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.
The phrase and concept "above all others" is repugnant to me because it is a mindset of arrogance and superiority. I find humbleness a more appealing trait and quality.
Nourishing your soul is a path of character refinement and self improvement. It requires self observation and self honesty. The example you allude to, arrogant or humble, is one of many you get to address.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-17-2017 at 06:52 AM..
I am Jewish. Judaism recognizes other paths to the Divine as valid. For this reason Judaism does not seek converts (it actively discourages converting), and forbids proselytizing.
Are you saying Judaism believes a Hindu, Budist etc., are in your Gods favor. I've read the OT, it's God does not accept worship of other Gods. And, I left Christianity due to the absurdness and lack of viable evidence of this common god.
Are you Jewish based on evidence or tradition? I see Christianity, Islam and other religions as similar in evidence.
You miss the point. Entirely. The purpose of religion is to be in active relationship with the Divine and nourish our soul, and improve ourselves through refining our character.
That is it's purpose for YOU. But your definitions of what your religion is "for" do not magically become universal solely because you want them to. For others religion is "for" knowing the mind of god and acting in a way that pleases it so as to reap eternal rewards in the after life. For example. For others religion is nothing more than a time tested set of guidelines for the best way to act in this world, and any "relationship" with the divine is at best incidental. The list goes on, but suffice to say your sole definition is not a universal by any means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Lets say a parent wants their child to love reading. It doesn't matter whether it is mysteries, science fiction, or historical biographies. The point is love reading not provide evidence which book is best.
And yet different genres engage them in different ways, and some are indeed "better" or "best" depending on what your goals or targets are in the first place. "The point" once again for you, does not automatically have to be the same as it is for anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
My observation is you do not understand the purpose of religion therefore your approach is flawed from the get go.
My observation is you do not understand "your" purpose of religion is not "the" purpose of religion therefore your approach is flawed from the get go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
The right religion for a person is the one that nourishes their soul, inspires them to improve their character traits, and ignites their heart with love for the Divine and all of Creation.
Nope. The right religion for a person is the one that THEY select to achieve what THEIR intent and goals are for selecting it.
....I left Christianity due to the absurdness and lack of viable evidence of this common god. ....
How open are you to self observation and self improvement? For instance do you see therapy as beneficial or do you avoid it. How willing are you to engage in self honesty regarding your motive and intention? How comfortable are you in taking a high level of responsibility for your thought, speech, action, feelings and how you treat and view others? How willing are you to refine your character.
Those are some of the factors that determine the progress and growth a person makes in the arena of nourishing your soul, growing into your best self and developing your potential.
Whatever path you choose requires participation.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-17-2017 at 07:31 AM..
Here is the problem. I've explained it many times before.
Just as most possess vision, and can perceive through sight...a few are blind, lack visual ability, and are not able to perceive through sight.
Most possess "God Perception" ability, and can perceive "God"...a few lack that ability, and are not able to perceive "God".
Most THINK they have a 'god' perception. First question, which god? How would one know it is the right one? What about confirmation bias? Herd mentality? Why do most people who are born in Afghanistan views a god as described in the Koran? Why do most people who are born in Mexico view a god as described in the Bible? Why do most people who are born in India believe in many gods as described in the Bhagavad Gita?
They all think they have a 'god' perception, but they all are different. Why are any of them right? Herd mentality and social pressure?
Quote:
Imagine 200 people standing at a lookout at the rim of the Grand Canyon (to use Tzaphs example)...199 that can see, and 1 that is blind.
Every sighted person will have a different experience, a perception of it that gives them a unique "vibe" from the majestic view...of course, the blind person will see nothing, and thus perceive nothing due to their lack of vision.
Now...would it be reasonable for the blind person to argue all the sighted people should have the same identical perception and "vibe" since they all looked at the same thing from the same spot? Or would that be an unreasonable argument because the blind person did not understand how the perception works due to lacking the ability to experience it?
You, et al, are like the blind person I described...except relative to "God Perception" instead of looking out at a majestic viewscape.
You had me agreeing.... until the last sentence. It essentially says much the same as I outline above. But you don't see how incongruous that is with a believe in a sentient, omnipresent, omniscient entity.
How open are you to self observation and self improvement? For instance do you see therapy as beneficial or do you avoid it. How willing are you to engage in self honesty regarding your motive and intention? How comfortable are you in taking a high level of responsibility for your thought, speech, action, feelings and how you treat and view others? How willing are you to refine your character.
Those are some of the factors that determine the progress and growth a person makes in the arena of nourishing your soul, growing into your best self and developing your potential.
Whatever path you choose requires participation.
None of this requires a religion. I'm sure there are numerous philosophies that value these. I've found contentment in observing nature. I've found it in observing and interaction with family and friends. All I really took away from religion was guilt and fear. IMO, the abrahamic religions are based in these.
My problem with these religions was the lack of evidence, the absurdities and the guilt/fear based indoctrination. I'm not the type that can excuse these and just focus on the positive aspects.
Do you recognize the bad aspects and lack of evidence of the abrahamic religion/OT/Torah and just ignore them or do you accept the abrahamic god as completely just and factual based solely on its texts?
Most THINK they have a 'god' perception. First question, which god? How would one know it is the right one? What about confirmation bias? Herd mentality? Why do most people who are born in Afghanistan views a god as described in the Koran? Why do most people who are born in Mexico view a god as described in the Bible? Why do most people who are born in India believe in many gods as described in the Bhagavad Gita?
They all think they have a 'god' perception, but they all are different. Why are any of them right? Herd mentality and social pressure?
You had me agreeing.... until the last sentence. It essentially says much the same as I outline above. But you don't see how incongruous that is with a believe in a sentient, omnipresent, omniscient entity.
Whatever "God " one perceives is the "right one" for them.
Either you have God Perception ability, or you don't.
To use the "Sighted VS Blind" Analogy: You can either see or you can't.
If you are not deficient and lacking the normal trait of vision, you are able to see...and nothing is the "right" or "wrong" thing to see. You are simply able to see, and you perceive through sight whatever you do...unlike the few that are blind and lack that ability.
First I'd like to say this presentation of Atheism very well reflects my mindset on my atheism.
In this video, the question of what constitutes the reasoning of ones religion is: would you accept another religions claims if they presented the exact same amount of evidence as yours? I found this to be an interesting point.
This question goes for all the major religions. what viable evidence do you have that another religion does not? If someone else had and ancient book and that someone claimed personal experiences with that god, would you believe them and accept their religion as real?
First, no Atheists I have come across has been able to tell me what will constitute as an evidence of God, AND how will the Atheist scientifically verify the evidence as they want a scientific evidence of God?
I have been given answers like, If there is a God out there then he should appear in the sky.
OK Fine, how would you scientifically verify that the figure appeared in the Sky is God?
Then, I am told, if God exists, then he should remove all disease from the world in a second.
Again, say it happens, how would you scientifically verify that it was done by God?
So it seems like some Atheists, who did come up with the definition of proof of God, actually are asking for miracles - yet they want a scientific evidence of God.
Isn't that a height of hypocrisy ? You want to see a miracle as a proof of God, yet you believe in scientific evidence. How will you verify the miracle as science will throw in the white towel?
Faith in the existence of God is not based on evidence.
Think about it, how can it be called "faith", if it's based on evidence? Is it a FAITH anymore if it's based on "EVIDENCE"?
We can search God (IF we want to, that is) based on his signs. Those who search God, they look for his signs. They use their own intelligence, logic and research to see if it talks to them, and then they reach a conclusion?
Remember, the brain does the logic, intelligence and research part. The call to faith, comes from the heart.
Those who don't look for God, don't see any meaning our put any worth to the signs of God, which make sense, as why would you care to look for road signs that don't point towards your destination?
Human logic and intelligence varies from person to person. Something that makes sense to person A, may not make sense to person B. Both take their decisions and wait for the outcome.
First, no Atheists I have come across has been able to tell me what will constitute as an evidence of God, AND how will the Atheist scientifically verify the evidence as they want a scientific evidence of God?
I have been given answers like, If there is a God out there then he should appear in the sky.
OK Fine, how would you scientifically verify that the figure appeared in the Sky is God?
Then, I am told, if God exists, then he should remove all disease from the world in a second.
Again, say it happens, how would you scientifically verify that it was done by God?
So it seems like some Atheists, who did come up with the definition of proof of God, actually are asking for miracles - yet they want a scientific evidence of God.
Isn't that a height of hypocrisy ? You want to see a miracle as a proof of God, yet you believe in scientific evidence. How will you verify the miracle as science will throw in the white towel?
Faith in the existence of God is not based on evidence.
Think about it, how can it be called "faith", if it's based on evidence? Is it a FAITH anymore if it's based on "EVIDENCE"?
We can search God (IF we want to, that is) based on his signs. Those who search God, they look for his signs. They use their own intelligence, logic and research to see if it talks to them, and then they reach a conclusion?
Remember, the brain does the logic, intelligence and research part. The call to faith, comes from the heart.
Those who don't look for God, don't see any meaning our put any worth to the signs of God, which make sense, as why would you care to look for road signs that don't point towards your destination?
Human logic and intelligence varies from person to person. Something that makes sense to person A, may not make sense to person B. Both take their decisions and wait for the outcome.
To summarize, believe in any fantasy you want, call it religion, and that should be the end of the conversation, right? Sort of like Greg Hill with Discordianism? Or Hubbard did with Scientology? Or Smith with Mormonism? Or Mohammed with Islam? Or Paul with Christianity? Or Siddhartha Gautama with Buddhism? Or Zoroaster with Mazdayasna?
If you don't agree with the above list, where did you draw the line? Why?
Yeah terrible how inconvenient evidence is when you do not actually HAVE any isn't it? Especially when someone like you, rather than not having any, can do nothing but denigrate the requirement for it. Who you believe that fools, other than yourself, is not clear however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
First, no Atheists I have come across has been able to tell me what will constitute as an evidence of God
Ah your standard canard that you have been rebutted on NUMEROUS times before, but what you do each time is run away from the thread and find a new one to throw it out in. The simple fact remains the same however, no matter how many times you retreat from it.
The onus of saying what the evidence for a claim is, lies with the person making it. No one else. And your lack of evidence does not warrant you sending atheists off to find it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
how will the Atheist scientifically verify the evidence as they want a scientific evidence of God?
How many atheists, and who specifically on this forum, have actually made that specification however? I know I certainly have not. I have asked you NUMEROUS times for "any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you an offer to suggest a non-human intelligent and intentional agency exists and is responsible for the creation of and/or subsequent maintenance of the universe or the life within it".
Now show me where in that sentence it requires the evidence ONLY be scientific in nature? IT seems to cover up your complete lack of ANY Substantiation for your claims, you are putting words and criteria and more in the mouths of people who spot this fact.
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.
