aidan
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 02:50 am
@failures art,
Fri 12 Nov, 2010 08:01 am
@failures art,

Quote:
Do you believe I have a misconception? I am (1) speaking from real experience) and (2) I can speak as a person who once believed in these things.


And I acknowledged that this could certainly be your valid experience when I replied three pages ago and said:
Quote:
I can't say that this isn't true - that it hasn't indeed been your experience that has led you to believe that you saying 'I don't believe in any gods' is received by believers as you saying, 'I don't believe you have any value'- but that has never been my experience of the believers that I know.


But when you say things like:
Quote:
We only believe in the supernatural beings that promise us things, and typically the ones the promise us the grandest of things.


All I can think is, 'Who's we?' Because it aint me - and I'm supposed to be the believer. I didn't think it could be you - because you say you're an atheist/agnostic (I'm not sure which)...so yeah, who are you speaking for?

And it does make it sound as if you think believers are a little shallow.

And if you really care to know - I could die in the next ten minutes and be buried under the cold, dark earth for eternity never seeing the light of day again, and I'd be happy with what I was given.
My belief is about what I already got - LIFE- THIS life - it's about gratefulness for that and everything I see around me - it's not about piles of treasure and streets paved with gold that I'm just sitting here hankering to reach some sweet day...Jesus! is that what people really believe ALL belief is about and ALL believers believe?
And maybe some do - maybe you did. But don't include ME in that by saying, WE.
Or else I'll have to respond on this atheism thread
Laughing Laughing Laughing

And the crack about the unicorns wasn't meant to be complimentary either.
That sounded as if you think all believers are a little stupid.

You may or may not have misconceptions about religion itself - but I think you communicate that you have the misconception that you might be able to peg ALL believers and what they believe.

That could have been cleared up by saying, 'When I was a believer, my friends and I believed thus and such ' or 'I have known people who believed that if I didn't have my belief, I was of no value'

That's all I was trying to say.
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 04:40 am
@Intrepid,
Quote:
You have indicated that I am not welcome


This is paranoid bullshit--i said no such thing. Everything which succeeds it in your post is equally false. Grow up.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 05:09 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I just observed that the thread was about the experiences of atheists, and that that is something a theist would not be able to comment on.


A theist is perfectly in order to point out that the experience of atheists is conditioned by the culture they live in. The experience would be radically different in a Christian culture from that in an atheist culture. In the former it is the experience of the "odd one out", a dissident, and in the latter of a conformist. Socrates was accused of being an atheist.

Atheism in a Christian culture is completely different from atheism in an atheistic culture. The thread has no point in the latter. It's existence is a recognition of Christianity.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 06:16 am
@cicerone imposter,
Spendi has apparently had a good week on the NFL "sock pick". He has no idea that there is an even greater amount of Americans who get their jollies by watching cars go around a big circle every two weeks in the summer.
Fooball is the result of marketing thats been screwing spectacle.
failures art
 
  3  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 08:13 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

But when you say things like:
Quote:
We only believe in the supernatural beings that promise us things, and typically the ones the promise us the grandest of things.


All I can think is, 'Who's we?' Because it aint me - and I'm supposed to be the believer. I didn't think it could be you - because you say you're an atheist/agnostic (I'm not sure which)...so yeah, who are you speaking for?

Look closer aidan. It is us. Literally us. You, aidan. Myself, Art.

Are you saying that you believe in unsubstantiated supernatural beings that offer humans nothing? Name a single one. You cannot. Nobody is interested in the possibility of beings of no consequence, and yet a being of no-consequence is no less possible than one of ultimate signifigance. So why only argue for the existence of the ones that are potent and interested in the activities of a single species (conveniently ours)?

We (society) have never shown the slightest interest in proving that powerless silent invisible beings exist. Groups of humans have over time very passionately defended their belief in specific omnipotent silent invisible beings.

Do you disagree? Even the belief in Santa and the Tooth fairy is based on some sort of material human reward. Do you believe in any powerless beings? What about ultra powerful beings that have no interest in humans? Do you believe in any of those? This isn't personal psychology, it's sociology. When you examine what people believe and don't care to believe, it's not that unexpected.

aidan wrote:

And it does make it sound as if you think believers are a little shallow.

Religious beliefs are shallow.

It can hardly be considered otherwise. If I was to eat for the first time an apple and then declare it to be the greatest apple ever, such a conclusion would be shallow. If I was to sample a few apples first before making this declaration, it would be less shallow perhaps.

That might sting, but that's how I feel. I can hardly view any belief based solely on emotion and no evidence to support to have the slightest of depth.

aidan wrote:

And if you really care to know - I could die in the next ten minutes and be buried under the cold, dark earth for eternity never seeing the light of day again, and I'd be happy with what I was given.
My belief is about what I already got - LIFE- THIS life - it's about gratefulness for that and everything I see around me - it's not about piles of treasure and streets paved with gold that I'm just sitting here hankering to reach some sweet day...Jesus! is that what people really believe ALL belief is about and ALL believers believe?

A believer doesn't have to believe in great treasure. The simplistic notion that a being exists that is all powerful but we (humans) capture it's full attention is pure egoism and all that is needed for and air of entitlement.

aidan wrote:

And maybe some do - maybe you did. But don't include ME in that by saying, WE.
Or else I'll have to respond on this atheism thread

I didn't misspeak. I do mean to include you. I do believe you do exhibit these things.

I'm very fond of your posts and I greatly enjoy your insight aidan. In your postings, and from what you've declared about your interest in "misconceptions" about believers, I can't help but feel like you are very much observing the same things that I am and even feeling the same things. I also feel like you wish to somehow stand out as different. You are different in many ways, but in the fundamental ways that define believer, you're very much the same. You may not have radical orthodox (forgive the contradictions in terms. Substitute "extreme" for "radical" if it is better) beliefs, but you do believe in a divine authority. What's the difference? The difference is that even if you don't believe that a god wants you to stone someone, you believe that they could. Do you deny this relationship?

aidan wrote:

And the crack about the unicorns wasn't meant to be complimentary either.
That sounded as if you think all believers are a little stupid.

Not stupid--selective. Not a little--a lot.

I'm very serious. It's not a crack. Tell me why you do or don't believe in unicorns. Why is a belief in a unicorn more stupid than a belief in gods? You believe that the belief in a unicorn is stupid, or did I read you incorrectly above? Certainly, we will agree that unicorn is less powerful than a god and fewer claims have been made to actions supposedly performed by unicorns. So wouldn't the unicorn be more of a rational belief than the belief in gods? Isn't there less to defend and verify? The more claims and the greater the power attributed to a being, the great the burden becomes.

Watch. If I said...

"I met a girl on Thursday."

There's a good chance you'd believe me. Certainly girls exist. Certainly Thursdays exist.

"I met a red-headed girl on Thursday."

You'd still probably believe me, but the knowledge that the girl was red-headed makes the meeting more rare and thus more specific. Red-heads exist, so still within the realm of possibilities.

"I met a red-headed girl who speaks Spanish on Thursday"

While still possible, at this point you should note that the addition of more claims has made my claim less likely than my original claim of simply meeting a girl on Thursday.

"I met a psychic red-headed girl who speaks Spanish on Thursday."
"I met a psychic red-headed girl who can fly and speaks Spanish on Thursday."

The second claim has a greater burden than the first. So on and so on.

So while you may find it "stupid" to believe in a unicorn, you don't find it stupid to believe in a god. This is tantamount to saying that the belief in the flying psychic red-head is perfectly rational, but the suggestion of the psychic redhead that was land-bound is somehow stupid. you've inversed the relationship. The belief in a unicorn is less shallow.

aidan wrote:

You may or may not have misconceptions about religion itself - but I think you communicate that you have the misconception that you might be able to peg ALL believers and what they believe.

I'm willing to let that be challenged. Specifically, do you accept that there are common denominators in what believers believe? I can't imagine that you'd argue there aren't.

aidan wrote:

That could have been cleared up by saying, 'When I was a believer, my friends and I believed thus and such ' or 'I have known people who believed that if I didn't have my belief, I was of no value'

That's all I was trying to say.

I don't know how to compromise here aidan. I don't think I'm overstating my case. Snood agreed that the belief in god was directly tied into his own self value. He went further than I did in expressing the degree in which he felt the two integrated. Do you disagree? Does your belief in god have no relationship to your self image/value? You are a Christian, yes? Do you disagree with Christian teachings that claim humans are divinely special?

A
R
T
Lash
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 09:26 am
@failures art,
Brilliant explanation and model for speaking clearly, kindly and still causing insult! Really impressed with your post, Art!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 09:38 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Fooball is the result of marketing thats been screwing spectacle.


It amuses me fm, sprawled across the sofa being pampered, watching blokes busting a gut, and a bone often enough, to feed the shopping addictions of their squeezes. It's evolution in technicolour.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  3  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 03:03 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Look closer aidan. It is us. Literally us. You, aidan. Myself, Art.

Are you saying that you believe in unsubstantiated supernatural beings that offer humans nothing? Name a single one. You cannot. Nobody is interested in the possibility of beings of no consequence, and yet a being of no-consequence is no less possible than one of ultimate signifigance. So why only argue for the existence of the ones that are potent and interested in the activities of a single species (conveniently ours)?

We (society) have never shown the slightest interest in proving that powerless silent invisible beings exist. Groups of humans have over time very passionately defended their belief in specific omnipotent silent invisible beings.

Do you disagree? Even the belief in Santa and the Tooth fairy is based on some sort of material human reward. Do you believe in any powerless beings? What about ultra powerful beings that have no interest in humans? Do you believe in any of those? This isn't personal psychology, it's sociology. When you examine what people believe and don't care to believe, it's not that unexpected.


I don't know how to explain this any clearer than I have. I do not have a name for the 'God' I believe in. I have no expectations of him/her in terms of saving my life if I'm in trouble or curing me of cancer if I get that, or keeping children safe from bombs, or providing a mansion for me in the sky.

Maybe this prayer will explain it more clearly

Quote:
Oh Great Spirit,
Whose voice I hear in the winds,

And whose breath gives life to all the world,
hear me!
I am small and weak,
I need your strength and wisdom.

Let me walk in beauty, and make my eyes
ever behold the red and purple sunset.
Make my hands respect the things you have made
and my ears sharp to hear your voice.

Make me wise so that I may understand the
things you have taught my people.
Let me learn the lessons you have hidden
in every leaf and rock.
I seek strength, not to be greater than my brother,
but to fight my greatest enemy – myself.
Make me always ready to come to you with
clean hands and straight eyes.
So when life fades, as the fading sunset
my spirit may come to you
without shame.
–Chief Yellow Lark, Lakota Tribe


I think 'God' is in all of us - it's just a matter of whether or not we acknowledge that - in other words to whom or what we attribute goodness, kindness and/or love.

I call that part of all of us that is good - God- and I put it on a higher plane.
I don't take it for granted - I worship it.

Quote:
Religious beliefs are shallow.

It can hardly be considered otherwise. If I was to eat for the first time an apple and then declare it to be the greatest apple ever, such a conclusion would be shallow. If I was to sample a few apples first before making this declaration, it would be less shallow perhaps.

That might sting, but that's how I feel. I can hardly view any belief based solely on emotion and no evidence to support to have the slightest of depth.

Yeah - some religious beliefs are shallow. That doesn't sting me - but I don't base my belief solely on emotion.
I have thought about it long and hard.
And my belief doesn't lead me to negate scientific evidence for evolution or deny man's great intelligence and power for both good and evil...if anything the wonder and intricacy of all of it reinforces my belief.

Quote:
A believer doesn't have to believe in great treasure. The simplistic notion that a being exists that is all powerful but we (humans) capture it's full attention is pure egoism and all that is needed for and air of entitlement.

My great treasure is here and now - life - this opportunity I've been given.

Quote:
I'm very fond of your posts and I greatly enjoy your insight aidan. In your postings, and from what you've declared about your interest in "misconceptions" about believers, I can't help but feel like you are very much observing the same things that I am and even feeling the same things. I also feel like you wish to somehow stand out as different. You are different in many ways, but in the fundamental ways that define believer, you're very much the same. You may not have radical orthodox (forgive the contradictions in terms. Substitute "extreme" for "radical" if it is better) beliefs, but you do believe in a divine authority. What's the difference? The difference is that even if you don't believe that a god wants you to stone someone, you believe that they could. Do you deny this relationship?

That's very nice of you to say. The feeling is reciprocal. I think you're a very kind and thoughtful poster. That's why I engage in conversation with you. If I didn't think you were, I'd shake my head and pass right over what you said.

I think I don't really believe in a divine 'authority' so much as I believe in a divine 'giver'.
The God that I believe in and know would not want me or anyone else to stone anyone.
I call myself a Christian because that is my background and heritage and I think Christ provided a good example - but probably most Christians wouldn't think I was a very good Christian, which speaks to this:
Quote:
I don't know how to compromise here aidan. I don't think I'm overstating my case. Snood agreed that the belief in god was directly tied into his own self value. He went further than I did in expressing the degree in which he felt the two integrated. Do you disagree? Does your belief in god have no relationship to your self image/value? You are a Christian, yes? Do you disagree with Christian teachings that claim humans are divinely special?

I do believe that all humans are divinely special and have been given great gifts that they can use for either good or evil.
But my brand of belief demands humility. I don't think I am any more or less important than any human being on earth. That's what my religious upbringing taught me - humility - not entitlement:
This is the brainwashing I received:
Quote:
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me."

"Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?"

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."


And BECAUSE I know where I learned it - I can't pretend that I learned it somewhere else.
It's as simple as that. I have to honor it.

And I believe in a creator and not unicorns because I see and revel in the creation every day.
I can't tell you who/what created it - and neither can you - even if no one did - I worship the creation.

I just believe in giving credit where credit is due.
You know that's pretty much it. Sorry for the Sunday School lesson on the atheism threat - but you DID ask.
Now, go in peace my brother...
Laughing Laughing
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 03:12 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
No Coward Soul Is Mine (1848) Emily Bronte. (She was born too soon and I was born too late--blame it on the simple twist of fate.)

With wide-embracing love
Thy Spirit animates eternal years,
Pervades and broods above,
Changes, sustains, dissolves, creates, and rears.
There is not room for Death,
Nor atom that his might could render void:
Thou — Thou art Being and Breath,
And what Thou art may never be destroyed.

No coward soul is mine,
No trembler in the world's storm-troubled sphere:
I see Heaven's glories shine,
And Faith shines equal, arming me from Fear.

O God within my breast,
Almighty, ever-present Deity!
Life — that in me has rest,
As I — undying Life — have power in Thee!

* Vain are the thousand creeds
That move men's hearts: unutterably vain;
Worthless as withered weeds,
Or idlest froth amid the boundless main…

* With wide-embracing love
Thy Spirit animates eternal years,
Pervades and broods above,
Changes, sustains, dissolves, creates, and rears.

* Though earth and moon were gone,
And suns and universes ceased to be,
And Thou wert left alone,
Every existence would exist in Thee.

* There is not room for Death,
Nor atom that his might could render void:
Thou — Thou art Being and Breath,
And what Thou art may never be destroyed.


failures art
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 03:17 pm
@aidan,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and for not drawing unnecessary offense. We've stated how we feel. I'll only be repeating myself to retort further. Peace to you as well.

A
R
T
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 03:18 pm
Quote:
He comes with western winds, with evening's wandering airs,
With that clear dusk of heaven that brings the thickest stars.
Winds take a pensive tone, and stars a tender fire,
And visions rise, and change, that kill me with desire.


Imagine Emily declaiming that on a grassy bank of a pool on Haworth moor of a late sultry summer evening.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 03:21 pm
@spendius,
Yep.
aidan
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 03:23 pm
@failures art,
Thank you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 03:25 pm
@farmerman,
Not only cars going around in circles, but those events that purposely crash cars for the fun of it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 04:16 pm
@aidan,
It's what I take George Steiner to mean when he says-

Quote:
I will put forward the argument that the experience of aesthetic meaning in particular, that of literature, of the arts, of musical form, infers the necessary possibility of this 'real presence'. The seeming paradox of a 'necessary posibility' is very precisely, that which the poem, the painting, the musical composition are at liberty to explore and to enact.


"A wager on transcendence" he calls it. With consequences for the ones taking it. And railway timetable and instruction manual language are on the other end of the bet.

That's what atheism is pitted against and not any fundamentalists who have managed to get a story in a newspaper.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 04:40 pm
I personally blame war on the fact the human is a territorial animal. Other territorial animals do not have the benefit of human imagination. We create territories that may not in fact exist in the physical world, but the imagination is vast beyond comprehension. So, we have more causes for war than any other animal that ever existed. I rate religion one such territory. To me it explains why people feel threatened by atheism and alien religions. I have no way of knowing how many other imaginary causes there are, but we have too many wars for there to not be more. We have evolved the brains to abhor war, but we are are wired to accept it. The best way to end real war seems to me to engage in mock wars. Sports can be held as one example, but not the only approach. I haven't the brain or education to lay out a realistic scenario.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 04:43 pm
@edgarblythe,
Actually, there are animals who piss around an area to stake it out as his own. I'm sure there are other insects and such that does similar things.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 06:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Actually, there are animals who piss around an area to stake it out as his own. I'm sure there are other insects and such that does similar things.

During the late 20Th Century, there was a great to-do about comparative studies of animals and humans. Many animals are territorial, and the researchers seemed to put humans in that category. Loren Eiseley was, I believe, involved in some of that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 06:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
That's my understanding from what little I know about the subject. I remember our driver-guide on an African safari telling us about animal territory, and how they will defend it.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 13 Nov, 2010 07:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What an education foreign travel is eh?
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 130
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 10:44:31