Eugene39 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Quote: Again, I am not comfortable with throwing out an "I don't know." That was an answer for a lot of things in Christianity, and "I don't know" kept me hanging on to a faith that was only faith. I refuse to accept that anymore. I'm going off my own reasoning and the evidence that I have studied. Uncertainty is no easy out anymore. Hi, StickWitch. Been watching all this with interest because I'm in the process of trying to "figure it all out" also. Fundamentalism has answers for every thing, except where the Bible says "1+1=2" in one place then "1+2=2" somewhere else - we must leave those as part of the "mystery of God" and faith, as they tell us. Part of leaving fundamentalism is the agony of realizing that we don't have all the answers. One real good thing about leaving fundamentalism is that we don't have to try to explain the contradictions of the Bible. Does God exist? If yes, then is "he" above our understanding? Is "he" God as portrayed in deism? I don't know, but am trying to come to a conclusion myself. I'm comfortable now with separating the God of the Bible away from any concept of God as described in free-thinking. I'm very comfortable now with saying that morality doesn't come from the Bible. I'm getting to the point that I believe empathy (and other good traits of people) come from our evolutionary process. To me, if you start down the road of saying that empathy, etc. come from god, then what do you attribute the bad things that people do to: can you leave it as selfishness or is it the devil or the sin nature (that we need a savior to help us with) - see where this goes? Here's how I'm coming to grips with some of this. For example, a lot of science is what would be best described as the best idea we have now of what we see happening. Everything about life is filled with uncertainty. Will you be alive tomorrow? Will you be healthy tomorrow? Will your possessions still be in existence tomorrow? On and on and on. My point is this: We don't know!!! Given our upbringing about religion, putting it also in the "I don't know" category is terribly hard. Best wishes to you in your searching - from a fellow seeker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Atheists are scared of thinking there's nothing I, for one, am afraid of thinking about. That I think and come up with different answers than you do is just your tough fucking luck, but put away your simpleminded, reactionary bullshit. This is the Colosseum. Keep this sort of language and rhetoric in check in your posts or they will be deleted in here. Edit: Correction, I've read through this thread and unapproved all but one of your posts. Follow the rules of this forum or you'll be put on mod preview for all future posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 It is not meaningless, it is trying to make sense on a cosmic scale of why there is such a thing as the objective world and why there are living entities like ourselves who can have a subjective relationship with objects. Unanswerable and therefore irrelevant. True. It IS indeed meaningless, at least to me, because it's just speculation that has no basis in anything that can be observed and tested in the world as we know it. I could come up with my own nebulous definition of a god (and I used to when I was a child), but what's the point? I'm fine admitting that organized religion is all absolute BS, that there may be "something," that neither I anyone else knows what that something is, and that ultimately it makes no difference in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 It is not meaningless, it is trying to make sense on a cosmic scale of why there is such a thing as the objective world and why there are living entities like ourselves who can have a subjective relationship with objects. Unanswerable and therefore irrelevant. True. It IS indeed meaningless, at least to me, because it's just speculation that has no basis in anything that can be observed and tested in the world as we know it. I've been wanting to add my own thoughts to this discussion but haven't had the time to put something together that's adequate. I can however briefly respond to this point of it being, "just speculation that has no basis in anything that can be observed and tested in the world as we know it." I would disagree with this on quite a number of levels. First it is in fact quite relevant by the fact that people do interpret the world in higher and more meaningful ways all the time. That you conclude it is "unanswerable", has the ring of, "If man were meant to fly, he'd have been born with wings!," to it. Secondly, these "speculations", in many cases are coming from a place of either deep intuition, or direct experience with those 'higher, or deeper, or transcendent' realms of the world within, that subjective space of the total being. At which point then, the language is an attempt to express some level of existential knowledge, and is therefore not a mere metaphysical speculation of some unknown. To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. It is to look to the outside only for the answers that can only be found inwardly, and what is subjective, is in fact not objective. When you say that only the objective world is real, you are in fact making a speculation yourself, and one not supported by a careful observation, I might add. Humans don't live in any way that supports your speculation, in fact they live entirely contrary to that. I could come up with my own nebulous definition of a god (and I used to when I was a child), but what's the point? I'm fine admitting that organized religion is all absolute BS, that there may be "something," that neither I anyone else knows what that something is, and that ultimately it makes no difference in my life. If it makes no difference in your life than you simple choose to not pursue that path for yourself, as I might not care to pursue being an athlete. But to those who have that in them to pursue what they feel is a greater and higher sense of self, to the point of becoming one with the Universe itself, then 'religion' may have its place for personal development reasons. Not all religion is "BS" as you so eloquently put it. Some is in fact negative, but some can be used as a set of tools for oneself to use in pursuit of individual spiritual development. But as with any human organization, humans can get in the way. I think it's important to make distinctions what you mean when you say "religion". You can look at my topic in this forum called "What is Religion?" to see some of those distinctions. For myself I would say that I do "know something". That I might, or frankly would be unable to give some concrete parameters and definitions of something experiential on a transcendent level, firstly would contradict it as such by thinking we can look down at it and point to it as some object. In my language, it is both Subject and Object, in a non-dual Oneness. It is impossible frankly to even call it God, as that makes it an object. It is not a being, an entity, but Being Itself. You cannot point to it like a mountain and look at it, as it is depth itself, fathomless, beyond description. It is Ocean. As you can see, this sounds all "nebulous", but it's not really. In fact in the subjective itself, it is in fact pure clarity, all dissolves and is fulfilled in God and beyond God. These are all words to describe something that transcends reason itself, without denying it. To say we are at the top of our game mentally with our rationality and science, is as religious in thought as those who claim the true god Jehovah is the one truth, when that speculation was at the top of game for that time over it's earlier predecessors, who themselves thought they had the true method of knowledge. And so it goes..... Now I could go on for about 20 pages with this, but I hope that offers something of value to the discussion. (BTW, I don't agree with Itassio that this is all some dream in the mind of God or some illusion of mind. It is reality, and where we are is simply in opening and expose what that is to greater and deeper degrees. It's all language to talk about something that transcends all understanding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Why I believe there is a god? Why do you believe in which god? A half definition doesn't help. Just some mind, yes can be called god, but it suits no real explanation, outside of things, we don't have a real clue on understanding yet. Its argument from ignorance. But regardless of that. What purpose does the definition serve. I agree with ignostics that say we need to have a correct definition of a god, before we can even debate such a thing. So before we say is there a god we have to answer what is a god. I can say with reasonable(I don't believe in absolute certainty on anything) that the theistic idea of god, argued for within what we know of as religion don't exist. But some generic theistic or even deistic god. Both are undisprovable, partially because of how slippery of a ground the ideas stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 ... Now I could go on for about 20 pages with this ... Please don't feel obligated on my behalf. I should just have mentally filed this thread under "of no interest to me" and moved on. Forgive me for posting a contrary comment. OK,backing out now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 ... Now I could go on for about 20 pages with this ... Please don't feel obligated on my behalf. I should just have mentally filed this thread under "of no interest to me" and moved on. Forgive me for posting a contrary comment. OK,backing out now. Oh for crying out loud. By all means have your own opinion - if that's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. No, it isn't. I'm out too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. No, it isn't. I'm out too. Is that why you posted, because you're "out" as you so confidently assert in your not caring?? Silly. You were out before you entered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I guess it all depends on how you define 'god,' really. In this case I'm defining him as some sort of creator; an absolute mind, transcendental. No, it doesn't 'all' depend on that, I think that's just preemptively striking out comments on this. I haven't actually tried to put this all down in text before, so it might be fuzzy or unclear. I see it in my head all well enough, it's just communicating it that's the problem. Anyway. There's the whole "Where did the universe come from?" question, the "You can't have a cause without a causer" dealio. The main response I've heard to this is "Well where did God come from?" If God transcends time... then that question is moot. at some point it HAD to have a beginning (If you dispute this point I'm willing to go into that as well). Quantum mechanics does not disprove causality, or operate outside its laws. This is a simple property of time, and until scientists begin to figure out how to operate outside of time, I think I'm pretty safe in my assumptions here. I'm going to elaborate on the first responses a bit. If God transcends time, then there never was any 'creation' of the time point. This implies, though, that for an absolute mind to create/spawn/exist with time, time could not be special. By implication we can also reason that all physicality, logic, and dimension, is absolute and inevitable. Another, less... 'logical' I guess you could say, is the idea of souls. If I assume that human beings are the natural evolved product of biology, then I must assume that human beings are 100% physical. I don't want to come to this conclusion The third reason I believe in god is abiogenesis. I have to admit that I didnt read all the responses-- but here is my 2 cents worth. (Speaking neither for or against God) Value being attributed to a soul only is misguided. If we are only biology as products of evolution-- then we are the best edition (even if flawed) in the process of evolution. The fact that we are here is demonstrates our inherent value. Why would you think that there needed to be a beginning. Trace a circle with your finger and tell me where it starts? Are you still making and justifying some assumptions? Model your self as the flower not the bee. The flower has no agenda and sees things for what they are. Let the truth rise to the surface. The evidence of assumption and prejudice is in the statement "there has to be". That is the will speaking. There doesn't have to be anything--- There just is 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I Love Dog Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Value being attributed to a soul only is misguided. If we are only biology as products of evolution-- then we are the best edition (even if flawed) in the process of evolution. The fact that we are here is demonstrates our inherent value. Why would you think that there needed to be a beginning. Trace a circle with your finger and tell me where it starts? Are you still making and justifying some assumptions? Model your self as the flower not the bee. The flower has no agenda and sees things for what they are. Let the truth rise to the surface. The evidence of assumption and prejudice is in the statement "there has to be". That is the will speaking. There doesn't have to be anything--- There just is Well, now that is common-sense indeed! There doesn't have to be. There just is, how true. Thank you sincerely, J.W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 ... Now I could go on for about 20 pages with this ... Please don't feel obligated on my behalf. I should just have mentally filed this thread under "of no interest to me" and moved on. Forgive me for posting a contrary comment. OK,backing out now. Oh for crying out loud. By all means have your own opinion - if that's possible. Well, of course, I have my own opinion, as is not only possible but also highly probable. Whose opinion should I have? Yours? Now, to be honest, I suspect you didn't mean to sound so offensive. I know you are no fundamentalist who typically insults people who hold different beliefs. Your posts are usually wise and compassionate, so this one took me aback. Oh well, I guess even smart people can have bad days and make regrettable posts. I apologized for mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. No, it isn't. I'm out too. The subjective is entirely indispensible. There is no understanding of the objective world without a subjective world within which to mirror it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. No, it isn't. I'm out too. The subjective is entirely indispensible. There is no understanding of the objective world without a subjective world within which to mirror it. Bingo. And the evolving ways in which we represent it says something about the nature of the subjective itself, and beyond. The "real" world is subjectively framed, by that subjective self. To not try to understand that as much as we do the objective world is a rather lopsided affair and understanding of reality. The interesting thing seems that with such an emphasis on the 'objective' world, the sense of subjective self becomes lost to the point it seems more an illusion or fantasy, not to be trusted but submitted to the belief that facts are in fact, facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Some of us don't believe because we can imagine more answers than just "God." QFT applause - can I steal that et al... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. No, it isn't. I'm out too. The subjective is entirely indispensible. There is no understanding of the objective world without a subjective world within which to mirror it. Bingo. And the evolving ways in which we represent it says something about the nature of the subjective itself, and beyond. The "real" world is subjectively framed, by that subjective self. To not try to understand that as much as we do the objective world is a rather lopsided affair and understanding of reality. The interesting thing seems that with such an emphasis on the 'objective' world, the sense of subjective self becomes lost to the point it seems more an illusion or fantasy, not to be trusted but submitted to the belief that facts are in fact, facts. blah blah blah. I have no need of being lectured by anyone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 blah blah blah. I have no need of being lectured by anyone. I've seen A-man lecture, but this does not strike me as one of them. Imagination is richer than reason. And it's been a long hard search for mathematicians to find formal systems (constructs of the imagination) which have the requisite balance between richness and rigor to mirror the natural world. In fact, they are still engaged in such a search even now. I think A-man makes some valid observations here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. No, it isn't. I'm out too. The subjective is entirely indispensible. There is no understanding of the objective world without a subjective world within which to mirror it. Exactly, but I think one has to reach a certain level of self awareness to truly understand this. Because this often requires truly understanding that we don't have all the answers, some people will never get there because that concept makes them feel too uncomfortable. Personally I love the feel of letting certainties go....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Some of us don't believe because we can imagine more answers than just "God." QFT applause - can I steal that et al... You can steal it as much as you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I've been tempted to express my disagreement with Antlerman, but I think we did enough of that in another thread. We're not going to ever agree on the validity of using subjective experiences to find truth, but he seems to be good-to-go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 To say the subjective is irrelevant is to deny exactly one half of yourself. No, it isn't. I'm out too. The subjective is entirely indispensible. There is no understanding of the objective world without a subjective world within which to mirror it. Bingo. And the evolving ways in which we represent it says something about the nature of the subjective itself, and beyond. The "real" world is subjectively framed, by that subjective self. To not try to understand that as much as we do the objective world is a rather lopsided affair and understanding of reality. The interesting thing seems that with such an emphasis on the 'objective' world, the sense of subjective self becomes lost to the point it seems more an illusion or fantasy, not to be trusted but submitted to the belief that facts are in fact, facts. blah blah blah. I have no need of being lectured by anyone. You're like what? 15? All this distresses you, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I've been tempted to express my disagreement with Antlerman, but I think we did enough of that in another thread. We're not going to ever agree on the validity of using subjective experiences to find truth, but he seems to be good-to-go. So why don't you believe that monkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I've been tempted to express my disagreement with Antlerman, but I think we did enough of that in another thread. We're not going to ever agree on the validity of using subjective experiences to find truth, but he seems to be good-to-go. So why don't you believe that monkey? At the risk of getting into another long drawn out debate, I simply do not trust that feelings or experiences that are completely in our heads can lead to any truths to any reasonable degree of reliability. That doesn't mean they are useless, just not relevant to discovering truth. While I strongly doubt it, perhaps if I had the same experiences as Antlerman, I would believe differently. I am very much a rationalist, but I don't think the sky is going to fall just because others aren't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I've been tempted to express my disagreement with Antlerman, but I think we did enough of that in another thread. We're not going to ever agree on the validity of using subjective experiences to find truth, but he seems to be good-to-go. So why don't you believe that monkey? At the risk of getting into another long drawn out debate, I simply do not trust that feelings or experiences that are completely in our heads can lead to any truths to any reasonable degree of reliability. That doesn't mean they are useless, just not relevant to discovering truth. While I strongly doubt it, perhaps if I had the same experiences as Antlerman, I would believe differently. I am very much a rationalist, but I don't think the sky is going to fall just because others aren't. What is it about your own perceptions that you don't trust, and does that mean that every truth is extrinsic in order to be believeable to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Speaking for myself only, I don't trust subjectivity it, has proven me wrong more times then not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts