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.
SizzlyFriddle,
For the love of GOD, please, explain how can you not believe in what you don't define????
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
And how can you believe in that which CANNOT be defined?
Thanks sanspeur! Exactly what I would have said.
SuperSoul, I have a basement with this thing living in it. I can't really describe this thing since I haven't really seen it, and the rest of my family all have different opinions about this thing. How can you not believe in it?
My friend's mom (like a Mom to me) is from there.
Have you ever considered how hyposthesis come about?
What makes someone consider what has never been considered before?
Words are useful identifiers for simplified versions of what we understand. For example, if I say body... you think of a person, but what the body can become more focused as you consider each, the cardiovascular, digestive, endorcine, lymphatic, muscular, nervous & 5 senses, reproductive, respiratory & skeletal body systems.
Yes, the biblical traditional theist definition of God... But this is what gets me...
Why do atheists define God by theists terms?
You don't have to plaster the "god" label... except, I'd say it's the best word that sums up intuition, serendipidy & the power of belief.
You do, in fact, have many beliefs unsubstantiated by scientific methods.
We all do! And please, don't make me explain how we all think illusionally... just consider my analogy of the body... & how lanugage simplifies & separates what is more complex & interrelated.
So... since we have all of these illusional beliefs, which have real influence... we might as well make the most of them.
Consider the power of the subconscious mind... much of which is yet to be understood & properly managed for most.
Consider the power of imagination... like the placebo effect.
This power of belief, emotion & will... is what I consider God to be.
I quoted what Diane Akerman wrote.
Ok, in a diffuse way it seems that we are edging towards a 'God' label for all the mysterious and unexplained aspects of existence. In that respect that we use general terms to cover a complexity is understood. I'd just prefer not to use the term 'god' (let alone 'God') as I think 'nature' covers the term very well.
The distinction is that 'god' implies some intent or a forward - planning intellect of some kind.
Nature doesn't. It admits the unplanned natural processes of matter.
I prefer it because what is unknown and unexplained is just that and I prefer to accept as a likely hypothesis what we know and not accept as a likely hypothesis something for which there is no actual good evidence.
I am simply being agnostic here - admitting that I don't know about all these unexplaineds which is a rational and logical position whereas someone claiming that they do know when they only believe an unverified hypothesis (some 'Mind' doing it all) is an illogical position. I had to explain that at length because you deserve a decent explanation, since you are making a point.
Agnosticism logically requires unbelief in what is not known. It is not a denial nor a nihilistic philosophy. It is simply not believing is something which is not known to be so.
That said I can be very sympathetic towards an agnostic Deist or even Theist, though I think that their logical position is actually unsound, but I can relate to arguments from First cause or zones of comfort though ID is actually unsound science. Like I say I can share a flat with a deist. Because a deist would not require me to do anything religious. Deism does not require any particular kind of religion at all.
Where we get that is where this 'sortagod' label pasted over all the unexplained mysteries gets linked with one of the personal gods. That's where Deist god is supposed to be telling us something about what we should do or how we should act, and that's when we agnostics have a right to ask whether these supposed directives have any substance.
We have a right to question the validity of these supposed directives and, if they do not seem to be well - founded then of course we are not going to accept them and pasting 'god' labels' on the as yet unexplained or - to put it another way - claiming unexplained feelings, occurrences or anecdotal accounts as validation of these supposed directives simply will not do as validation.
SuperSoul, I have a basement with this thing living in it. I can't really describe this thing since I haven't really seen it, and the rest of my family all have different opinions about this thing. How can you not believe in it?
And how can you deny its existence without defining what you're denying?
And how can you believe in that which CANNOT be defined?
Imagination.
Whatever we (all of us - theists & atheists) think, is based on belief in that which we don't completely understand, & is compensated by our imagination.
My definition of God is not limited to the traditional old man in the sky because it doesn't fit with my experience, belief, or imagination.
Some prefer to resonate that way... because it's more familiar, like a loving Grandpa, or even Santa.
We are all illusional fools!
We might as well make our imagination work FOR, rather than against us.
Ok, in a diffuse way it seems that we are edging towards a 'God' label for all the mysterious and unexplained aspects of existence. In that respect that we use general terms to cover a complexity is understood. I'd just prefer not to use the term 'god' (let alone 'God') as I think 'nature' covers the term very well.
The distinction is that 'god' implies some intent or a forward - planning intellect of some kind.
Nature doesn't. It admits the unplanned natural processes of matter.
I prefer it because what is unknown and unexplained is just that and I prefer to accept as a likely hypothesis what we know and not accept as a likely hypothesis something for which there is no actual good evidence.
I am simply being agnostic here - admitting that I don't know about all these unexplaineds which is a rational and logical position whereas someone claiming that they do know when they only believe an unverified hypothesis (some 'Mind' doing it all) is an illogical position. I had to explain that at length because you deserve a decent explanation, since you are making a point.
Agnosticism logically requires unbelief in what is not known. It is not a denial nor a nihilistic philosophy. It is simply not believing is something which is not known to be so.
That said I can be very sympathetic towards an agnostic Deist or even Theist, though I think that their logical position is actually unsound, but I can relate to arguments from First cause or zones of comfort though ID is actually unsound science. Like I say I can share a flat with a deist. Because a deist would not require me to do anything religious. Deism does not require any particular kind of religion at all.
Where we get that is where this 'sortagod' label pasted over all the unexplained mysteries gets linked with one of the personal gods. That's where Deist god is supposed to be telling us something about what we should do or how we should act, and that's when we agnostics have a right to ask whether these supposed directives have any substance.
We have a right to question the validity of these supposed directives and, if they do not seem to be well - founded then of course we are not going to accept them and pasting 'god' labels' on the as yet unexplained or - to put it another way - claiming unexplained feelings, occurrences or anecdotal accounts as validation of these supposed directives simply will not do as validation.
Hi Arequipa,
I agree that we have the responsibility to question - not blindly accept beliefs, especially when they may not be what's best for us.
Yet, I also believe if we questioned EVERYTHING, we'd go insane... & wouldn't have so much fun!
When you watch a movie or read a good fictional writing, do you question the validity of it? Probably not.
You just enjoy the imaginative ride!
Think of times when you laughed to the point of tears. Didn't it feel good?
Did you question why you were laughing or did you just enjoy the irony or humor?
If you want you can define God in traditional ways... external to us. But I consider God a process within us. Yeah, there may be a Supernatural Power in the universe (like dark energy/matter) that is a creative force, but who knows! What affects us most is the process within us - how we think, which affects how we feel & act. I think redefining God to be within us (which is as Jesus, Buddha & probably others taught)... we will have less religious conflicts & more peace. IMO, God is the highest love. The highest love is the best possibility among all possibilities. We love the best we can... striving for what we think is best, through trial & error. Our subconscious has amazing power & awareness - maybe it's through the pituitary or nervous system - or all - but somehow we experience intuition. As scientists have done, they'll work on a project logically, then finally give it a break & let their subconscious work out the rest in amazing ways.
Isn't our goal to be happy & progress? As we experience joy, love & resonate emotionally & intuitively, we experience God.
Last edited by SuperSoul; 08-08-2011 at 04:34 PM..
Hi Arequipa,
I agree that we have the responsibility to question - not blindly accept beliefs, especially when they may not be what's best for us.
Yet, I also believe if we questioned EVERYTHING, we'd go insane... & wouldn't have so much fun!
Whether or not we'd go 'Insane' (a much abused word) by questioning everything, that is irrelevant to the question of whether we should question certain unvalidated and evidentially unsupported beliefs, wouldn't you say? And taking certain unvalidated and evidentially unsupported beliefs as factually true is irrational, wouldn't you say? Not to use the term 'insane'.
Quote:
When you watch a movie or read a good fictional writing, do you question the validity of it? Probably not.
You just enjoy the imaginative ride!
Think of times when you laughed to the point of tears. Didn't it feel good?
Did you question why you were laughing or did you just enjoy the irony or humor?
Of course and of course not. The important thing is to know when to resuspend your disbelief. Enjoying Star - trek or LOR or Harry Potter is fine and not being too critical about the inconsistencies (though noting them is good practice for the real world) while reading or watching is ok. Even letting it become a major thing in your life and leaning Klingon or attending conventions dressed as wizards or Hobbits is just the right side of obsession, and the Religion of 'The Force' was right on the wire. But when someone starts believing this stuff is real and we should all take it as real, too, then the laughing has to stop, wouldn't you say?
Quote:
If you want you can define God in traditional ways... external to us. But I consider God a process within us. Yeah, there may be a Supernatural Power in the universe (like dark energy/matter) that is a creative force, but who knows! What affects us most is the process within us - how we think, which affects how we feel & act. I think redefining God to be within us (which is as Jesus, Buddha & probably others taught)... we will have less religious conflicts & more peace. IMO, God is the highest love. The highest love is the best possibility among all possibilities. We love the best we can... striving for what we think is best, through trial & error. Our subconscious has amazing power & awareness - maybe it's through the pituitary or nervous system - or all - but somehow we experience intuition. As scientists have done, they'll work on a project logically, then finally give it a break & let their subconscious work out the rest in amazing ways.
I agree with a lot of this but my problem is - and I can't do better than use Mystic Philosopher's telling phrase - using the term as a metaphor to cover our ignorance and then pretending that somehow the questions have been answered. What enables us to think outside the box? Where do we get our morals? Why do we get elevated when looking at a sunset or a Husarya charge or a huge cathedral? What's behind feeling of love, patriotism or reverence?
If we just say label it 'God' not only is there the danger of anthropomorphizing the experiences and feelings, but we risk telling ourselves that we know where it comes from and, when we don't actually yet know, it's wrong to stop asking. And while intuition con come up with some idea that methodical ol' science can't, it is necessary for science to test and validate to find out which ideas are true and which are not. This is vitally important if we are to avoid believing nonsense.
Quote:
Isn't our goal to be happy & progress? As we experience joy, love & resonate emotionally & intuitively, we experience God.
The problem here is that this tells us nothing. Ok, for someone who is satisfied with that, fine. I must assume that you see 'God' as a metaphor for the 'spiritual' in humans, all that is best and inspirational and not as something that requires us to attend a place of worship or behave in a particular manner or reject bodies of well - researched evidence because it conflicts with some book of myths and, thus I have got no quarrel with you. But it is nowhere near good enough for the rest of us.
There are unanswered questions about what these feelings and emotions actually are, where they came from and why and what they mean. What are they intended to do and is it really good for us and can we do better? These are very important questions and in view of some recent events, I'd say they are urgent.
Juts labelling it all 'God' and not bothering to question any further is wrong. It's not too bad so long as it doesn't get in the way of questioning, but if it is ever presented as an answer or a reason to not bother asking questions, then it has become something that cannot be ignored or allowed to pass.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-09-2011 at 04:36 AM..
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.
