posted
Imagine that I am a person who is devoid of "faith." Imagine that, as far back as my memory extends, I have been baffled by the ability of those around me to "believe" things that have no logical grounding. These scores upon scores of otherwise reasonable people, who have the mysterious power to accept the truth of whatever they have decided is their Explanation, without holding it up to the same scrutiny they would apply to any other notion they may come across in life. Imagine that, every so often, I am halfway driven to madness by the senselessness in it. What world do these people live in, that this is a sensible way to behave?
Imagine that I am horrified of death. That I have no idea what it holds, and that I can see no way to figure it out, barring deific intervention. Imagine that I see a very real and significant possibility that, at the moment of my death (or maybe some other time, who knows?), my being and existence will wink out, and I will never be again. Imagine that there are few things I would like more than to be handed a reason to believe that this will not be the case.
Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to convince me that your Explanation is true. Feel free to try whatever you want; I promise not to take offense. If you succeed, I will work for the balance of my life to repay my debt to you.
Or, if things are as I suspect, and this can't be done, then at least show me the sense in your believing it. What does "faith" mean to you? Is it a major part of your belief? If it is, then how how my god HOW is it that you can accept faith as a basis for belief?
Help me, here, people of the world. I am a bright guy, but I cannot make sense of this.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Disclaimer: I am not trying to start a fight, here. This is genuine curiosity, drowned in cynicism though it may be.)
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you live a good life? Respect yourself and others? Law abiding? Well applaud yourself, your able to live a virtuous life without the need for religion. If G-d truly does exist, and he finds fault in you still, I'll happily climb on down to Hell with you.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why would you want to go on existing forever? You'd eventually grow tired of drinking beer and looking at TV. Then what?
Existing forever is only attractive if you could continue to learn until you know everything that is knowable, if you could have an ever-increasing amount of control over what is controllable, and could have an ever-expanding domain to control. Existing forever is only attractive if you could eventually become god.
If you are motivated to go on living forever by thinking that you can become god, then you must also accept the possibility that somebody else has already become god.
If you don't think that you can become god, but still have hopes of a continuing existence, then consider what you will do every day for the first ten billion years of that existence. There's a limited amount of space in the landfill to accomodate beings that only consume, excrete, and reproduce. You'd be better off winking out.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anything good ever happened to you? Has anything ever just worked out, where you put some effort in, but it worked out far better than you had any reason to expect? Have bad times ever been relieved by some lucky coincidence, like a friend just happening to stop by when you most needed it, or you discover money you didn't know you had, or something you needed just happened to be available to you just when you needed it?
That's where my faith started. It grew from there.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Faith doesn't mean believing in something without ever questioning it; it is not blind acceptance or self-delusion. Faith acknowledges that however much I can ever hope to learn, however much I demand answers about how everything works, there are some things that cannot be proven empirically or observed in a laboratory. Faith picks up where the rational explanations and unshakable evidence leave off, and the world beyond what we can see and hear and observe begins. I have yet to meet anyone completely "devoid of faith"; it is integral to human existence. In fact, you rely on faith all the time! For example, ou have never observed an atom or a quark directly. But you believe in their existence because they explain the things that you CAN observe and experience directly. Their existence allows everything else to make sense. That's certainly not a perfect analogy... but faith, by its very definition, is a very difficult thing to justify empirically. But speaking from my own experience... I can't imagine living WITHOUT my faith. I have scrutinized it in the past and will continue to do so in the future. And so far, faith is the only thing that allows everything else in my life to make sense.
Thanks for posing such an in-depth question! I hope you find the answers you're looking for.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Has anything good ever happened to you? Has anything ever just worked out, where you put some effort in, but it worked out far better than you had any reason to expect? Have bad times ever been relieved by some lucky coincidence, like a friend just happening to stop by when you most needed it, or you discover money you didn't know you had, or something you needed just happened to be available to you just when you needed it?
But is the opposite true? What about when something bad happens to me? Or when something completely fell apart? What about when success and the achievement of all my dreams were nearly in my grasp and circumstances beyond my control snatched it all away?
Should I abandon faith due to these things?
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:there are some things that cannot be proven empirically or observed in a laboratory... For example, you have never observed an atom or a quark directly
So are you saying that even scientists use faith to bridge the gap between the empirical data and what they can observe directly with their senses?
"Captain, the infrared scope says there's vegetation down there; I don't see any, but I've had experience with this scope before, and it hasn't been wrong yet."
"Ooh did you see that phosphor light up? Based on my theory that must mean there's a stream of electrons bombarding that plate."
"Oh darn, the parakeet died; must mean we've got ourselves a carbon monoxide problem."
Or a newborn baby:
"Man, I better figure this place out soon, or I'm gonna go nuts. Oooh, there's a pattern of light and dark that I've sensed before...mommy?"
So even input from our physical senses was at one time (and probably still is) subject to interpretation as to what sensory information represented actual fact.
I'm sure that if something is knowable, we'll eventually figure out a way to conceptualize it, detect it, and interpret it.
And if something isn't knowable, I'm sure somebody will found a religion based on it and take your hard-earned money in exchange for the privilege of worshipping at the altar of the unknown and unknowable.
But I'm fairly confident that there isn't anything in this universe that isn't knowable. School your senses, hone your mind, and gain experience.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skillery: I didn't mean "living" forever; I meant "existing," in a broader sense. Death is fine with me, as long as my loved ones and I are something afterwards. Maybe even if the alternative is eternal torment. This is the degree to which nonexistence terrifies. Though, I would proably break and change my mind after a few [metaphysical unit of time]s.
Jeniwren: Good things do happen to me, but there are a million and one explanations for this. This is where I depart from the rest of humanity, I think; in such an open-ended situation, I will just settle into the doubt, and not pick an answer. This is the part that confuses me. I can't quite understand how anyone could assume that one of a million possible explanations is the right one.
IB_wench: I know it isn't blind acceptance. I know people actually think about it. But there's still a point where you decide a thing is true without a firm grounding for it. I can't do that.
By the by, I'm not certain that atoms exist. I think that, if I assume my senses are trustworthy and all that philosophical crap, then the existence of atoms is overwhelmingly probable. My "knowledge" is a set of things I have decided are trustworthy enough that I can act on them with expected results. I have no way of knowing for sure that my own mother is anything but a crazy idea someone thought up and stuck into my mind. But I've learned that if I act on the assumption that she is what she seems to be, there is a terribly low chance that my results will differ from my expectations (0% of the time, so far).
But with a topic like the one at hand, where we're dealing with eternities and metaphysics, there is no way I can see that a person could get ahold of the information needed to make a decent assessment. Except, as I said, with help from a deity.
I have to go out for now, so I'm not gonna look over this post and make sure I worded things in sensical ways. I'll have another look in a few hours. Thanks for the responses, all.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I do not know anything, and do not claim to know anything about what happens after death or anything. But I do think that we when we die don't really stop existing.
In physics or something it is known that energy in its most basic of forms cannot be created or destroyed. So seeing that matter is energy etc... We are matter... We are energy... Okay enough with the hippie stuff. Um, we cannot be created or destroyed. We'll just turn into other stuff, energy etc... I don't know if we will experience complete emptiness. But it makes sense. And if what we see is emptiness, there must still be someone experiencing the emptiness or else how would we be seeing emptiness. And this, and that... Blah. Blah!
Oh yeah, um, faith. Um, ah, hmm... I used to believe in stuff. I believe in things... Like the beliefs I have obtained over my lifetime. Like if someone steals from you, punch him in the face, and you won't regret it later etc... Oh and don't forget to get your stuff back. Other than that I am not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I personally think it is insane to just believe something without proof.
As far as there being a god... I am not an atheist seeing there is no evidence proving there is no god. Nor am I a theist seeing there is no proof that there is one. As far as death is concerned I do not fear being dead. I fear dying.
posted
Jiminy, You're absolutely right. There will always be a point where the solid facts end and you will be forced to make a decision without being able to prove for certain whether it is right. And it's hard - stepping into the unknown with no way of knowing what's waiting for you there. But which is more terrifying? To believe in something even when there's no way to verify it (short of divine intervention)? Or to spend a lifetime trapped by doubt, never able to be certain of anything because you are never able to conclusively prove 100% guaranteed that it is true? Every day you make the decision to believe what your senses tell you, even though you know that there is no way to prove that this is the way things really are. It's sort of like that with faith. Every day I decide to believe in God and all that He entails, and life goes on. So far my results have not differed from my expectations, either. Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand the question correctly, you're asking how faith (belief in something that cannot be proven by conventional means) can be the means of belief?
Gathering evidence via our senses is limited. I would think many scientists agree that much of our knowledge is not absolute (which is why we continue to study subjects we believe to be "proven," like the existence of gravity). "Truth" is constantly changing. We once thought the world was round, then flat, then round again. We once thought ourselves part of a vast universe, then the center of it, then back again. We presume something to be proven and find new information time and time again.
Isn't everything a matter of faith...or, at least, an acceptance of truth based on current knowledge? I think you answered above that yes, this is true.
Since we base belief on some kind of evidence, many who "live by faith" have had some kind of evidence. I've met very few people who believe something "just because." They've had some kind of experience--physical or spiritual, tangible or intangible––that confirmed or denied a pattern of belief.
Yet the legitimacy of this evidence varies from person to person, so someone would equate praying as a real source of information––while another thinks it's hogwash. How do we know prayer doesn't work, or that a unique belief system isn't real? How can one prove that which one might deem "spiritual" is, in fact, incorrect?
Is everything we cannot quantify inherently wrong?
The hazard, obviously, is that it's nice to have a baseline of what is considered valid. That's why science is here and faith is often there, and many find it tough to "not play by the rules" by accepting evidences that are contrary to standard scientific thought. Since it can't be quantified it's dismissed, and that's unfortunate.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My answer is similar to what IB wench said. I do not regard 'blind faith' as a redundancy; any worthwhile faith must be based on evidence. My religious faith is fundamentally no different from, say, my faith that the Ukraine is a real place even though I've never been there. I can observe evidence of its truth, and evaluate the testimony of people I deem trustworthy.
In other words, I do subject my religious beliefs to same scrutiny as any other claims I come across.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Has anything good ever happened to you? Has anything ever just worked out, where you put some effort in, but it worked out far better than you had any reason to expect? Have bad times ever been relieved by some lucky coincidence, like a friend just happening to stop by when you most needed it, or you discover money you didn't know you had, or something you needed just happened to be available to you just when you needed it?
But is the opposite true? What about when something bad happens to me? Or when something completely fell apart? What about when success and the achievement of all my dreams were nearly in my grasp and circumstances beyond my control snatched it all away?
Should I abandon faith due to these things?
WntrMute, I was just asking questions that got me started. I didn't mean for it to sound like the whole of my faith rested on it. Not everyone gets there the same way, if they get there at all. For me, I had a lot of very...coincidental things happen in my favor during my divorce. It made me grateful, but without someone to be grateful to because they were so random, from so many different quarters, and so unexpected. I won't say I fell on my knees and praised Jesus, but I will say it started me thinking. Then several years later, I was blown away by someone's cruelty. I did fall on my knees that time, not out of gratitude, but out of pain, knowing that the cruelty I'd suffered was part of a bigger picture of a life choices I'd made. I was, in some sense, the author of my pain. Ultimately, I figured I hadn't done that great a job at Life, so maybe letting God have a go might be better. So far, I'd have to say yeah, it's better. I'm glad I made that choice. Ask me again in ten years if I've found anything better.
But that's just me. I don't believe that all good things happen because God wills it. And I don't believe the opposite either. But I have to believe God is in there somewhere, because I know that this much good in one life can't be a coincidence.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be great to see OSC's answer, or is it well-known and could be read somewhere? The question is posed beautifully. I am amazed that I wanted to ask something very similar here not a week ago, and here it is, and I couldn't have formulated it better.
So far the only answer as far as I understand is that a series of events that are odd enough not to be easily explained by a person's everyday experience but fit into a "god model" convinces a person that the "god model" is valid.
I can see how this can be a sufficient motivation for many.
Not for me though, nor I suspect for Jiminy, nor for many people who are used to the scientific approach to things. I know several examples when the most obvious generalization based on a few cases is wrong. If something fits "a pattern of belief" it does not justify it for me.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To jeniwren: an example. If you get a random sequence of ones (1) and zeros (0) that contains 100 digits, then find the longest subsequence of the same consecutive digits in it, what do you think will be the most likely length of such a subsequence?
Message: it looks like the human mind is incapable of grasping the random events intuitively, without counting. Thus, a conclusion like "this much good ... can't be a coincidence" is meaningless although quite common.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: any worthwhile faith must be based on evidence.
I agree.
quote:Originally posted by Jiminy: Death is fine with me, as long as my loved ones and I are something afterwards.
Do you think there is anything in this life that you can do that might have some bearing on the status or quality of that "afterwards something?"
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by skillery: If you don't think that you can become god, but still have hopes of a continuing existence, then consider what you will do every day for the first ten billion years of that existence. There's a limited amount of space in the landfill to accomodate beings that only consume, excrete, and reproduce. You'd be better off winking out.
This assumes that the continued existence is in a form that is comparable to our present one (e.g., a similar perception of the passage of time, a similar capacity for boredom). I would think that most religious people who believe in & desire an afterlife also believe that God is capable of making that afterlife a permanently pleasing experience.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:God is capable of making that afterlife a permanently pleasing experience
I was kind of hoping that at some point your god would leave us alone.
Any god that would run us through the wringer in this life will surely do it in the next. Do you actually think that the mud and blood in this life is a prerequisite to life in fuzzy pink bunnyland?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
What if I told you that your absence of faith was not a lacking of mysterious powers, but a new one. Indeed, you are rare.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IB_wench: But which is more terrifying? To believe in something even when there's no way to verify it (short of divine intervention)? Or to spend a lifetime trapped by doubt, never able to be certain of anything because you are never able to conclusively prove 100% guaranteed that it is true?
Belief is a choice? This is part of my wonderment. I lack the capacity to "decide" to believe something. If I could, I'm sure I would, and I envy ye who can, but I just can't pull it off. The "belief" system in my head is apparently a subconscious thing.
Though, really most of my "beliefs" aren't exactly things I "believe." I have my cogito ergo sum, and a handful of deductions, and that's basically where I draw the line. All my other "beliefs" stem from sheer utility. I've ended up where I am, somehow, and these "desire" and "feeling" beasts prompt me to decide things every now and then, to keep myself in a pleasurable state. Over my years of doing this, I've learned a few things that make me better at it.
I think even many religious people would draw a distinction between the necessary truth of "I exist" and the unnecessary truth of "God exists." This is the part that gets me. I hear a person say that they "believe" God exists, but they will willingly admit that they don't "know" that he exists. Why would you even make the choice? When there is no earthly power forcing a decision on you, and there's no way to find the answer anyway, why would you even make the decision?
Edit: This last part is very hard to word. Basically, why would you pick a partiuclar answer, when there's no way to know, and no apparent reason to decide? These bananas are all the same, as far as we can tell from down here.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:a distinction between the necessary truth of "I exist" and the unnecessary truth of "God exists."
Or a distinction between the unnecessary truth of "you exist" and the necessary truth of "I am not God."
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems we have a problem defining "necessary". Any takers? Perhaps some insight into this definition might shed light on Jiminy's question.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking about this thread for a while, but can't seem to put my thoughts into coherent words. One of my problems is that I can start with someone who believes in God, and explain to them my view of God and religion, and why I believe it; but to start with someone who doesn't believe in God at all is so foreign to my view of the universe that I don't know how to begin. But I'll try.
quote:My "knowledge" is a set of things I have decided are trustworthy enough that I can act on them with expected results.
That "acting as if it's true even if I can't prove it, but I've had enough evidence to trust it" is what faith is all about. People of faith have a set of things they have decided are trustworthy enough to live their lives as if they're true. I think the problem stems from the definition of "evidence". In science, one person's evidence can be seen and experienced by someone else; they may disagree on what it means, but it's generally there for everyone to see. In matters of faith, there may be just as much evidence, but much of it is personal, and can't be experienced by someone else. When you try to explain it, it sounds crazy to someone else, unless they've experienced something like it. It's been compared to trying to describe the taste of salt; if you haven't experienced it, no words are going to be adequate to the task.
I look at the world and the universe and I cannot imagine that the beauty, the intelligence, the life in it came about by chance. That's as impossible for me to believe as it seems to be for you to believe that there could be something more than what you see. And I've had times when I know I've been helped by something outside myself. I don't really want to try to describe them. (I don't want my most sacred experiences being belittled, and no matter what words I use to describe it, it wouldn't be convincing to anyone else.) But to me they are as much evidence as atoms and molecules. So I'm not accepting things on faith with no evidence; it's just that the evidence that is personal to me may not convince anyone else.
I've had times of doubt, and times of faith. When I'm living "as if it were true", I'm happier. In my times of doubt, I'm troubled, unhappy, and I worry. After months and years of swinging back and forth between doubt and faith, I finally made a decision to live the way that makes me a happier person. I really do believe that having faith - at least that first step - isn't something that just happens to you. It's something you decide to do. You "perform an experiment upon the word" of God, and see if it makes your life better, makes you happy, and then you live that way. If it makes you happier, gives you peace and hope, and you find it feels true to you, isn't that enough "reason to decide"?
posted
If I am god then you don't exist. Of course that assertion requires that I make a distinction between the necessary truth that god, by definition, made everything, and the unnecessary truth that god made you.
Now if you can prove to me that you exist (good luck), I might remember having made you.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I remember making you Skillery (sorry 'bout the extra toes, I got carried away). Is that proof enough?
Will the sun rise tomorrow on Skillery's blessedly ill-suited (for bipedalism) feet? I'm guessing it will.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How's Jiminy going to see my wonderful all-questions-answered post if you two don't stop messing around? Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem I'd raise is that it's quite possible to experience very definite subjective feelings that are completely inaccurate as representations of reality. I make most of my mistakes that way.
In particular, I know from personal experience that it's possible for subjective feelings associated with religion to be unhelpful. The summer before I went to uni, I went on a camping weekend organised by a Christian youth club I attended. Despite being a hardcore atheist to start with, by the end of the weekend I felt like I was filled with light. I could practically taste God acting in my life. I decided very firmly that when I hit uni I was going to sign up for the local youth club.
That never happened, because when I hit uni I started to make loads of friends and start work on fascinating mathematical problems* - and I suddenly felt exactly the same sensation. From subsequent analysis, the feeling was actually representative of a heady cocktail of happiness, acceptance and having my whole life ahead of me.
Now, if I had gotten round to joining the Christian youth club before the sensation reoccurred, I'd have assumed that it was indeed a feature of worshipping God. In fact, I'd probably be a devout Christian now as a result, despite the fact that this assumption is clearly wrong.
Given all this, I'm extremely unconvinced by the idea of following my gut instincts. I know what pure religious joy feels like, but I no longer think it's representative of how reality actually works.
A couple of people have said that the fact that something makes you happier is reason enough to accept it as true. I'd disagree on two points. Firstly because, if you're wrong, then none of us has an infinite amount of time to play around with - life is too precious to waste on anything that would turn out to be a myth.
Secondly because benign superstitions are the potato crisps of the mind - your critical thinking faculties start to get chubby, and your reality barrier starts to fall. Eventually it'll fall far enough that you accept something that's truly harmful - just look at the prevalence of suicide cults if you want evidence of this.
Sorry to butt in on this conversation - I've needed to get all that off my chest for some time now.
* No that's not an oxymoron
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:JennaDean: there may be just as much evidence, but much of it is personal, and can't be experienced by someone else
This reminds me of the Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion days and the difficulties scientists experienced trying to reproduce the results.
The problem with faith-promoting experiences is that they're not easily reproducible, even by the original observer.
Is there a sure-fire method (other than suicide ), guaranteed to result in a faith-promoting experience?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:life is too precious to waste on anything that would turn out to be a myth.
Especially if that myth leads you to believe there's no God, that we're alone in the universe, with no one to answer to but ourselves, and no one to turn to for help - and that when this life ends you're going to wink out of existence, which causes you great distress to think about, but you can't understand why anyone would or could choose to believe anything other than your myth ...
I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, but since whether or not there is a God is not provable by scientific standards, then His non-existence is just as likely to be a myth as His existence. Which means we're back to what we choose to believe, based on the evidence we've seen as we interpret it.
To call that life "wasted" that is lived according to faith is insulting, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the meaning of faith.
There are more and better things I want to say, but it takes me a while to figure out how to say them. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:life is too precious to waste on anything that would turn out to be a myth.
Why? If a belief turns out to be false, the believer and the non-believer both end up in the same situation - nonexistence. However, if a belief turns out to be true, then the believer has a significant advantage over the nonbeliever.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When there is no earthly power forcing a decision on you, and there's no way to find the answer anyway, why would you even make the decision?
There are a few earthly powers that make people choose religion namely, its what "everyone" is doing, humanity's need and creation of a god caused by the fear that lays within, people's acceptance of what religious authorities say be it human or book just cause, and there are many more reasons. There seems to be a need in the human psyche to have a higher power, something more than what is right in front of you. If anything religous type thinking might be genetic. I don't in that case I am a mutant. I see it this way, all the religions say they are the one the only one. That they are the only right ones. With few exceptions like Buddhism or something. I see it that they can't all be right, so they are all wrong. They were creations of the human mind to fill in a gap which cannot be filled. People want bliss, heaven, perfection etc... People like that will always be neurotic. Seeing that no such things exists. If you were too experience something like that for real you'd OD. And why the hell would you kill somebody for something you cannot prove. Religious wars reveal man's greatest down fall. His ability to believe in things he has no proof of. Now hope is usually seen as a good thing. But to be in a state of hope is for someone to be in a needy, fearful state wishing for something. to be true. My question is why do we need, why do we hope for a God so badly?
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lifewish, I get the feeling you are describing from intriguing science (and math) as well. But I see that as evidence FOR God, not against him.
After all, math and science are the language of the universe He created. More insight into them is more insight into Him.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There seems to be a need in the human psyche to have a higher power, something more than what is right in front of you.
I disagree. Rather, I'd say that there seems to be a need in the human psyche to create meaning out of the things seen and experienced, to believe that we are more than just a collection of organic materials that will eventually breakdown into nonexistence, to believe that humanity is more than just a brief and meaningless, random occurrence amidst the vast and empty sea of galaxies. I don't see that such a belief is a sign of being "neurotic."
quote:Seeing that no such things exists.
I don't know what qualifies you to make such a statement.
quote:But to be in a state of hope is for someone to be in a needy, fearful state wishing for something. to be true.
Take out the words "needy" and "fearful" and I would agree with you.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I make the point that it's more difficult to prove a negative than a positive?
It's at least as difficult, if not more so, to prove God doesn't exist as to prove that He does. Those who believe He does have some evidence for it. If others don't see the same evidence the same way, that lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence. So if we were to look at it from a neutral viewpoint (which is almost impossible), neither position is "obviously" right.
Calling people names is not helpful in making either point, and in fact hurts your own ... because you can't come up with a better reason to disbelieve in God than to call believers names. Too many of us know people on both sides who know how to think, who are NOT neurotic, to believe that "all religious people are neurotic" or "all atheists are just blind."
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. Rather, I'd say that there seems to be a need in the human psyche to create meaning out of the things seen and experienced, to believe that we are more than just a collection of organic materials that will eventually breakdown into nonexistence, to believe that humanity is more than just a brief and meaningless, random occurrence amidst the vast and empty sea of galaxies. I don't see that such a belief is a sign of being "neurotic."
I was being general, what I said is pretty much what you said. As far as the neurotic part I gotta a little ADDed out for a second. Too be more specific I was calling people who seek bliss, permanent bliss in this life and in the next neurotic. I have never seen anyone in this life in a permanent bliss. We've all had our shares of blisses. What I am trying to say is why can't we happy with what is right in front of us. I would agree with you when you say I have no position to speak about there being a heaven or bliss after death. But I think nobody as of now does either.
Whatever, when you want something, when you hope for it. Why do you want it? Your scared of not having it. But then again whats wrong with fear. It helps us survive, and motivates us to improve etc...
Oh yeah, I am not an atheist or religious person. And when I call seekers of bliss neurotic I am calling my self one too, and a lot of people that. It is natural for us to want to feel good but some just get carried away.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Subhuman: I see it this way, all the religions say they are the one the only one. That they are the only right ones. With few exceptions like Buddhism or something. I see it that they can't all be right, so they are all wrong.
That is irrational.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's true, they can't all be right. It's possible that they could all be wrong, or that one of them can be right. And it's mine, of course. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe there is a God. So what? What different does it make? None. Who cares whos right? Who wins this argument and that one(though it can be fun at times). You believe, you don't believe, you strongly disbelieve whatever. If miracles happen maybe God did them. Maybe they are just normal occurences of the universe. Maybe there are certain physical laws that can explain this and that.
And yes it is hard to believe that all this universe is or ever was wasn't created(so we make up an answer or find one). If it wasn't created how can it be here (so we make up creation and a creator)? When was it created it couldn't have always existed(so we make up a when)?
All I can say is if someone is right... They're a hell of guesser.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I can say is if someone is right... They're a hell of guesser.
Or maybe the creator told us.
Off topic: How old are you?
Edit to add: I think I'm done posting in this thread, but before I leave I just want to mention that I loved your posts JennaDean. Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay... Okay... I am 5 years old. But your argueing with me so what does that make you? You should just ignore what I said as child rubbish.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
JennaDean
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), guaranteed to result in a faith-promoting experience?
