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.
For me it would be more difficult to believe that God doesn't exist being someone who has studied health, science, and nature in general. All aspects of science point to an intelligent creator in my opinion. I see God's design when I look at the delicate balance of organ systems, acid base balance, hormones, and all other laboratory values that have such a narrow range for survival of both humans and animals. I see God's design when I look at the earth and how it rotates around the sun at just the right speed, angle, and distance to maintain life. I see God's design when I look at animals and how they are camouflaged perfectly with their surroundings. I see God's plan for my own life when I look at my experiences and how they have all tied together with God's purpose for my life in serving others with the gifts he has given me. The probability that all of this and more was just by accident or just happened to all fall into perfect place and was not by any design by a creator is very low or impossible. That just would not make sense.
despite what the braggart claims about degrees, they don't have the even the basic tools to form a belief let alone to unpack other beliefs. I could "prove that to them", but that would mean we would have to adjust how we go prancing around beating others over the head.
Try shifting your phrase just a bit.
"All aspects of science point to intelligence creating what we see and experience in my opinion."
Then we can start looking at what it is and where it lies. Maybe its just different than we think.
There was a science fiction book I read ages ago about a modern-day Messiah. Can't remember it but a famous author. Pretty fascinating.
Interesting to contemplate how the Bible would look if re-done in modern times (not just a modern translation of ancient times).
yup. in my opinion it wouldn't be "lets form up and minimize all beliefs to help lesson's religion influence."
It would be attack religion straight on with the things we claim it lacks. Those being, clarity, logic commonsense, and above all, honesty and self reflection.
I would add "evidence", but lets face it, it aint about that here. For some; on either side.
Life expectancies vary between humans, and animal species.
Humans live a lot longer than when they were first able to physically reproduce.
As I am not a Fundamentalist Christian, things like Evolution are still on the table too.
Even viruses changing strains, is an example of this at a molecular level.
Intelligent design though is definitely the start of the process.
some will avoid saying "God did it through evolution", from the dust of the earth to man.
Why is that? why would some theist avoid it? Why would some atheist avoid it?
Observing a wide range of people over many decades, I've seen enough evidence of people not sensing/seeing God (or the spiritual, in general) simply because they've already come to their own conclusions that there is nothing out there. They've set up expectations to where only a loud, materialistic, humanist approach of evidence could counter their thoughts/opinion.
But the spiritual is not loud, and does not act like humans/humanity. It won't stoop or lower itself to human-based approaches or expectations. It awaits to be sought out on its own terms. If it can't be respected for that, it will simply wait in the background. It's not going to push itself on anyone. It is a valuable guest who knocks, not an intruder who barges in.
That's one of the biggest problems with religious behavior, in that it takes on a lowly man-based attitude of loudness and dominance, effectively shutting down everything for themselves and muddying the waters for those around them. It tends to be anti-spiritual, even though trying to use lip service to indicate otherwise. But actions and effect count, not words. People caught up in religiosity alienate more people away from spirituality. Unless you can make the clear distinction between the two, they will unfortunately get lumped up together.
There's much in nature and reality beyond our tiny and narrow ordinary awareness. Those who empty themselves of expectations and go exploring can be rewarded. Everyone else on the common "wide path" can live out their lives in reduced awareness and impact.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 06-22-2022 at 11:04 AM..
Observing a wide range of people over many decades, I've seen enough evidence of people not sensing/seeing God (or the spiritual, in general) simply because they've already come to their own conclusions that there is nothing out there. They've set up expectations to where only a loud, materialistic, humanist approach of evidence could counter their thoughts/opinion.
But the spiritual is not loud, and does not act like humans/humanity. It won't stoop or lower itself to human-based approaches or expectations. It awaits to be sought out on its own terms. If it can't be respected for that, it will simply wait in the background. It's not going to push itself on anyone. It is a valuable guest who knocks, not an intruder who barges in.
That's one of the biggest problems with religious behavior, in that it takes on a lowly man-based attitude of loudness and dominance, effectively shutting down everything for themselves and muddying the waters for those around them. It tends to be anti-spiritual, even though trying to use lip service to indicate otherwise. But actions and effect count, not words. People caught up in religiosity alienate more people away from spirituality. Unless you can make the clear distinction between the two, they will unfortunately get lumped up together.
There's much in nature and reality beyond our tiny and narrow ordinary awareness. Those who empty themselves of expectations and go exploring can be rewarded. Everyone else on the common "wide path" can live out their lives in reduced awareness and impact.
The interesting this is that the things you used to describe religious behavior applies to any other group that spouses other religious/philosophical, political ideas. It is human nature. Look at what you wrote. Your message gives the same perception you tried to give of the religious people.
Why? Because all humans display the same behavior. It is an ugly side of all of us, to think our ways of life and views are better than the others.
All groups have people that are very happy, productive, and spiritual in the way they see life. However, as you can see in this and other forums, people may try to look differently but, in the end, they are trying to show how the "others" do not make sense, are ignorant, or something else. What to do? Find ways to offend, put down, or show how ignorant those people are. It would be a better world if people want to talk to "truly" understand how someone else believes why that individual believes that way instead of putting views down.
I love Augustine of Hippo's word that he wrote. I share them with you because they have so much wisdom:
In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty, and in all things charity.
I admit that I try not to but in end up doing the same type of comments you made. However, I keep trying to be better and look at people different views with a true intent of learning and understanding, not to show them wrong. That attitude does not help in better relations with other human being as far as I am concerned.
The interesting this is that the things you used to describe religious behavior applies to any other group that spouses other religious/philosophical, political ideas. It is human nature. Look at what you wrote. Your message gives the same perception you tried to give of the religious people.
Why? Because all humans display the same behavior. It is an ugly side of all of us, to think our ways of life and views are better than the others.
All groups have people that are very happy, productive, and spiritual in the way they see life. However, as you can see in this and other forums, people may try to look differently but, in the end, they are trying to show how the "others" do not make sense, are ignorant, or something else. What to do? Find ways to offend, put down, or show how ignorant those people are. It would be a better world if people want to talk to "truly" understand how someone else believes why that individual believes that way instead of putting views down.
I love Augustine of Hippo's word that he wrote. I share them with you because they have so much wisdom:
In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty, and in all things charity.
I admit that I try not to but in end up doing the same type of comments you made. However, I keep trying to be better and look at people different views with a true intent of learning and understanding, not to show them wrong. That attitude does not help in better relations with other human being as far as I am concerned.
You have a great day.
elamigo
yup .... thats why I post ...How can we tell? Is there a process that we can use to shed light on who is who?"
And it goes ignored, I believe, in large part, because the first step in the process is rigorous honesty while looking in the mirror.
yup .... thats why I post ...How can we tell? Is there a process that we can use to shed light on who is who?"
And it goes ignored, I believe, in large part, because the first step in the process is rigorous honesty while looking in the mirror.
You asked a very good question. This is my reply on that because that is what I use in many areas of my life.
I provide an example. When I teach university classes, most of the time the students have to write a research paper as their final assignment. They have six weeks to write it.
The steps are a) write a thesis statement b) find support sources for the thesis statement and c) write opposing sources that counter the thesis statement.
The last part is the most difficult. It is easy to present your point or claim (thesis) and the tendency will be to find sources that support the thesis. Keep in mind that people usually select a thesis that goes along with their values and beliefs.
The instructions on the opposing view are for them to treat it as if they are trying to prove their own thesis wrong. They must be honest and have the strength to do so. Many of my students have a very difficult time doing so. I can see the way they write their papers. They admit that they never had such a difficult time writing a research paper because it was stressful to try to prove themselves wrong. One student told in front of the class that he was very mad. I asked why. He said that after writing the paper he ended up finding out that all his life he was wrong about something he strongly believed in.
At the end of the semester, many say they did not enjoy the assignment but recognized that it taught them to be more objective and open-minded about issues. There was one comment that comes to my mind that was funny but rewarding to hear. A student told me, "My wife said that I have changed, and I asked her why. She said, "Because now you listen to what I have to say". I told her that I learned to listen because I am now willing to hear a different opinion."
Often, I have faced creationists and anti-creationist if they have actually done research and read from sources of the opposing views. Many have admitted that they have not. They only read and research from sources that they agree with. Of course, their sources will make the opposing view look wrong, also will cherry pick when quoting the opposing sources.
Also, often, after students present their views, I ask "What are the positives of the opposing view, and on what areas do you agree with?" Many get startled because at the moment do not know what to say.
In this forum and in many, you can see that people only show what is wrong with the other side. On occasion I have asked that question. They either avoid answering or say that the opposing view has no validity, no support, or something else. They do not want to be honest because once they admit that there are some valid points, they feel they are going to show a weakness on their view. They do not want to show that.
Currently, people do not want to hear anything what the opposing side group has to say. Look at the news. Either you agree with me on everything or not. If not, you are wrong, and I will get you somehow.
That's how it is all way from the top office, in Congress, and all the way down on the streets. It is sad to see that.
You have a great day.
elamigo
You asked a very good question. This is my reply on that because that is what I use in many areas of my life.
I provide an example. When I teach university classes, most of the time the students have to write a research paper as their final assignment. They have six weeks to write it.
1st: The steps are a) write a thesis statement b) find support sources for the thesis statement and c) write opposing sources that counter the thesis statement.
The last part is the most difficult. It is easy to present your point or claim (thesis) and the tendency will be to find sources that support the thesis. Keep in mind that people usually select a thesis that goes along with their values and beliefs. 2- The instructions on the opposing view are for them to treat it as if they are trying to prove their own thesis wrong. They must be honest and have the strength to do so. Many of my students have a very difficult time doing so. I can see the way they write their papers. They admit that they never had such a difficult time writing a research paper because it was stressful to try to prove themselves wrong. One student told in front of the class that he was very mad. I asked why. He said that after writing the paper he ended up finding out that all his life he was wrong about something he strongly believed in.
At the end of the semester, many say they did not enjoy the assignment but recognized that it taught them to be more objective and open-minded about issues. There was one comment that comes to my mind that was funny but rewarding to hear. A student told me, "My wife said that I have changed, and I asked her why. She said, "Because now you listen to what I have to say". I told her that I learned to listen because I am now willing to hear a different opinion."
Often, I have faced creationists and anti-creationist if they have actually done research and read from sources of the opposing views. Many have admitted that they have not. They only read and research from sources that they agree with. Of course, their sources will make the opposing view look wrong, also will cherry pick when quoting the opposing sources.
Also, often, after students present their views, I ask "What are the positives of the opposing view, and on what areas do you agree with?" Many get startled because at the moment do not know what to say.
In this forum and in many, you can see that people only show what is wrong with the other side. On occasion I have asked that question. They either avoid answering or say that the opposing view has no validity, no support, or something else. They do not want to be honest because once they admit that there are some valid points, they feel they are going to show a weakness on their view. They do not want to show that.
Currently, people do not want to hear anything what the opposing side group has to say. Look at the news. Either you agree with me on everything or not. If not, you are wrong, and I will get you somehow.
That's how it is all way from the top office, in Congress, and all the way down on the streets. It is sad to see that.
You have a great day.
elamigo
thanks ...
if you read my post, its exactly what I am saying. I am a philly boy that always hated bullies.
I apologize for being a fighter. I know it ruins the atmosphere. I just hate bullies. Especially intellectual ones. And I really disrespect them when they are in "My group". They are the lowest of the low to me.
To the last piece. And most people do not understand what you said.
Does the claim/belief offer an explanation, have a mechanism, and make predictions. Trained people, like you claim, understand that claims that have those three are more reliable than those that don't.
For people that understand the process you laid out, it ends the conversations. We then unpack beliefs side by side and compare them to the world around us.
Then: A relative reliable list is constructed. What one(s) makes more sense.
Minor adjustments to match me .... and they are minor as you will see.
A) observe,
b) record, then
c) thesis statement.
There isn't an order per say, but usually people that have a theory based it on what they saw. I call that bottom up. well, actually somebody used the term here I thought it fit nicely. So did they, until I applied what they said to their atheism. Then they didn't like it anymore. More specifically, that's when the insults started fly.
yes, I take the part about proving yourself wrong, which is definitely a step, but I change it to I am going to try and prove the opposing right to myself using the same process I used in thinking my conclusion is right.
and you are correct, its a huge shift.
The huge shift for me, as a life long atheists, was ...
"Hey, wait a minute, religion doesn't decide what "god" is. How the universe works "shows us" (teaching us as fast as it can, if you will) what it is.
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.
