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.
You've misunderstood the OP obviously. My point was that others here claim their experiences prove there's a God. I simply note that absent any contact with the absolute Christian God, in which the Christians absolutely, believe, the Inuit, who never had exposure, seemed to get along just fine.
Here's exactly what I said:
Life and spiritual health is impossible without God? More specifically, impossible without your particular God.? How so? Now that's delusional. But, as the OP says, once you're convinced you've had a one-on-one with whatever (UFOs, aliens, Gods, Satan, Russian secret agents at your job, etc. etc.), the rest is but embellishment."
I did not ever say they didn't have their spirituality, in fact, it's a big part of their lives. But I've also never had an Inuit come and knock on my odor to point out my valueless lifestyle or that I'm destined for an icy hell-hole!. Again, Christians often claim, absolutely, that spiritual health is impossible without their specific but imagined Christian God. Not so; the Inuit prove that, as do I and countless millions of ethically fulfilled, spiritual and upright atheists. and my OP makes the point that the basis for Christian (or ditto, UFO...) beliefs may well be based solely on exaggeration and mis-conception.
Got it this time? Don't get your knickers in a knot!
And this mans I am susceptible to mis-interpretation of spiritual events? Boy do you ever read into things a lot!
As a scientist, I at least try to minimize such reactions. It's what we do, after all. and my point was that people read into things and create a spiritual world, all while assuming that because they thought it happened to them, it's therefore real. I'm also not saying, arrogantly, that scientists are in some way perfect, or that we always get things right. Hardly!
But we also accept our errors, and make public note of them in scientific journals, and of the newer researcher, Dr. Up-n-Coming's latest findings that continue to increase our knowledge and chase the mystical spirits further back into their dark caves, where they belong.
But certainly, the devout but unscientific Christian/Inuit/Shinto/Hindi attitude will be that: "Hey: I saw that bright light in the sky, and it amazed me, so there must be a God! And wait 'til I talk about it in a month! By then, there will have been ten such lights! God be praised!"
Conviction of the Holy Spirit is a very strong feeling ,something not created or made up but something from the heart that takes hold of you and once it does it doesn't let go. Sure one will make mistakes but one knows that ones sins are in the eyes of God and that one will be forgiven.
Oh yee of little imagined faith! Where art thou destined for, thou soul-less blind lamb? Here; let me help you imagine a thing or two. Why, soon enough, you'll believe it actually happened! ....
Truly, as all here would agree no matter their spiritual perspective or beliefs, the power within the human mind to believe &/or imagine is substantial; that part's been well documented. The problem comes with that same mind's typical conviction that there cannot beany viable alternative explanations, even when those perfectly credible alternatives are put forth for simple impartial consideration. "NO!"
That particular investigational avenue is not allowed in most theistic belief systems. In fact: it's absolutely denied, but if attempted, it will be coupled with disciplinary action against your ragged soul. And if the congregation also happens to hear of it, there will, indeed, be Hell to Pay!
So watch it!
You do take pleasure in your indignation, don't you? I don't get it; I was raised in a Christian tradition that taught respect for other faiths and that encouraged ecumenism and interfaith understanding. No condemnation meted out for it, quite the opposite. My parents encouraged me to hang out with my Jewish and Sikh neighbors when I was a kid. As an adult I have Muslim and Buddhist friends. So from my angle it seems you protest too much and perhaps believe the mythology you want to about religion being harshly disciplinary and condemning any cross-pollination of ideas. Not my experience (although I acknowledge it exists in some quarters).
It also seems to me that you're staying on the surface of things, refusing to dig a little deeper. When I study theologies and belief systems I don't stop at their surface claims, I don't focus on whether the mythologies are literally true. I try to find out what's behind them, what is the message that is being communicated through them, what is the spiritual wisdom they impart, where are the convergences with other traditions.
I'll try to address most of your comments. But, I'm tired and it's bed time for Bonzo, you understand! so her goes (I trust this is more than you need to understand my positions.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
You do take pleasure in your indignation, don't you?
No, I don't, actually. I've longed for an honest debate on C-D for almost 2 yrs now, with an intellectually honest and open-minded Christian. Conducted as though it were officially and impartially adjudicated, but that's not going to happen. I'm just very tired of the standard rebuttals and insults that so often accompany Christian come-backs. They are incapable (easily shown right here on C-D;s history) of such honest behavior, since to do so would surely corner them in a logical conundrum and they'd have to admit that a lot of the literalist beliefs are rubbish, frankly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
I don't get it; I was raised in a Christian tradition that taught respect for other faiths and that encouraged ecumenism and interfaith understanding. No condemnation meted out for it, quite the opposite.
As was I, but my later life experiences with intractable and intransigent Christian apologists has not promoted such an open attitude. Sorry; the results speak for themselves, and I could research and link you to a lot of C-D posts that show the depths of intransigence here on the part of so many Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
It also seems to me that you're staying on the surface of things, refusing to dig a little deeper. When I study theologies and belief systems I don't stop at their surface claims, I don't focus on whether the mythologies are literally true. I try to find out what's behind them, what is the message that is being communicated through them, what is the spiritual wisdom they impart, where are the convergences with other traditions.
The messages within the bible, as a philosophy and behavioral guideline, is hardly what we run into here on so many posts. I fight Christian literalism, rampant denialism, and destructive, addictive behaviors aimed often at our children that prevent the acceptance of new information, the refusal to even consider (or even read the provided links on..) the facts that modern investigations have provided, like the various unambiguous proofs of Evolution, or of a truly ancient earth, or of the probable origins of the universe. To which I often am treated to an uncalled-for incendiary "Evolution is a big fat lie, and there's no proof of it at all! and you're just an argumentative oaf!" blast, followed by a mental slamming of the door.
So, yes, I feel that I do understand it all now: the total unacceptability of devout but intransigent Christians, those who are in fact incapable of considering anything other than their beliefs.
About 18 mo. ago, I posted a polite thread asking "What if Christians were to receive absolute proof that there was no God?"
The result was interesting: most of the key and very aggressive posters I'd been talking to said, absolutely, that such an admission by them, even to themselves (), of such an outrageous idea was.... impossible! That there was no such option to even be considered! Talk about hypothetical denialism! Wow! Just... Wow!
Add to that the ongoing media coverage of such intellectual debacles as forcing Intelligent Design concepts into a purely scientific classroom? Yep; please: study it all day long, but in the appropriate place in the curriculum,; it's simply and demonstrably NOT science.
Of course, I rebel against this obvious and blatant attempt to interrupt the very convincing facts that bright young minds might absorb in a science class, where the true wonders of this world won't be contaminated by ancient-think and fabled mysticism. Unfortunately for the fundamentalist Christian mindset, the various State and Federal Supreme Courts are logical and won't be forced into this subjugation of facts.
Over time, such active efforts at the concealment and suppression of knowledge will fade away, and over time, the truth (or at least some interesting options) about our world and universe will come to the fore. And all the ancient fear-based myths will die off, as the latest stats indicate.
So. Hows about your perspective, aries63? Is such an option (no God) even to be considered by you, in light of what we continue to find and reveal about the world we all live in?
I am most surely open to an actual debate, but first you'd have to agree (as no others ever have here, to mine, or many others') to directly and honestly answer our logical and polite questions?.
A predictable return Q to me: Can I accept other spiritual possibilities based on a convincing argument, where the presented proofs are not just "Because it says so in the bible, that's why!" (with loud foot stomping in the background).
You bet I can. And you? Remember; I started out as a devout Christian (as did many atheists), but the combination of my rather extensive real-world education, and later career/field experiences, coupled with non-stop consideration of the entirety of it all for well over 30 years, has created the monster you see before you.
I've never taken it lightly, as you accuse. You really do not know me at all, in fact. You assume many of the same untruths others have, based on some postings in this forum. Sorry: I won't accept that either.
But also you should take your own advice about learning the ideas and concepts of the opposition. To wit: what is your true level of education and up-to-date technical understanding about engineering, genetics, evolution, geology, astro-physics, biochemistry, and logic? All areas I have worked in, and have several grad and post-grad degrees. Who knows; it may be extensive as well, and we can both have a good and educational time here! Huzzah!
And no, that's not some egotistical claim of mine to some imagined intellectual superiority, but it does possibly indicate my mindset and the origins of my natural curiosity, which perhaps led me to do all that work, and to come to the conclusions I've been able to achieve.
Then, when some theist thug tries to put me down as just another over-educated know-it-all snob. Hardly. In fact, they just don't like it when I posit difficult questions to them when I know the answer. And they try to use that as another excuse to "hit and run". Or "lie and hide".
It bothers me and others that so many Christian arguers come here ostensibly to debate, let's say, Evolution, and within the first sentence, they make some fatal flaw admission, showing they haven't the slightest real understanding of the topic which they so vehemently deny.
("I"ll accept Evolution when my cat gives birth to a dog overnight! And man didn't come from no damned apes; 'cause if they did, how come they's still apes around? Tell me that one, smarty-pants! So there!" And so on. True demos of vast scientific illiteracy.)
It's obvious they're just parroting the idiot lines from AiG or The Creation Institute. They're certainly not here to debate, obviously. Rather, they're here to yell us down, which I simply won't allow any more.
I hope you appreciate my enthusiasm for the truth.
After all, you may well be very different. I'm all ears! Wanna go for it? You first. Or, just forget it; I'll understand. You may need to do about 10 - 15 years of hard educational reading and then another 30+ years of scientific & engineering field work, like I did.
rifleman, I'm not Christian but if I was given direct and absolute proof of no God I would take it at face value. Some Christians and some atheists are quite dead-set in their beliefs while others are a bit more flexible and open to changing their beliefs. It's not just about being Christian or atheist or any other belief system. Some people just go about what they believe differently. I've been an atheist and now I believe in a God (not the Christian one, mind you) but it obviously took some element of being open enough to change to be able to make the "switch." I also became atheist after being theist for a long time. I also know I'm far from the only person who has switched from one belief to another, which just goes to show not all people of any belief are completely stubborn and unwilling to change. Chances are the most stubborn Christians were the ones that felt the most need to jump on your thread with their reply about how there absolutely must be a God. After all, the same happens with politics. If you post a thread with any sort of provocative title or question, the first repliers you're going to get are going to be the extreme opposers, followed by the extremists that agree with you, and if you're lucky, you might get some less extremist replies through in the mix too, but it's a small chance.
rifleman, it's hard to respond to such a rambling post, but I'll say it seems that you have a tendency to draw certain elements out of the woodwork here that serve only to bolster your notions of religion. When you ask questions with a huge chip on your shoulder then naturally you'll draw out those people who want to knock it off.
What's my background? It shouldn't matter, I also had a fancy-schmancy education (but in the humanities) and was agnostic for more than a decade. I have as much problem as you when it comes to fundamentalists and intolerant people, whether they are religious or non-religious. But you must know also of many examples of former atheists who converted to religion. One of my favorites is E.F. Schumacher, economist and author of Small is Beautiful, which made him a hero of the environmental movement.
As to your question, "What if Christians were to receive absolute proof there was no God?" I can't say, it depends on what you mean by "absolute proof". Because if someone says they think God is love, or the underlying "intelligence" of the universe, or a state of mind or something very slippery then how do you prove absolutely that it doesn't exist? You're not going to disprove everyone's notion of what "God" might be. Even if something exists only in the intuition, it still "exists" as far as I'm concerned. Kind of like Clinton's "it depends on what 'is' is".
For me it boils down to diversity: I value biological diversity, linguistic diversity, cultural diversity, religious diversity. Sadly all of these are in rapid decline.
Well, too bad you saw my heartfelt and, I thought, well organized, points on religion as "rambling". Yes, I do have a lot to say since it's a huge subject, and I didn't want to leave you with the idea I'd only superficially thought it out, in some hollow knee-jerk fashion, over a short period in my life.
* PS: To just one of your comments, I'd just clarify: it's not the fancy-schmancy aspects of my education you suspect I try to admire and brag on, but rather that I can at least claim to understand, to the extent modern literature and thinking will allow, the basics of Evolution.
Not too many Christians here can make that claim, and it's equally obvious that many fundamentalist Christian denialists do even want to have such an understanding. But yet, they seem to think they are eminently positioned to rebut it on technical merits. Odd, huh? Or do you defend their position?
My personal spiritual choice here, after much introspection and questioning over ≈ 35-40 years (my God! He's really old!) that allowed for all options (remember, I started out as a God-fearing teenaged Christian!), is to exclude the rather absurd idea of the particular God of fundamentalist Christianity, and is well based in careful deductive reasoning. Reasoning that is casually and disrespectfully shot down again and again by some on your side of the court.
If I have insulted you personally due to my growing impatience with outright and formalized intransigence, I do apologize.
So, keeping it short this time, I will still ask:
Where do you fundamentally disagree with my conclusions?
My personal spiritual choice here, after much introspection and questioning over ≈ 35-40 years (my God! He's really old!) that allowed for all options (remember, I started out as a God-fearing teenaged Christian!), is to exclude the rather absurd idea of the particular God of fundamentalist Christianity, and is well based in careful deductive reasoning. Reasoning that is casually and disrespectfully shot down again and again by some on your side of the court.
Having made a personal spiritual choice based on your aforesaid studies and research, would you believe it is possible for another person to conclude there is a Supreme Being, if he/she used "careful deductive reasoning," coupled with sound research techniques, also ?
Well, too bad you saw my heartfelt and, I thought, well organized, points on religion as "rambling". Yes, I do have a lot to say since it's a huge subject, and I didn't want to leave you with the idea I'd only superficially thought it out, in some hollow knee-jerk fashion, over a short period in my life.
* PS: To just one of your comments, I'd just clarify: it's not the fancy-schmancy aspects of my education you suspect I try to admire and brag on, but rather that I can at least claim to understand, to the extent modern literature and thinking will allow, the basics of Evolution.
Not too many Christians here can make that claim, and it's equally obvious that many fundamentalist Christian denialists do even want to have such an understanding. But yet, they seem to think they are eminently positioned to rebut it on technical merits. Odd, huh? Or do you defend their position?
My personal spiritual choice here, after much introspection and questioning over ≈ 35-40 years (my God! He's really old!) that allowed for all options (remember, I started out as a God-fearing teenaged Christian!), is to exclude the rather absurd idea of the particular God of fundamentalist Christianity, and is well based in careful deductive reasoning. Reasoning that is casually and disrespectfully shot down again and again by some on your side of the court.
If I have insulted you personally due to my growing impatience with outright and formalized intransigence, I do apologize.
So, keeping it short this time, I will still ask:
Where do you fundamentally disagree with my conclusions?
I'm afraid I'm at a loss here to understand what you think is "my side of the court". I went to high school so I have that level of understanding of Darwin which has always been accepted science to me. I never learned anything different in Sunday school, I grew up in a very Yankee, conservative Republican (which then really meant "white-collar") area of New York where science was respected, people were well-educated, the Bible was metaphor and never to be taken literally, and fundamentalism was unheard of. Since then the only change I made is that I identify as liberal. So I'm with you in rejecting a fundamentalist interpretation of God (although there is a lot of diversity there also, so I'm not sure we're even talking about the same thing). I'm not sure I do disagree with your conclusions (I'm not sure which set of conclusions you refer to).
I'm afraid I'm more descriptive than proscriptive in my interpretation of religion which I'm translating from a linguistics perspective. I observe how religions are practiced and used and then accept that as reality instead of trying to add a layer of personal judgment about what is "right" or "wrong", even though I do reserve the right to exercise my own personal preferences. In a free marketplace of ideas some religious practices and beliefs will gain greater currency while others will falter, even atheism is part of the mix. Each system has a very good reason for existing, so I also subscribe to a "survival of the fittest" view of religion. So I have never seen eye-to-eye with those (believers and atheists) who assume that only one religion can be the "right one", just as no language is the "right one." Each one serves its purpose.
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.
....
You've plum tuckered me out!
