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're missing the point. Anyone can post their opinions and preferences on anything, but anyone can question them and suggest something else. If they then say it's their preference and in no way are they recommending it as suitable for anyone else, much less true, then that can be allowed to pass, but otherwise, fair game for question.
you are conflating and equating "opinion and preference" with "not true."
that is also not reasonable, rational, or logical. it lacks common sense.
and to seriously suggest with every post, yours for instance, that you say your "preference is to be an atheist but in no way are you recommending atheism is suitable for anyone else, much less that it is true" well, how about run that up the flagpole and try it out for a few weeks in a few hundred posts or so, then get back to us. again, i find it to be, well, a strange sort of disclaimer. but you seem to have an enthusiasm for it, i am curious to see the reception it gets, and since it is your idea i encourage you to as they say, walk the talk. let people know in each and everyone one of your posts that you, for instance, "find Vivaldi exquisite, here is a link to one of my favorites, but in no way am i recommending Vivaldi as suitable for anyone else much less that it is true". or you have found "traveling to Thailand has been one of the highlights of my life, but in no way am i recommending traveling to Thailand as suitable for anyone else much less that it is true"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-24-2021 at 10:25 AM..
people share on the forum their own experience, their own views, beliefs and opinions. whether the topic is auto repair, health and wellness, religion and spirituality, or food and cooking. i do not find it reasonable, rational, or logical when people share their experience online (a recipe they made? a medication they took? a remedy for a car problem?) to accuse them of "pretending" and "fooling yourself" and to demand proof and evidence that broccoli with ginger is delicious, or that acupuncture relieved someone of their migraines.
Another of your bad analogies, people share their recipes (which have evidence they work) because they want to share them. A private spiritual journey is private.
An Apfelstrudel recipe does not have the problem of cognitive bias.
92% of the world population recognizes that which you do not (the sacred).
you have stated your view that there is no such thing as the sacred, only the secular.
a reasonable conclusion is, well, the 92% knows, recognizes something that you don't.
that IS the system. that IS the way it is. that IS common sense.
Most of the people I have talked to that believe in god understand that is more like 92 percent of the people know we are probably part of a living system.
That belief just is to scientifically supported by observation and commonsense. "Alive" doesn't mean deity and there is no need to avoid it, subdue it, and outlaw it just because some theist act like dorks.
Legitimate question. I will say I have at least smidgens of what I consider circumstantial evidence to satisfy me enough to entertain and explore the possibility of God rather than closing that door and trying to interpret what I think of as possible evidence through merely the physical universe. My view would be more along the lines of Spinoza, Eckhart, etc. , with a little of the nature mysticism of John Muir or Thoreau thrown in , with the nondualism of Advaita as the backbone of it all.
I'll edit and add more later rather than rush my thoughts. I have to go pick up the wife now who is currently sticking needles in a thousand people for Covid reasons. Suffice to say I am not a fundamentalist or traditionalist, and probably fall fairly close to MysticPhD in many ways.
Thanks. I don't believe I close the door of entertaining the possibility of God, or I don't think I would be here (let alone my many years of studying and considering such possibilities), but I'm still an atheist because I have not found any convincing evidence that any such thing exists, and that's because no one else has either.
In fact, when I really think about it, I would be extremely interested to consider any serious evidence a God exists. Who wouldn't? Unsubstantiated evidence is considered valid by billions of people. We all know this as well, but being an atheist is not to close off consideration about anything. It's the opposite actually. The difference is in what evidence or substantiation of such possibility makes us spiritual or religious or agnostic or atheist.
Given the definition of atheist, I can't rightfully say I'm anything but an atheist, but this doesn't mean I am not willing to consider any worthy evidence that would convince me to be otherwise. In other words, if I'm understanding you correctly, you have such evidence. Or what you call "circumstantial evidence." Perhaps you might be more specific as to what that might be. Since again, I'm not closed off to considering any evidence along these lines.
I met with a flat-Earther recently and she assured me that people did used to believe in a flat Earth until they started using spheres to replace the(flat) maps. Eventually people forgot that the earth was really flat.
The flat-Earther I met said we had all been brainwashed going back to grade school about the Earth being round, and of course once you've been brainwashed, it's hard to know what to believe anymore. If I have been brainwashed well enough, then I can't recognize the evidence that contradicts what I have been brainwashed to believe. Accordingly, if the flat-Earther is correct about this, then I have to admit to the possibility the Earth is in fact flat until someone can help me get de-brainwashed.
The concept of "not God" is a necessary "invention" as a result of the human, mental artifact -- the creation of a god, especially the God. The issue I have with the universe, or everything in existence, being God is that we cannot know what God is not outside of its structure.
You are fortunate to have only that issue. I have many...
Most of the people I have talked to that believe in god understand that is more like 92 percent of the people know we are probably part of a living system. That belief just is to scientifically supported by observation and commonsense. "Alive" doesn't mean deity and there is no need to avoid it, subdue it, and outlaw it just because some theist act like dorks.
well, no, the wording in the Pew Research study was very specific, and no it was not "part of a living system." it was distinctly and definitely worded as "identify with a specific religion" or "individual prayer". It was specifically in the context of "religion and spirituality."
bold above, yeah, that is what freedom of religion is: people are free to believe what they want.
Godda love how often we see this reminder...
Almost as if any comment could somehow undermine such freedom. Reads like a knee-jerk fearful defensive mechanism reaction to me. Instead of the focus on the differences in rationale that has generated so many different religions and beliefs, better, easier, to keep reminding everyone we can think whatever we want to. I mean no kidding.
Something like "it's my party and I'll cry if I want to..."
it's not about verifying for others, it is about verifying for self.
for instance if someone declines to develop, recognize and utilize their intuition, because they dismiss and reject their own intuition as "imaginary" "made up" "no proof" "invented." they then lack that valuable tool, not because they don't have it, but because they choose not to pick it up and learn how to use it. it remains dormant.
walking a path of religion and spirituality, being in relationship with divinity, the Creator, has never been about proving anything to others, but verifying for self. that's why the fervored obsession with demanding proof from others, is so pointless. literally. it misses the point.
If soley "about verifying for self," then why bother with what others think? Why be here?
Another of your bad analogies, people share their recipes (which have evidence they work) because they want to share them. A private spiritual journey is private. An Apfelstrudel recipe does not have the problem of cognitive bias.
it is not an analogy, it is directly referencing that which you clearly stated and suggested in your own post regarding your own views and
behavioral expectations you have around making posts on a public forum discussion board. it makes no difference whether the forum topic is auto repair, health and wellness, religion and spirituality, or cooking. the behavior under discussion is the rational (or not) behavior in a public discussion online forum, regardless of the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, we have noticed this failing with your posts. Quatsch, posting a 'private' journey on the internet is not rational. Asking for evidence of a 'private' claim posted on the internet is rational. Pretending you are not fooling yourself is close minded and not rational.
Pretending intuition is reliable when it is known to be unreliable is also not rational.
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.
