 |
Mountainman. I do not have faith in God not existing. I stated that in the post before yours. I have a need for evidence.
I wrote "no i don't have faith that god does not exist"
To which you wrote "So with strong conviction you believe God doesn't exist."
I don't see how you reached that conclusion.
Don't put words into my mouth again, especially when I have stated the exact opposite.
OK... I guess I just feel that giving so much credit to karma or to chance just is not enough to explain everything else. Just looking at the intricacies of life and/or the miracle of life that there HAS to be a God. It just is too random for there not to be. Thanks for the hearty discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
That is refreshing to hear that "you do not have faith that God doesn't exist" so there is still hope that one day you will have an experience where He will reveal himself to you and you won't miss it. God bless.
Boy, with an issue like God things can get heated. I think the opportunity to share our thoughts and differences is part of what makes life so interesting. I don't think that we have to be angry that others don't see things the way we do, we have to learn from it. I am thankful for all the knowledge that comes forth from posts such as these, and if it widens my perspective and awareness of others, it truly connects us in a way that can only be positive. So, regardless of what anyone thinks, our words and our own beliefs have brought us together, for no rhyme or scientific reason, just because of the timing and the interest. That is an amazing thing. I don't think you have to believe in God to be happy. I don't know if feeling joy, love and compassion has to be a religion, but it should be a universal understanding of how to make like on this planet, in this existence, better for all of humankind. That is my purpose and focus in life. I find that since I have focused on my own feelings and values, I feel that some greater force connects us all and allows us to experience all the wonderful opportunities, that comes with being a human being. The sense of touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing, and the emotions we can feel and create between each other, are fascinating and can be overwhelming. We don't have to put labels on people to be one thing or the other. I hope that you can see people and create relationships with people that bring you joy and help you to feel loved. That is what truly matters. Whether science created that, or God created science, well just isn't the point here. We aren't going to all agree. That is o.k. We can begin to bridge the gaps between cultures, and countries to be more united and more peaceful, this would somehow start a chain reaction of goodness and love. Wouldn't that be more amazing than trying to make everyone look at life the same way? WE have to look at the bigger picture here. It doesn't matter that Capuchin needs evidence to believe in God, that is what his mind and experiences have taught him. What does matter is that we listen without judgment and try to become more compassionate in the process. The process of life is more important than the destiny, especially if there is no God.
Part of the problem is that it is difficult to embrace God when the idea is always wrapped around religion. It might be easier for people to think about God if they didn't feel pressured to conform to a specific religion. I have gotten over that need and that pressure and I don't identify myself as religious, I have a relationship with God, that is within me. I nurture and develop my spirituality through prayer, meditation and by trying to be loving, compassionate and forgiving. This is my truth and my way. I am not imposing it on others, but I would encourage us all to embrace our differences and become one, for the sake of saving this world that is rapidly deteriorating because of violence, hate, greed and judgmental, narrow beliefs. I hope we can use this thread to begin to accept all of our own differences to come together. Peace to all of you. Only good Karma can come from that, right Synnen??
And we hope that some day you will drop the charade of religion and begin to think for yourself. How does that sound?Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_man
NeedKarma, I understand your frustration with religion. I respect your differences and your beliefs, now can we move past our differences to create unity in some way? You don't need God to do that. It begins with each of us. Yes, we have the responsibility to become the best person we can be. We need to look past those who see differently and recognize we are all the same, we share the same earth. We all have families and relationships and jobs. They all come with struggle and disappointment and pain. Finding a way to be compassionate to those that you find difficulty with, will bring you peace, regardless of what you believe.
Nah, I'm not frustrated with religion at all. I'm frustrated at the individual who thinks others are defective for choosing a different belief. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredsoul
FOr those of you citing scientific or God theories from great thinkers of the past than I am surprised nobody has mentioned Plato and Socraties view on the subject of God. That's about as logical as it gets coming from those two fellers. If you have time to read up on it than please do so, any arguments or ideas that contracdict what they wrote or argued would be quite facinating I would say.
Allowing someone to make you frustrated, only gives your own power away, you should utilize your energy in a way that creates harmony and not discord. No matter what you believe, or what they believe.
Hello again:
97% of the people in the world have a religion.. I don't care that my views go against 97% of the people in the world including many of the world's greatest thinkers. Who knows, maybe somebody will write a book about me, and call me the greatest thinker of them all?
excon
PS> I'm a Jew. Maybe they'll declare me a God, like they did one of my lanzmen.
I believe in science. That isn't to say I don't believe in god.
The second law of thermaldynamics basically says that without intervention from someone outside our world, our world itself would move toward a state of "equilibrium," or basically that things don't become more organized over time by themselves (i.e, evolution). This is called Entropy.
Unfortunately, the second law of thermal dynamics also states that this only works on a macroscopic scale (i.e, the entire universe). Microscopically (with just 2 molocules,) this can be disproved by the fact that a slow moving molocule can collide with a faster one, and their speeds won't necessarily both move toward a central, more equal speed.
While it is a stretch to say that the same could happen for something as big as an entire planet, it is still possible.
So thermaldynamics still says there can be a god, it just doesn't say anything about the Christian God.
excon, Or maybe you are God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It is not a charade of religion that was cast upon me llike you are making it out to be, it was something I personally have experienced time and time again that has made me believe the way I do. My relationship with God is personal and because of what He has done for me I like to share it in hopes that other people would experience the same. I wouldn't be here debating if I couldn't think for myself.
I give you credit by spreading the word. It does seem as though you may be spreading and pushing. I can look past that... some people will never WANT what you want so sometimes, we need to leave well enough alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_man
Your experiences are wonderful, I appreciate you sharing them here with all of us. Hugs, Start
Quote:
Originally Posted by startover22
Thanks for your feedback, I do tend to be passionate about what I believe in not just my belief system... and sometimes (most of the time, if you ask my wife) antagonistic. God bless.
YOu are coming from a place of good intentions and that is always good. It just isn't always what people are going to agree with or want to hear. Sometimes people just want to be right and that's OK too, it just doesn't affect change, or bring about a positive result.
I think this forum makes quite a fine line between spreading and pushing. It seems those that don't believe in God take any idea about God as the speaker PUSHING it on them and casting them down for not believing, believe me that is not the intention of anyone. (I thought that was funny "beleive me", if you guys don't laugh at my jokes than dammit I will:)
Besides startover, what happened to us agreeing on talking about GIRLS :)
Yes, you are a bit passionate! Have a great day! And God bless you too.
I am a girl... but I don't mind talking about them... where do we go for that? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by BMI
And yes, I crack myself up all the time! Go Hawks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredsoul
And someone disagreeing with me doesn't offend me like it seems to with others and I also completely understand that a select group of people really don't want to hear what I believe... I also totally agree people want (need) to be right but to be right you must at sometime first agree that you were wrong... Debate about ones beliefs always hits people at the core of who they are
Did anyone else notice that I said thermaldynamics? What the hell is wrong with me? I need my coffee...Quote:
Originally Posted by retsoksirhc
Politics and religion seem to spark a debate even in the most shy person. I think its great and I too don't take it personally. Why not take personal responsibility in being a loving and kind person? It doesn't take anything more than choosing it to make a difference. NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredsoul
Right on!
"Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words. It’s words all day through, First from him, now from you. Is that all you blighters can do?" Eliza Doolittle—My Fair Lady
I can't believe I read the whole thread. It strikes me that a lot of misunderstanding about these matters arises because the same words mean different things to different people. For example:Implication: Faith is a prerequisite and precursor to all belief in anything whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_man
And:Implication: Faith and belief are just two different words for the same thing, and atheists don't have or need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I just love word etymologies. Learning the history of a word's origins and evolution of meaning has often led me to "Aha!" moments. Here are some (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) that seem relevant to the discussion.
believe
O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. But now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.
faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. Feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. Pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885
I think TKR makes an important point here:
explanationQuote:
Originally Posted by tkrussell
1382, from L. explanationem noun of action from explanare "to make plain or clear, explain," lit. "make level, flatten," from ex- "out" + planus "flat" (see plane (1)). Originally explane, spelling altered by infl. Of plain. The verb explain is first attested 1513.
I think science and religion are just two different ways to "flatten" the multidimensional complexity of human experience, life, thought and emotion. But in either case, the "explanation" is something less than what is explained, because its dimensionality is reduced, approximations and simplifications are made, and peripheral factors are ignored. All of which is necessary to make it "flat enough" for the rational mind to grasp. The arguments arise over the relative satisfactory-ness of alternative explanations. Every explanation is a story. Whether the story is a "good explanation" is in the ear of the hearer.
It's funny, in discussions between theists and atheists, my sympathies more often than not lean toward the atheist's side. But the radical anti-religionists (Richard Dawkins and his ilk) irritate me just as much as the radical religionists. I recently came across a coinage that seems more like what feels right to me: apatheist (Apatheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; The Church of Apatheism), i.e. someone who doesn't think the question of God's existence is interesting enough to even think about.
A lot of scientist-types who are often accused of being atheists would be more accurately termed apatheists, I think, because they realize that the scientific method is just not the right tool for the job of "explaining" subjective states of consciousness. Of course, there are adherents of what I would call scientism who maintain the scientific method is the right tool for every job, and that there is no reason, in principle, why it can't eventually solve every riddle and provide an overwhelmingly persuasive explanation for anything whatsoever, objective or subjective, physical or ethereal. As, for example...My response is, "Well, not exactly." What can be measured is the level of bio-electro-chemical activity in particular areas of the organ we call the brain. We can correlate these measurements to what subjects say they were feeling at the time, but that's not quite the same as measuring feelings, is it? And even if we know what part of the brain is active when we have certain feelings, does that constitute an "explanation" of feelings? It does "flatten" them a bit, I guess, but not flat enough to be very satisfactory my mind, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Another etymology:
evident
1382, from L. evidentem (nom. Evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious," from ex- "fully, out of" + videntem (nom. videns), prp. Of videre "to see" (see vision). Evidence (c.1300) is L.L. evidentia "proof," originally "distinction." After c.1500 it began to oust witness in legal senses.
In other words, evidence is something "seen outside" of our subjective consciousness, so the whole concept of "evidence" of subjective states of mind and emotion is really an oxymoron. Seeing an MRI picture of my brain activity can be "evidence" of my subjective state to someone else, but not to me. To me, it's a byproduct, not a cause or an explanation.
Great thread! Comments? Responses?
My comment would be... It is OK to feel and believe different things. We could be talking about poop and someone would get it all wrong in my eyes... I would get it all wrong in theirs.
I do believe that we all have a something, some just don't want to name it God. Some people call it a gut feeling, karma, a miracle maybe.. Good, let it be as you want it too. You have that right as far as I am concern...
Ordinary guy, I am aware that right now we are loosely correlating, but that's how science works. Newton loosely correlated the laws of motion when he first started. I see no barrier in the future to having a better machine with more correlation, until we are at a point where we can read thoughts and feelings as accurately as we can measure a heartbeat.
A simple experiment would show whether feelings are caused by brain activity in certain areas or whether the chemicals are a result of emotion. Work out where someone's happy center is and cut it out, and see if they are ever happy again.
Of course. There are certain real world barriers to such an experiment, which is what makes part of exploring the brain a mystery until technology progresses to a point where we don't need to cut people up. (maybe we can find a way to just "switch it off". I believe that this kind of thing is being done recently, and is obviously ongoing).
Believe
O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. But now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.
Faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. Feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. Pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885
Thank you OrdinaryGuy for your very different thoughts on my question-
I "hold dear" my "duty of fulfilling my trust" to the Creator (as I believe) of the universe and beyond.
Now that sounds beautiful and it makes sense too.
We like to hold dear what we believe to be the truth,and we like to fulfill our trusts to the best we can...
What about intuition and de ja vu? I know they exist, because I have experienced both. How do you explain a mother sensing that something is wrong with her child? Or when you visit a place you have never been, or meet someone you have never met and you know you have been there or seen them before? You could chalk it up to coincidence, but I think intuition or a gut feeling , is something that no one can explain. Do we need a scientific theory to say that also exists? How does the brain and the body pick up on other people's energy, or when danger is approaching? Machines that can read thoughts, detect emotions, or explain what activity is going on, don't explain where we get the ability to have it. They just show how the body and brain operate and look while having an emotion or feeling. That doesn't explain the origin or why those things exist. Why do we have emotions at all? Why have feelings? Why have opinions? Yes we can evaluate them, but science cannot explain why or where they come from.
So how can you explain it then?
NK, Are you asking me or shatteredsoul?
Shattered. Sorry about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
She may be saying you can't scientifically explain any of them so to a person who holds true to only proveable things, those things don't exist.
Sorry I just assummed Shattered is a woman... sorry if you are not!!
Agreed. But they are not explained by any other methods as well. Man is a complicated animal.
No but we all believe they exist?
déjà vu is generally believed in science to be a case of faulty memory, our brain tells us that the experience we are seeing is being recalled rather than being seen for the first time. It really is a marvel, considering the complexity of the brain, that more of us don't have much bigger memory anomalies than this.
As for intuition, it can be explained as knowledge that you have from previous experiences that can be immediately applied to the problem, and thus needs very little thought.
As I have said I asked this question not to argue but out of curiosity I too have my ideas on this topic but I am waiting until I am really ready to jump into this conversation...
I am a woman, and a hot one at that!! But that is besides the point. LOL My point was, everyone cannot explain everything. Life is a mystery, as are we. Scientists cannot explain it all, therefore it is our beliefs that lead us. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that scientists don't have all the answers because quite frankly, they are human too. ( I was referring to the post about how we can detect where feelings and emotions come from.)
Intuition I believe in, it's a combination of life experiences. Déjà-vu is up for discussion (link). But I certainly agree that we have emotions, feelings and opinions, who would disagree with that?
There have been 200 posts, what are you waiting for??Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:33 AM. |