is shaken - and I think everyone's mean or fools or that life sucks.
Yet, if I'm truly loyal and truly have GOoD as my ultimate concern, I will choose to direct my focus in better ways - I'll keep looking for GOoD, and making it happen.
Why would I choose anything else?
I think you have touched on the essence - or heart of the matter here.
Belief involves emotion - desire or fear.
Emotions are basically intepretations of our thoughts that translate physiologically.
A friend described emotion as a rocket going off.
Once the rocket goes off, you can't choose for it to go off or not - it's already going! (Emotion is already being processed in your body.)
But with some reasoning (emotional intelligence/management), the rocket (emotion) can be guided which way you'd prefer it to go.
And you can also plan ahead for the next rocket (emotional) launch.
What is it that I want? Really - ultimately?
Paul Tillich defined god as one's "ultimate concern."
What is my ultimate concern? My beliefs will follow suit.
Some say that they worship God, but in reality, they spend their time, money, energy & emotion on some addiction or something else.
Actions speak louder than words.
I choose to believe in God/GOoD - in everyone, in life - in the big picture.
But sometimes, my belief is shaken - and I think everyone's mean or fools or that life sucks.
Yet, if I'm truly loyal and truly have GOoD as my ultimate concern, I will choose to direct my focus in better ways - I'll keep looking for GOoD, and making it happen.
Why would I choose anything else?
yes.
there are emotional and logical solutions.
To many atheist/theist think their emotional solutions are "the only logical" solution. IMO that is.
To many atheist/theist think their emotional solutions are "the only logical" solution. IMO that is.
I want to understand more what you mean.
Do you think that both Atheists and Theists are missing the boat?
If so, I agree, generally.
"Functional illusions are priceless" - implying that both faith/emotion and logic/skepticism are important, and the power of belief is real (placebo).
I think you have touched on the essence - or heart of the matter here.
Belief involves emotion - desire or fear.
Emotions are basically intepretations of our thoughts that translate physiologically.
A friend described emotion as a rocket going off.
Once the rocket goes off, you can't choose for it to go off or not - it's already going! (Emotion is already being processed in your body.)
But with some reasoning (emotional intelligence/management), the rocket (emotion) can be guided which way you'd prefer it to go.
And you can also plan ahead for the next rocket (emotional) launch.
What is it that I want? Really - ultimately?
Paul Tillich defined god as one's "ultimate concern."
What is my ultimate concern? My beliefs will follow suit.
Some say that they worship God, but in reality, they spend their time, money, energy & emotion on some addiction or something else.
Actions speak louder than words.
I choose to believe in God/GOoD - in everyone, in life - in the big picture.
But sometimes, my belief is shaken - and I think everyone's mean or fools or that life sucks.
Yet, if I'm truly loyal and truly have GOoD as my ultimate concern, I will choose to direct my focus in better ways - I'll keep looking for GOoD, and making it happen.
Why would I choose anything else?
I believe I sad before you said a mouthful. Here again. Yes "God" is one's ultimate concern, and not just in the slapping of a 'God' - on reality. It is I suppose the 'meaning' of Life, the universe and everything. It is the circle where theism meets atheism and the origins of the Universe meet the creation of the universe and the the meaning of existence meets the fact of existence, and the difference in the god -title becomes a matter of capitalization.
But there are few that meet there. You may be one. I may be another. It depends upon how receptive I am to the the idea of a Mind behind all of this despite the serious evidence that here isn't and how receptive you receptive you may be to the idea that there isn't a Mind behind it no matter how strong the instinctive emotional conviction is that there must be.
The trick is to put aside an emotional response (which is inevitable on both sides) and accord an academic acceptance to the idea, and then discuss the matter, though of course it isn't going to get very far - but that fact is evidence in itself. In more than one way
That's if one is going to use human methods of assessing evidence and logic. If that is considered unsuitable for the job, there is no point in discussion, anyway.
P.s sorry if it looks like I have passed over a lot of you points, but that is because they are discussion points for those who can put aside either "God -phobia" or atheism -phobia and discuss the case reasonably.
For example, "I'll keep looking for GOoD" covers a whole range ethics and meaningfulness arguments.
I believe I sad before you said a mouthful. Here again. Yes "God" is one's ultimate concern, and not just in the slapping of a 'God' - on reality. It is I suppose the 'meaning' of Life, the universe and everything. It is the circle where theism meets atheism and the origins of the Universe meet the creation of the universe and the the meaning of existence meets the fact of existence, and the difference in the god -title becomes a matter of capitalization.
But there are few that meet there. You may be one. I may be another. It depends upon how receptive I am to the the idea of a Mind behind all of this despite the serious evidence that here isn't and how receptive you receptive you may be to the idea that there isn't a Mind behind it no matter how strong the instinctive emotional conviction is that there must be.
The trick is to put aside an emotional response (which is inevitable on both sides) and accord an academic acceptance to the idea, and then discuss the matter, though of course it isn't going to get very far - but that fact is evidence in itself. In more than one way
That's if one is going to use human methods of assessing evidence and logic. If that is considered unsuitable for the job, there is no point in discussion, anyway.
P.s sorry if it looks like I have passed over a lot of you points, but that is because they are discussion points for those who can put aside either "God -phobia" or atheism -phobia and discuss the case reasonably.
For example, "I'll keep looking for GOoD" covers a whole range ethics and meaningfulness arguments.
Hi,
I realize now that I really expanded on what you wrote (about this all being emotion-based), but my perspective is unique from yours.
It seems you want nothing to do with emotion - not even to handle it with a 10-foot pole!
Maybe we both agree that it's very difficult not to let emotion cloud our thinking.
But my guess is you'd disagree with me about embracing emotion.
They say a rich life is really one with rich emotions.
Do you think that's true in any way?
It is also believed that emotional intelligence (self and other-awareness) is more indicative of success than IQ.
So, although I tend to be more a thinker than a feeler, I see the ideal as embracing both ligic and emotion.
Functional illusions are my goal... Beliefs that have the right dynamic amounts of reason and emotion to inspire and motivate me to be better.
Hi,
I realize now that I really expanded on what you wrote (about this all being emotion-based), but my perspective is unique from yours.
It seems you want nothing to do with emotion - not even to handle it with a 10-foot pole!
Maybe we both agree that it's very difficult not to let emotion cloud our thinking.
But my guess is you'd disagree with me about embracing emotion.
That's not quite the case - though it can sound like it! Without emotion, how could I enjoy music? My life would be sterile without emotion.
At the same time, a life ruled by emotion would be undisciplined mindlessness, and wanting to know, not just to feel, is what makes us humans -homo sapiens. rather than pongo impulsiviensis.
Quote:
They say a rich life is really one with rich emotions.
Do you think that's true in any way?
It is also believed that emotional intelligence (self and other-awareness) is more indicative of success than IQ.
So, although I tend to be more a thinker than a feeler, I see the ideal as embracing both logic and emotion.
Functional illusions are my goal... Beliefs that have the right dynamic amounts of reason and emotion to inspire and motivate me to be better.
I agree. While emotion (while you can't stop it - or bias - you can recognize it and consciously set it aside) must be set aside in assessing data and evidence according to logical and scientific methods, in everyday life, it's question of using both. Sensibly, if possible. Without emotion, knowledge of art or music or indeed the knowledge itself is sterile (which was the ongoing dilemma of the Straw Vulcan). Without knowledge, appreciation of what you are having an emotion about is greatly lessened. There are those who believe that they would lose their appreciation of a piece of music or art if they knew about it. In a way, hard truths about the art ("Why..that's just ...ist propaganda!"... "The composer of that angelic music died of Syphilis? I don't wish to know that!") can abrogate the innocent delusions about what you are seeing or hearing, but I have found that the immense rewards in appreciating what you are looking at or listening to more than make up for the loss of innocent illusions of finding out that a Strauss symphony is about giving his baby a bath and screwing his wife. Without realizing what it was about, I would never have really come to appreciate Vaughan Williams' 4th. Hard truths are always better in the end than comfortable lies.
Daniel Harbour in his Must-read book "The intelligent person's guide to atheism", pointed out that Keats took this view that knowledge destroys Wonder and the appreciation of beauty, but he debunked this by showing (in "Ode to a nightingale" I believe) that Keats knew that Venus was a planet orbiting the sun, but this knowledge has evidently not destroyed Keats' appreciation of the sight. In fact he doesn't even stop to think about it. (1)
Keats was a fine poet but a fathead. Truth is not beauty and beauty is not truth, They both need each other and we need to know that they do. We need to apply understanding to our emotions, and then we can use the emotions without fear, rather than letting the emotions use us.
(1) This same fallacy is regularly and falsely applied to atheism and scientific skepticism. That we cannot appreciate the wonder of the universe without Godfaith. In fact the wonder and appreciation is increased by not seeing it as a row of billboards for God. This fallacy is repeated in Venomfang's "Science is like kids in a sandbox playing with the sand...how it flows..' and ignoring all the rest out there...not very intelligent" roundly debunked by Thunderfoot (2) saying that admitting unknowns (and trying to find out about them) is better every time than than taking a particular set of preferred (or indoctrinated) fantastic speculations as fact and ignoring all the other speculations, never mind discouraging scientific investigation that might overturn these delusions - which is exactly what the Genesis vs. evolution debate is about. The idea that faith in an unverified (and selective) Explanation (which actually isn't one but as Mystic phd put it "a label for our ignorance") is better than no explanation at all (admitting "We don't know") is basic to theist thinking and is not only logically wrong, but pernicious and potentially damaging.
Hi Transponder,
We agree in many ways.
But in my experience in conversing with countless Atheists, they are very biased and hypocritically slam on other peoples' biases.
Ie:
1) According to US health reports gathered by the US CDC, it is a statistical FACT that those who engage in homosexual practices contract and spread HIV/AIDS much more than heterosexuals do. They also have more cases of STDs and mental illness, besides risks of anal sex (anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture & bacterial infection). Yet, most Atheists not only ignore these inconvenient facts, but their biases also cause them to dispute these facts.
If Atheists are so unbiased, why the extreme denial of and fight against reality?
2) According to human development anatomy research, it is a fact that children (developing humans) have all body systems intact by 8 weeks gestation, so by the time abortion murder is committed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart. Atheists are so often the first to volunteer others to be killed in such an inhumane way.
Ugly truths that most Atheists (& even some of other tribes) refuse to acknowledge because of their biases.
Last edited by SuperSoul; 09-10-2016 at 04:57 PM..
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.
In more than one way 
