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.
I would add that the personal experience lends meaning to the rational thought, the intellectual understanding. Without it, it is just thought, not meaning.
Except when it's not rational.
And who is to decide?
People kill over religious thought and intellectual understanding.
Lol well here's an answer right here! Thanks Phetaroi, if nothing else I believe the only proper position to take is agnosticism. "Something unexplained", because there is absolutely nothing to base a god belief on. So being an agnostic is not a bad thing like some like to portray, it's a reasonable and rational position of "I just don't know". It's honest and true because no one can prove the existence or non-existence of a deity.
Yes. I don't believe in god. But I realize -- and have stated -- that I could be wrong. Unfortunately, many religionists can't bring themselves to admit such fallibility.
We use metaphors for a reason. They express the inexpressible. “All that exists” is a metaphor. Quibbling over metaphors is a meaningless exercise when we know what is being expressed.
Perhaps, but I tend to see this sort of exercise as more about separating fact from fiction...
I'm not sure what is "inexpressible," although I know some people are better at expressing themselves, their feelings and experiences better than others. That said, no one can express their own feelings entirely to someone else. Metaphors are just one way we go about communicating with one another. In the end, however, no matter how a person communicates whatever it is they wish to express, there is the reality we all share and there is all manner of feelings, thoughts and beliefs not actually based on reality.
This is the sort of distinction that has more meaning and importance for some but perhaps not for you. What are the truths of these matters? As compared to personal feelings.
How'd you do at pickelball? Quite the craze sweeping the country. So if you feel you did really well but in actuality you didn't win a match, does how you feel matter more than the actual results? I guess this too depends on who you ask...
The question is not whether or not people have individual 'spiritual' experiences. The question is really whether or not all those personal 'experiences' can be trusted.
Is every psychic always right? Do all psychics agree on topics? Are all psychics really psychics?
Is every religionist who has visions always right? Do all religionists who have visions agree on topics? Are all religionists who have visions sane?
When religionists have dreams, do all those dreams reflect reality? Did my crazy Aunt Millie's religious proclamations have meaning, or was she just being crazy?
When I Muslim tells me that the christian religion is blasphemous...does that mean it is?
But you want to attribute all those things to divinity, or as I would call it woo-woo. If it's woo-woo, you love it.
It's very easy to say that all religions are paths to the same god. Until you have one religion literally fighting against -- and killing people -- another religion. Sometimes to the point of nearly destroying cultures. But I guess that kind of religious hate is simply 'divinity'.
Good questions, though I think there are those who are not inclined to consider what you are explaining here in an objective manner. Any good question(s) along these lines are thrown under the bus of "attacking religion." To keep the bus of believing whatever we wish rumbling along. Why not? The ride feels good. What else matters?
Good questions, though I think there are those who are not inclined to consider what you are explaining here in an objective manner. Any good question(s) along these lines are thrown under the bus of "attacking religion." To keep the bus of believing whatever we wish rumbling along. Why not? The ride feels good. What else matters?
And to people like that, I say go to another very different religious culture and start preaching their divinity, and we'll see if they feel that 'oneness'.
A lack is not so easy to dismiss. A lack of something is internal, something we desire, value, but do not have. Per Buddhism and Hinduism and other religious paths and philosophies, this very feeling of lack is what leads to suffering.
“We merely lack Belief in Gods“ presupposes that there is a god to be believed, and belief in god is desirable, and that we lack that belief. If this is not what atheists mean, then they need to find other ways of expressing exactly what it is they are saying.
You are unnecessarily complicating what is actually quite simple...
That or we need to get back to specifics that can be considered in an intelligent manner. If, for example, there is no evidence you won a match in pickle ball, a lack of evidence you won one match, then how hard is it to conclude you did not win at pickle ball? If there is no evidence you won a match, why should anyone believe you did?
This is what I am referring to when I explain there is no evidence or proof that supports a belief in a deity or a god. None anyone has been able to present anyway, or we'd all be believers. Simply claiming a god exists for whatever reason(s) is NOT what I am referring to. Of course not, because we all also know that lots of people make such claims all the time. Agreeing with one another in some cases. Disagreeing with others. Nothing that can be resolved or concluded in a manner that depends on real proof or evidence. Sound rationale.
This simple fact is what helps religion, all of them, work as well as they do.
Lol well here's an answer right here! Thanks Phetaroi, if nothing else I believe the only proper position to take is agnosticism. "Something unexplained", because there is absolutely nothing to base a god belief on. So being an agnostic is not a bad thing like some like to portray, it's a reasonable and rational position of "I just don't know". It's honest and true because no one can prove the existence or non-existence of a deity.
the problem with a person (any person) saying, regarding any set of beliefs in the realm of religion and spirituality, that their own personal opinion view belief "is the only proper position to take" is that it renders all other views opinions beliefs as improper. Having only one "proper position to take" "it's honest and true" renders different views opinions beliefs positions which others take as dishonest and not true.
Also, since the benchmark, in view expressed in post above, for "honest and true" is "no one can prove it and "I just don't know" then that encompasses and embraces many many views opinions beliefs and many many paths of religion and spirituality. Which negates entirely and shows that there is NOT just a single "only proper position."
Here is a question for Ask an Atheist thread, based on elements discussed in the two posts above, for any atheist to answer who cares to. Do you as an atheist feel that "there is only one proper position to take" regarding paths of religion and spirituality? And do you as an atheist feel that other paths than just that one position are "dishonest and false" ? OR do you as an atheist feel that since "it can't be proven" then logically there can NOT be "just one proper position to take" and that is is valid for there to be a variety of paths of religion and spirituality for people to choose from.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-11-2022 at 09:21 AM..
You are unnecessarily complicating what is actually quite simple...
That or we need to get back to specifics that can be considered in an intelligent manner. If, for example, there is no evidence you won a match in pickle ball, a lack of evidence you won one match, then how hard is it to conclude you did not win at pickle ball? If there is no evidence you won a match, why should anyone believe you did?
This is what I am referring to when I explain there is no evidence or proof that supports a belief in a deity or a god. None anyone has been able to present anyway, or we'd all be believers. Simply claiming a god exists for whatever reason(s) is NOT what I am referring to. Of course not, because we all also know that lots of people make such claims all the time. Agreeing with one another in some cases. Disagreeing with others. Nothing that can be resolved or concluded in a manner that depends on real proof or evidence. Sound rationale.
This simple fact is what helps religion, all of them, work as well as they do.
Things worth considering and contemplating are never simple. Reasonable people can discuss Complexities and hold complex things in their mind.
I . “Simply lack of belief in gods” does not say anything about evidence. If there is evidence it is no longer belief.
A belief is never based on evidence, that is why it is belief. It is based on other things, such as experience, knowledge, wisdom. All real things.
An atheist can reasonably say, i have is no evidence for the existence of god. That is a simple statement.
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.
