Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'll say this to make this make any sense at all. This type of evidence is not useful to you because you have no way of knowing whether such things exist, I get that, and so they can't get you any closer to taking a stance from not believing to believing. All I'm really trying to point out is that people's observations lend credit to something being the case, in this scenario I'm only asking that you take it into consideration as a means of identifying a possibility. Now if I point out the numbers involved throughout human history you will just counter that by reminding me of "ad populum fallacy", but this isn't about beliefs this is about observations. Beliefs and observations are two distinct things so in this case looking at the massive amount of experience within the spiritual arena is somewhat useful, because again it lends credit where we wish to know if something is true or if something exists. If one or two people in human history made claims of experiences then we could say it's probably a waste of time, but that's nowhere even close to the truth.
With NDE's it's the same thing....we're not talking about beliefs but about observations even though we are dealing with testimonials. For example, if it is true that the soul exists independent of the physical body we should have examples of the soul leaving the physical body at least through someone's personal observations. We have plenty of this type of observation, through NDE's, spiritual experience, paranormal encounters along with religious claims. And so we can't prove anything of course but as this adds up it would indicate that it's possible or even probable and so we have evidence that lends credit to that proposal.
We can't take these observations and duplicate them or demonstrate them because we have no physical base to examine but we have to at least consider such observations as evidence, because that is how testimonials are defined. As a matter of fact I can point out that a testimony is defined as "evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something" and that we have more evidence for this topic than any other phenomenon. Would it change your mind? doubtfully because you don't find it a reasonable possibility within your personal evaluation of the world. But by pointing this out to you hopefully you might be willing to consider that your personal evaluation of the world could be limited or restricted, and so don't be so sure about that.
This is all in attempt to get you to consider possibilities in a convincing manner. Variations of course are a feature of creation so variations of experiences should not prevent anyone from seriously considering them. After all, if nothing exists then no one could experience it but if something does exist then there should be correlating observations and we have that by the boat loads.
Again, since I don't have the burden of having to prove something to myself I can take my own experience and cross reference them through many other sources. Even if I never had an experience or observation I could do the same thing and make an estimation of probability. This is how testimonials are used and really it's no different with spiritual experience other than the nature of what we're dealing with. I understand that most people scoff at such experiences but I'm hoping to get people more interested, there's a huge data base of documentaries and records of events that should be considered when considering if anything exists outside the normally perceived physical experience.
"Research has found that eyewitness-identification testimony can be very unreliable. Law enforcement and the courts should follow the recommendations of social scientists when using and assessing eyewitness techniques, such as lineups, in criminal cases"The reason why eye witness is used in some cases is because in a lot of cases - first of all - it is not the only evidence being used here. The eye-witness testimony is secondary evidence, supporting details, to the primary evidence, the main idea.
This is correct, only we are restricted here by the nature of the events.. that's the ONLY stipulation. We're dealing with a phenomenon outside of what science and scientists can demonstrate or support. So that's why I mentioned cross referencing as a means of support, which means we have the added benefit of not considering one source but many.
The fact you can use examples that would suggest testimonies to be unreliable (at times) again....does NOTHING to the reality that they CAN be reliable. Either someone observed something or they did not, if we had no testimonial evidence we would have nothing to consider but if we do have testimonial evidence then we DO have something to consider whether you accept that or not. I'm not trying to convince you of anything here other than getting you to understand we have more than just ideas and concepts in Theism/spirituality, we have observations (rather than beliefs) about those ideas and concepts and where they originate. Spirituality is really based upon observation and not beliefs, whether that be yours or someone else's observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
That is a very good observation, because harmony is an overarching principle of creation. It should in theory be something every soul desires and abides in even though they don't. But it is irrelevant to what is supposed to be the case. When a soul acts outside that universal law they reap what they sow one way or another, they in essence trap themselves in less than perfect experiences until they line up with that principle.
So kudos to you for making it your foundation!
Created:
-->
@Wagyu
The argument from personal experience isn't very strong (or at least I believe). First off, how would you explain Muslims experiencing the Allah, or Ancient Egyptians sighting Osiris? Many people claim to have a personal experience with their God but the issue is that these sightings are common in any religion you encounter.
The vastness of creation allows for many types of spiritual experiences, not just one or two. That means that there's not just one source over another that can have legit experience. It also doesn't mean that everything someone invented is accurate, invention and observation are two separate things. It's also possible/probable that people could be observing the same reality but are just expressing that reality with different names and different interpretations, varying features ect ect.
Actually, personal experience is a very real and strong argument because it's based on first hand observations, people just don't know it yet...their objections are valid they just aren't relevant. They are unaware that variations are not an issue, they are in fact a feature of creation.
Because of the reality that there are countless societies that exist outside the immediate physical realm one can have many types of encounters. God understands that the soul will have many different and various interests and desires and so God accommodates that with God's eternal creative abilities. Whether or not Theists accept this phenomenon is irrelevant, what they say or believe about that has no real merit. So they can make claims that they believe this or that, or that their observations are the only "true" experience but those claims should be considered but then tossed aside...to put it bluntly. It's time for souls here to realize how magnificent and beautiful the variations of creation are and if they choose to abide in a particular culture and show reverence and love for that one culture it's okay, but stop being a racist religious thug, to put it bluntly. It is time for people to grow up and observe the many wonderful features that God has created and stop the prejudice.
You have several places within creation that have rulers of those parts of creation....it may be a whole universe of its own, it may be a galaxy or simply a single planet. These become kingdoms that a soul can be subjected to and make observations from. This keeps the fun of ancestral pride and cultural loyalty an ongoing feature of creation even when we leave Earth. The beings that rule these parts of creation are called Gods and human souls follow them and are loyal to them. It's the same phenomenon we see on earth but on a grand scale, kingdoms on this planet have kings and people within those kingdoms follow their king and fight for their rulers. This same premise extends beyond just the physical world into the afterlife.
When you leave this world there are several parallel worlds that have the same features of our physical universe. Yes, this does in fact support the multiverse theory which is actually a legit proposition. It is indeed compatible with the Creator hypothesis but often times religious assumption gets in the way, and too bad because God's love for variation and flavors gets lost in such baloney. But it is true that all of creation, including a myriad of powerful Beings come out of a singular Reality. It then becomes almost a hierarchy of types with many layers of creation which enables many types of experiences a soul can have and a soul can sojourn. This is a good thing not a negative thing!
Second off, what constitutes a "miracle". What have you experience that is considered a miracle.
Well I'm not speaking for the other poster obviously, but a miracle would simply be an action taken that had its origins from a source outside of our immediate physical domain. Other beings in creation outside of ours can and will act as they feel necessary and what they can do within their specific powers. Miracles shouldn't be labeled as something we feel is necessary, it's what the other source feels is necessary.
It's important to note the difference between a miracle and luck. Once in a while, reports of "miracles" are documented. However, we should expect these entirely accurate reports of extremely improbable things happening occasionally. Imagine life to be a lottery, and everyone is participating. As billions of people go through the lottery of life, some are bound to get spectacularly lucky. To pin these improbable things on supernatural causes is to ignore the statistical probability of these miracles happening to some person at some point in time. After all, we don't report on every non-miracle thing which occurs in the world, it's only the "amazing" things which people are interested in.
It's okay to speculate as long as you understand its speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I never don't like your interpretation of theology, Ev.
Thank you I appreciate that.
I think this is a beautiful thought, but it still strikes me as a grave injustice for a man to be tortured to death for my sake - for my actions, for my choices, my mistakes - for things he did not do and is not guilty of. If this safety net causes the innocent to suffer, I simply cannot accept it.
Well for one let me make a very generic theist comment and say... who am I to argue with what God sees as legitimate? Lol now that I got that out of the way let me elaborate more on this subject.
Not that this is really relevant to your response but I just want to clear this up a bit. The idea that Jesus was crucified for all of our sins (actions) is somewhat of a blurred concept, because the idea seems to suggest that we are removed from the consequences of our actions which is not a legit spiritual concept to begin with, it is basically a misconception.
What Jesus actually taught (His own words) was that He had the power to "forgive sins", what's the difference? well Jesus did not die to make it appear that human sins don't exist that is not an accurate depiction. Rather what Jesus is teaching is that for those who desire sincerely to abide in a state of moral and spiritual purification, He has the authority to absorb what we don't have the ability to fix. This is the principle of grace of course, but we have to participate in that, it's not an automatic procedure for everyone who sins.
To be forgiven, one must repent and to abide in that forgiveness one must be committed to not commit the same mistakes. So while your past "can" be forgiven one must abide in that state of purification by upholding that state of grace, and we do that through living in a righteous way the best way we know how. When we screw up, the process must be the same....we repent, and considering it's a sincere gesture we move forward and stop doing what we did. When a person repents and has remorse for what they did and looks to the cross of Calvary, instead of God seeing the sins they committed God sees the punishment Jesus absorbed and forgiveness is granted.
Why do we have to consider doing this? well you don't of course, but this goes back to what I was saying about sins don't just dissipate into the air. Actions are eternal because God is eternal and God always sees and feels them...those actions must be absorbed either by you or some other means of absorption. You don't want the full weight of what you've done to be accounted to you when it's all said and done, even though it's a commendable thought, you basically don't really know what you're asking for. It is always better to lean on God for things outside of our scope of understanding because we don't really know the ramifications for things we don't always see. So when you lean on Jesus you're not really ignoring all the things you may have done, rather you're focus is on your mistakes and you know you don't have the power to fix it, so you decide to abide in God's grace that has been prepared for you. Once that is done, you commit to your future by upholding that state of grace through your actions and your attitude towards God.
It's kind of a simple concept and it should be, we just have to get outside our pride so to speak and realize we can't fix everything and we can never go back in time and change what we've done so again, we rely on God as a means of countering things we can't fix.
Sorry about rambling there, but to get to your response I would say okay....but why waste what has been already prepared even though you may not agree with it or may not even fully understand it? if you saw a 100$ bill floating down the street would you go snatch it up or would you let it float into the woods to never be seen again? you may feel bad that somebody lost it, you may not "want" to use somebody else's hard earned cash but you know you can't return it so what do you do? do you take advantage of that situation or waste it?
Jesus knew he was doing something He was not guilty of, that besides the point. Jesus voluntarily chose to absorb that which He thought you would never be able to, you may not like it but why waste the effort? because you can't change it why let it drift away when you could take what is rightfully yours to use?
Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not a proponent of this whole idea about Jesus dying for all sins and we have no accountability for them, or we just say a few words and we are forgiven. Sincere repentance goes much deeper than that! there's a powerful exchange between our repentance and God's forgiveness but I'll leave it that for now. But I do understand grace and so I'm trying to break it down for you in a way you can rationally accept it. I'm sure you won't lol, maybe it will come back to you one day when you really get curious about God and want to get closer to that Reality. Once you do, you may become ashamed because you look back on your life and realize you could have the whole time. Then it may occur to you that you have no way to change that, or fix things you may feel guilty about...except then you remember what ol Jesus did and that He may have provided something useful for you to utilize even though you may not feel fully okay with it. But the urge to feel clean before God outweighs your rejection of that offer and you might even apply it. Either way, something has to absorb sin, so hopefully you won't just fluff it off and never consider it.
You may not find Jesus' offer acceptable and may never apply it. But you can commune with God about forgiveness anyways, and maybe you don't really know why you would ever feel that way because you never really believed in God anyways. But as I said, when the Reality hits you...it's like something that just spontaneously happens, it just comes up and so it's natural to feel ashamed about the self. Once you start to desire to be within the presence of God in a way you never thought about it will force your spirit to look at your imperfections. This isn't to make you feel condemned it's not about that. But you realize more the full weight of what it means to live this life and so you look back at all your wasted motives and intents that they could have been so much more. God then begins to provide grace in that moment, but you to have participate in that and abide in it. What Jesus did simply provides for you an outlet to solve this phenomenon. Had you never heard of Jesus the same thing would still happen, but it makes it easier when someone creates a tool specifically for a job that needs to be done, it simply makes the job easier and more efficient.
I can't be that bright. I'm eating Doritos right now.
Next time go for a bag of grapes!! lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I like that video, actually I concur with a lot of what they're saying (I'll have to watch the whole thing). Would love to get into that sort of dialogue with that guy but there's not too many folks around ready to go into that. Especially on forums like these lol, this goes into how creation is put together and this is something that highly interests me. Are you a Theist? not in the traditional sense of the term but do you believe in a higher conscious Creator? more like a simulation of types in regards to creation where we are the players that are generated by an infinite Consciousness? I don't think I've ever asked you what your philosophical stance is...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm skeptical of skepticism.
Lol, actually I'm a very skeptical person maybe people wouldn't know that about me. It's funny how typically the atheist is considered the "skeptical" guy but I'm skeptical of the skeptical guy. I'm an extreme introvert and highly hypervigilant, as you noted in our PM's my personality is a logician of types and fixated on finding solutions to problems. I think my resolve probably comes across as more wild and random to other readers but that's unfortunate because they don't know the time and effort I've spent rehearsing and bouncing ideas around to create very clear and direct answers (that are probably true).
If you're anything like me I feel your pain. It's probably better to just be the kind of guy that claims he's skeptical and simply ignores any possibilities. But I'm too skeptical to do even that. I'm obsessed with evaluating angles and searching for what works efficiently, and because I'm a spiritual guy obviously that makes it all the more daunting!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I knew you would eventually turn a corner of being more confident in at least your resolve. Now you can relax and absorb more as you don't have to wrestle so much with doubting. Don't forget you can still message me anytime :)
I used to think God hides from us, and we are supposed to figure it out, but I'm beginning to think it is not on purpose,and that we are just too stupid to understand.
Lol, I don't even think we are that stupid but just too focused on what we think and believe, unable to absorb new and fresh information or revelation. The dynamics of creation can get pretty deep but the simplicity of truth and the basics of God are easy to grasp. People praise academics which is fine and dandy at one level, ironically it makes people stupid when it comes to intuitive intelligence because it's all conditioned thinking, academically inclined individuals lose their ability to absorb truth outside of what someone else thought. To get outside of conditioned thinking you have to avoid conditioned training of the mind because pure truth is observed from awareness without conditioned thoughts.
You would think both forms of becoming informed would go hand and hand but not so, academically inclined folks shun intuitive thinking and intuitive intellects shun conditioned thinkers. Really we need both but academics is limited by the limits of what somebody else thought whereas intuitive intelligence simply observes what is true without the need of an external source. This is true for spirituality, one must be intuitive and not rely on someone else's thoughts as a primary way to learn. Of course we always learn from others at some point or another however one must set the mind and thoughts aside eventually to allow their innate abilities to shine forth.
So we get info in tiny bits, according to what we already know, and what we've been able to figure out on our own. I think things are way more in depth and complicated than I originally suspected. Things seem simple on the surface, but the deeper you dig, the more you find it is a vast orchestra. And I mean that literally.
This is true, creation has so many levels to it and even just within our physical universe we can go all the way down to the subatomic particles and nano levels and even beyond those and God is aware on every single level of life. Who knows how big God can get and how small God can be!
I do like how the process of spirituality is like that of an unfolding... so to speak, and there's no real time limit, a soul be stuck learning just about the immediate physical world for lifetimes. Kind of like reading a book and each chapter brings new awareness about a story. For one, as you pointed out there's so much information to acquire and absorb and two....I like to think that God likes to surprise us many times over and part of that involves our learning of new things. There's no limit to it and that is what makes creation and spirituality so interesting. The journey of the soul is a very fascinating adventure. Just when a materialist thinks they've figured it all out they haven't but scratched the surface! and just when a Theist thinks they've figured it all out they have only tapped into one out of several layers. The Creator is cool like that.
Therefore I am buying a piano, and teaching myself music, and I really don't even like music except for a few nostalgic songs. The quadrivium is making sense to me now.
I play the guitar and have fiddled around with the piano. The older I get the more music annoys me lol, but playing an instrument is different than listening to someone else's music because it's more like an outlet of creativity. Or just a way to move energy, I think you would like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Evolution has taken billions of years to create what a designer should be able to do in a day, or two.
Lol Wtf? seriously....we're not talking about painting a picture or building a mud hut and where materials are sitting right next to us. We're talking about an enormous process of having nothing and bringing into existence an entire universe chock full of stars, galaxies, solar systems, planets, eco-systems, creatures and embodiments of all types and you suggest it can be done in a day or two? don't forget the idea of something can be formulated relatively quickly, a plan can be conjured up pretty quickly but the process that brings everything together takes as long as it has taken. This idea that God poofs things into existence is stupid and probably due to the misinterpretation of religious ideas.
Evolution occurs at all stages of the universes appearance and development not just with species, evolution defined as "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form" is the very process of manifesting an idea into a reality. This gradual development of creation is not just a Darwinian model it is a universal application and compatible with a Creator.
And evolution is still ongoing and there is still no perceivable designer.
Okay Zeddy, the process of evolution itself is the indicator some one is putting something into action. Unless you want to accept that inanimate materials somehow begin to formulate and carry out processes all by themselves as if they had minds? I mean we could....if we wanted to be intellectual boneheads....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You haven't demonstrated anything that needs to be designed.
Perhaps the term "designed" is misleading. However, there needs to be thought and intelligence to carry out a given process through the understanding of what needs to be done to achieve a particular desired outcome. To look at the universe to what it is at this time and believe it has no relation to intelligence or aforethought is simple-minded to be polite about it. Every process we observe serves to carry out specific results and useful applications, from light to heat, from the formation of stars and planets to galaxies, to the arrangement of solar systems, from eco-systems to water to embodiments ect ect.... Even as you sit there and type out your responses you must know you are the results of an intelligent process I mean come on, how much more obvious can it get?
Or how that means something like the universe is designed
Is the universe void of understanding? if so then how did anything ever work to get it where it is? does nothingness and inanimate materials know how to create things and construct things into existence and make something work correctly?
Is it void of processes? or productions?
Is it void of arrangements?
Is it void of order?
Is it void of organization?
Is it void of desired results?
Is it void of mathematics and application?
With all these components its a wonder how any simpleton could believe the universe just happened to know how to construct itself into existence lol. With absolutely no thought or intelligence at all how do processes begin bringing about results of any kind let alone the kind we observe??
The very processes themselves are an indicator that a Creator was involved. This design theory suggests perfection which is why I don't use that term. We're not looking for perfection in a physical universe, we are simply looking for what works and what doesn't and what is needed for the experience of living within it. God simply has an idea, understands what it will take to manifest it and what materials will be suitable...from there it's a matter of generating the process and developing that idea into what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Currently, though my body may be showing the sings of aging, I nonetheless, think as I have always done....So this would somehow support the value of the soul option
You should already know instinctively that you aren't neural brain activity, but an actual being observing through the physical components. There is no succession of physical events that can somehow generate a conscious entity, your natural intelligence should tell you that is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
In sharp contrast to popular opinion, the current scientific consensus rejects any notion of soul or spirit as separate from the activity of the brain.
I don't care it's speculation. And the nature of consciousness is still an open question in science, so any "consensus" is an assumption. Not in spirituality though, it is fully understood and articulated. The evidence supports it.
Observing activity in the brain doesn't mean the brain creates consciousness anymore than reading activity using an electrical meter means that a circuit panel creates electricity. As long as the soul occupies the physical body there will be energetic activity within a brain that can be measured or observed, but the brain is nothing more than a component, it creates nothing. It's a fleshy conduit for the energetic presence of the soul.
If you were the results of neural firing you would have no recollection of who you were, no understanding of the past or the future. In fact, you would just be a succession of occurring electrical impulses presented as waves of thought but even having thoughts could only mean you are an actual being not a process of physical events. You would basically be reduced to that of flicking a light switch on and off....which is BS.
Consciousness equals soul which equals being which generates thoughts. Your brain simply confines your experience to a physical body.
are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules
Lol just like your conscious being is nothing more than a series of impulses and neural firing? thanks Doc, I'm not that stupid. Thanks for summarizing what composes the physical body though, I already knew that....it's not relevant to the topic. We already know what the physical body is comprised of, we wish to know what a soul is and what that entails.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
I agree that is a possibility, but as someone who prefers a literal interpretation, I like the six day creation perspective better.
That's fine of course, but is it realistic? and more importantly do we have evidence that the earth is not only very old, but was formed through a process? no one ever said that Genesis needs to be interpreted a literal depiction of how God created the world. It's an assumption to believe that. Not to mention the very symbolic overtones throughout the tale. The Bible is both literal and many times figurative, no need to make assumptions where not necessary, it's always better to use good common sense.
I don't want to be someone who cherry picks what to believe from the Bible.
Wow, that's a bit of a leap in logic. I don't cherry pick anyways so that's not the method in which I draw conclusions. I've been absorbing the Bible on my own accord since I was 8 years of age. I understand its style, I get it and there is no reason to make the assumption that evolution is not compatible with how God created the world through a succession of processes. If you want to assume God poofed the world together in 6 days literally that's your prerogative but that's why I'm here to share alternate points of view.
No one ever claimed Genesis to be a scientific description how God formed the universe, Christians assume that of course, but in reality not only did they not write the first few chapters of Genesis they have no access to know whether or not the Authors meant it as a literal depiction or a symbolic figurative one. So it's up to common sense and how one interprets the style of writing, to me its obvious it was just an idea meant to invoke the imagery of creating...rather than a literal account.
I agree that it is entirely possible, but evolution has some logical clashes with other Christian beliefs.
That depends on if evolution is being presented as a worldview and pushed as support for atheism/materialism, or if it's just being presented as an understanding of how things evolved to exist as they appear. The Bible only clashes with a Darwinian model of course, but that model makes unnecessary assumptions. The fact of the matter is that we have evidence in the form of records beneath the earths crust that oppose the notion Adam and Eve were the first humans. We have evidence that God created dinosaurs long before the literal record of a six day creation....If there are skeletal remains of human like beings that evolved over time (time that precedes Adam and Eve) then we need to recognize that fact and not sweep it under the rug. But there is no need to, because as I explained there is a process to bring things into existence and Genesis was not meant as a literal record of events. Adam being formed from the dust of the ground is analogous to humans beings made from the same elements as every other created thing. God didn't create man from dirt lol, and surely did not create a woman from Adams ribs, that is silly. These are figurative descriptions, Eve being made from mans ribs is symbolic for the reality that man and woman were created for one another, they fit together as a pair.
For example, in order to evolve, there must be natural selection and survival of the fittest. That requires sub-optimal versions of creatures to die.
We still see this reality today presently, all over the earth. Why deny it? this ensures that the process works to something that is useful.
If I was to interpret the Bible literally, death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve ate the fruit, sometime after creation was completed. If God used evolution to create, that would mean death would be de-linked from sin, and therefore the entire point of Jesus's sacrifice would be undermined.
It's only undermined if you assume that Jesus' sacrifice was relevant to a supposed "original sin" that we all must pay for now. If you assume that Jesus' sacrifice was to reverse the order of death then you've already undermined it because we all die regardless lol. The sacrifice of Jesus is relevant to our own sin committed not the sins of anyone else. As we apply it, it becomes only relevant for us personally it has nothing to do with Adam or Eve they were just examples. But we die a physical death anyways, so if you believe Jesus died for that then it was useless because we know we die.
In reality death is not linked to sin, that is the nature of the physical world as God created it. Sin is only relevant to choices we make as we make them, and right there is where Jesus' sacrifice applies to us. But as you know I'm not a fundamentalist Christian even though my foundation is the Gospels so my "doctrines" are not restricted to only that representation. I grew up being fed all that mumbo jumbo but in all honesty much of it is nonsense. It's has little significance in the real world, and spirituality is based upon the real world anyways.
IMO neither one of those objections have much weight. I'm not presenting this to be contentious either so don't take it that way please, I'm simply responding to your comment and giving you another way of viewing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, period.
Sorry but you're being narrow minded here. It can be unreliable BUT.....notice the but....it CAN be reliable as well. It's not just one or the other which is why I said testimonials CAN be used to support the truth of an assertion. This is why they should be considered along with any proposition, however they should be considered intelligently not just accepted or rejected there is a middle ground here. To take one stance over another is not useful either. It's funny how atheists always take one side when it comes to spiritual or religious propositions and it's always the "unreliable" side lol. Any bias here??
No, they have falsely been used to propagate several false claims throughout all of human history.
Again, you decide to ignore the fact that it goes both ways why? testimonials are defined not only as evidence but also used in law as a useful tool in supporting the truth or falsity of claims. It should be the same with spiritual concepts, and not saying they should be accepted without a rigorous process of sifting information but they should be considered as evidence that correlates with the nature of what we are studying. If you want to be intellectually honest you can't just take one side over another.
If someone hit your car while you were driving and someone witnessed the event, you would want that person to testify on your behalf correct? that testimony (observation of an event) would be useful in determining what actually took place. Why you decide when a testimonial is not useful could be just due to your own bias of a subject, not knowing that the same testimonial could be unbiased itself and could possibly support a conclusion that opposes your assumptions. That's why they ARE useful, to determine what could be possible outside of what you personally believe.
I could go into the peer-reviewed studies about why anecdotal evidence is not reliable, but that would be me being a broken record at this point.
Yes it would, because you're also ignoring the other side of the coin. The reality that a testimonial COULD be unreliable changes nothing of the fact they can be reliable. See how that works? If you wish to sweep them under the rug because somewhere someone gave an unreliable account that's your decision of course. There's many factors to consider when looking into witness accounts but surely to reduce them to only untruths is somewhat absurd TBH.
Talking by the laws of physics, something that is supernatural is definitionally impossible.
That's something we would have to discuss, and something I don't agree with. But I appreciate the opinion. And yes, I know how it is defined but I'm the one who gets to define my own observations and beliefs how I see them. Everything within creation happens within a matrix of laws though the dynamics of what may be possible may change, nothing happens that's impossible that is nonsensical. There's a distinction between what we normally perceive as physically possible within our known laws and that of spiritual encounters but it's only to make that distinction between what we normally perceive through the immediate physical senses. However, everything that tales place within creation is possible because it must be by necessity. Only possible things can happen.
The lack of empirical evidence, the amount of those who have claimed to see ghosts, only to admit later that it was a ploy, or that it was a trick of x, y, or z.
There may be a lack of a type of evidence you accept but not a lack of evidence because a first hand observation IS evidence. Whether someone lied about an event does not make certain propositions untrue, it just means someone lied about what they personally claimed. All kinds of things exist people have lied about that they personally witnessed. Again the fact you take one side so rigidly tells me a lot about your beliefs.
I do not doubt that you had an experience that you considered to be supernatural. I doubt that you were correct in ascertaining it's origin.
Lol sure, I wonder why that is?
Another point of this sort, for a long while, there was a 1 million dollar prize open for anyone to take, if they could demonstrate the supernatural and for them to test it, no one ever could pass or demonstrate it.
Because a person can not create a spiritual event, rather they must observe one. I can't conjure up a tornado obviously, they have to be witnessed and the fact I can't create one does nothing to the reality they exist. Keeping in mind this is just being used as an analogy.
You see, until you have demonstrated your claim, you claim is only that, an assertion.
However you want to ascertain it is your choice, it does not change my observation of an event.
I do not biasedly assume this of your position alone, I do this to all positions.
You mean you biasedly categorize all testimonies as unreliable? I see that lol
My level of confidence lays with the level of evidence provided. And you claim to have had a spiritual experience and met other people who had, is not strong evidence of anything.
It is defined as evidence is what my whole point was despite how you feel it needs to be labeled. The amount of evidence is what makes it compelling and something to be considered.
People claim to have seen big foot, or been captured by aliens, these can line up in details, yet why not assume them true as well?
They certainly need to be considered obviously, why assume them true or false? each claim needs to be carefully handled intelligently, it neither makes them true nor false rather it lends itself as support of an assertion or proposition. Do you have any idea how many documentaries there are for Bigfoot and alien encounters by normal people? Bigfoot testimonials and alien encounters are overshadowed by spiritual ones but that's really besides the point. When a person makes an observation of an event, given they aren't a liar and they are somewhat intelligent their observation should count for something of consideration.
Keeping in mind alien encounters could be several possibilities if we understand how that term is used. These could be spiritual observations but the one observing it may not know that, there could be creatures that exist in other parts of creation...why not? I don't have limits that tie down my personal views of the world, so I'm always open to possibilities. I'm not dumb either, I don't just accept things to accept them I am very careful about my approach. In spirituality cross referencing is a very useful and powerful tool. The important thing would be not to just decide observations are unreliable just because you're queasy about a particular idea.
Because everyone has been influenced by similar phenomena in this regard, and therefore the human brain, which is obsessed with forming patterns (even when there are none there) will make a connection.
You can speculate all you want as long as you know you're speculating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just like you have a theistic ball and chain....It works both ways.
Not at all because it's not restrictive to any limiting ideology or any singular conception. Rather it is open to the dynamics of what might exist. I'm not limited or restricted to any particular religious ideas either regardless of what you may assume, I'm open to whatever might be possible but that's because I'm not tied down to a materialist worldview or atheist mentality.
The time one wastes with religion could be just as well spent doing something else...... Or vice versa...Depending upon which particular ball and chain you were shackled to.
You're assuming I'm shackled to some particular claim, not so. Just because I'm a Theist doesn't mean I'm tied down by religion, not the same thing. And had you been paying attention to what I write you would probably know that by now. Jeesuz, I've been in this forum since its conception and at DDO for ten years lol. I know everyone's beliefs and worldviews because I pay attention.
Created:
Posted in:
If you were to research NDE's and study/consider them you would get a useful depiction of what being a soul entails. Notice when an injury occurs or death occurs the soul is unaffected by either as it continues to observe OUTSIDE the physical body. It literally leaves the body and observes that body as one existing independent of it. So while they were within that body they suffered what that body endured, but once the soul released itself they were unaffected by any harm the body encountered.
"I survived Beyond and Back" is a great archive of actual testimonies and correlating medical facts of each participant. This includes how long physical death occurred or how long "brain death" occurred and doctor testimonials, so it's not just a show featured to proselytize any religious ideas or notions, it's a neutral study about normal people who left the physical body.
It does however support the proposition of the soul even though that is not the basis of this program, and if the soul exists as it is proposed then this is what we would see taking place. So something to consider here for any person curious about this topic. Getting into the spiritual worlds when leaving the physical body is something of another consideration because of the dynamics of these parallel worlds. They are vast and extremely creative, so one should not be put off with how diverse and dynamic the encounters are, remembering that the parallel worlds are wonderfully constructed and as various as the universe itself. The soul could find itself in any number of surroundings, there's not just one or two places the soul could experience rather when the soul leaves the body it's within another universe of itself and that universe or parallel plane of existence is as vast if not more than the one we're in.
The experience that the soul will encounter when leaving the body can be many different things because there are many places, many things and many types of beings and that includes positive, negative and everything in between. Nonetheless the conscious soul survives death of the physical body and whether one believes that or not every soul will experience it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I sometimes wonder.... If there is a heaven and one dies with a demented mind.... Then will one have a demented mind in heaven.
LMAO, well at least I know nobody pays a damn bit of attention to what I've been writing for years. One of the biggest obstacles for atheists is that they believe the brain, the mind and themselves are intertwined as one unit. So they have no useful concepts of what each actually do and what they are.
Currently, though my body may be showing the sings of aging, I nonetheless, think as I have always done....So this would somehow support the value of the soul option, if I were to die compos mentis.
The physical body and all its components will begin the process of breaking down no matter what you do. There are things you can do to make this process much smoother of course, but eventually it will shut down entirely one way or another. This process of course is completely unrelated to what you will experience when you leave this world and that body behind. The process of dying is completely unrelated to the soul itself other than you will experience it as one observing it.
But what if the soul has become demented.
Lol, sorry this is very humorous to me. I must say, it's somewhat strange that you wouldn't know that the soul exists completely independent of the physical body. Of course the soul entered that body within the womb of its mother and will then experience everything through the perception of that body but once the physical body dies the soul is released.
So because of the reality that the soul exists independent of the body.... once the soul is released from it that soul is also released from every single problem the body suffered so the soul itself is completely unaffected by it as it exists as one observing the body, but it is NOT the body. The body is simply a vehicle, and just like when you drive any such vehicle everything that vehicle undergoes you will notice while driving it however you still exist independent of that vehicle. So if you car gets a flat tire you can't drive it normally of course, so you have to fix it to regain normal operation but it is of no consequence to the driver other than having an external problem.
Dementia is a process of brain function breaking down, and as brain function begins breaking down you will experience that process. But it is merely your perception alone, because you are the one observing that situation (you aren't the actual situation though). If you could picture yourself looking through a sheet of perfectly clear glass as you navigate this planet and that sheet of glass is your window to viewing this particular world (but you are not that glass). Now imagine the glass being marred or scratched, no matter where you look you will see that scratch. Now the glass has become warped, and everywhere you look you observe a warped image....now the glass has shattered and is no longer useful at all and so you leave that window behind.
Obviously the soul and body are the same way, once the brain has become "warped" and begins to lose normal function so your perception and view through that brain are warped as well. Once you entered the womb of the physical body during conception your soul (you) was intertwined within the functions of that body which include the nervous system, the development of the brain and all that body uses to experience this world. It is much like being trapped within a cage, your soul is contained within this vessel and your brain acts as a component that confines your experience to this physical world. Since the soul is energetic, electrical and alive also the body which is a conduit for the soul must be an active medium capable of being a vessel for the soul.
This is why I compare the brain to an electrical panel....it's simply an "electrical" component that regulates the flow of consciousness (soul)...and the physical body nothing more than a circuit board. If you compared the experience of the soul to a house obviously the house would be the physical body and the circuit panel where all the power is regulated and controlled would be the brain. However neither the house nor that electrical panel create electricity, it merely confines it to that house so the house can become something to be inhabited in a useful way.
The actual mind is something of another subject really (one I would have to write much more about). The mind is a projection of consciousness and is basically nothing short of a storage area in which becomes useful for the conscious soul to store memory, categorize and access information. The soul has mind but the soul is the one observing the mind, and both the soul and the mind are subject to whatever a brain experiences but only while they exist within a body.
Because both the soul and the mind exist independent of the physical body it renders the brain and body nothing more than flesh and bones, cells, blood and tissue. Without a soul the body is stillborn. And just the same once the soul leaves the body it regains normal perception of anything it observed or experienced through the human body.
Anyways, I hoped this helps you conceptualize what it means to be soul. Hopefully you won't just ignore it and reject it because you're an atheist. Think about what I wrote here and if it makes sense incorporate it into your data base. If you need me to elaborate on anything just ask questions.
Look up the term subtle body (spirit body) if you get time, basically the soul inhabits bodies for each plane of existence. Once you leave a particular world or plane you are present within the preceding one. Or when the soul is placed within an alternate world, it must have a vehicle useful for navigating that specific world. So each vessel depending on which place within creation is evolved to withstand that environment, it must have a body that correlates with each world or plane of existence. If the soul were to leave creation entirely it would have no embodiment and would basically be pure consciousness and mind. That is the state in which the Creator resides eternally though just like energy, consciousness pervades all of creation....in other words exists independent of form as well as within form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
This "fallen world" idea is strictly contradicted by the Teleological Argument
There's no contradiction in the manner you proposed both concepts because one is a moral issue that involves the moral state of man. "World" as in a fallen world is not synonymous with "state of the universe" in this context, rather the state of mankind....the Bible refers to the "world" in relation to the presence of mankind, and as a system of morality. Example below...
"12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
The "fined tuned" concept just deals with the manner in which God established creation. It is not a moral concern and not relevant to mankind in this context. Two totally different ideas here.
The problem I have though is a separate issue.
The Teleological Argument (or the fine tuning argument) says that the world is so perfect, that a God must have created it.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the universe is so perfect, if they are then they are mistaken. Perfection is not the focus here IMO. The physical world or universe can never be perfect and doesn't have to be perfect to make the argument that the universe "appears" fine tuned.
I think it is more realistic and accurate to say that the way in which the universe exists, appears created and the processes that are involved appear intelligent. The products of the universe appear to have been the products of desired outcomes therefore it is rational to consider it was created through an intelligent Source. This is the basis of such an argument, no perfection needed and really no "design" needed either.
To invoke perfection is a non sequitur. God created the physical world or the natural world symbiotic with death and decay, so perfection plays no role in the physical universe in relation to designs because of those two factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
They are often intertwined
That's also a great point. Nonetheless, they are separate issues. Meaning one can be a conservative without the effect of religious extremism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I consider all propositions the same, with the weight and amount of evidence behind the claim, therefore any proposition of god would be met with the same standard.
I would ask no less and I agree completely. I'm starting from a bit of a different position than most people. I've had several spiritual encounters in my life of different kinds. I've had encounters with spiritual beings before I was 10 years of age.
So I know spirits exist, it's not a matter of do I believe it, I know it and have observed it. So that kept me quite fascinated with the subject, so rather than having the extra burden of having to prove that life exists outside the physical known world I've simply cross examined my own experience with others. This way, I don't have to just trust my own observation I have endless references I can cross examine both with just average people and also with religious sources.
Since then I've participated in spirituality and have applied many things to myself so I have a lot of observations to share and for others to listen to.
So if I were to get you to consider that spiritual entities exist for example I would get you to focus more on spiritual experiences as a whole. I would never expect you to accept them or believe in them with no regards for skepticism but I would just suggest they are indeed a form of evidence. NDE's for example, support the proposition of the soul existing independent of the physical body. Again, this is something you should just consider at face value rather than just fluffing it off because you happen to be an atheist. If the soul exists we should be able to show it somehow, and we can with people having experience with leaving the body.
I know I know..."anecdotal" evidence is unreliable lol, I know what you're going to say. But you have to consider the nature of what we are dealing with in terms of considering it and that anecdotal evidence is still evidence, whether you classify it as weak or strong is irrelevant. Why make the assumption that it's unreliable rather than reliable? it's 50/50...you can of course assume it's unreliable but why? other than you being influenced by your own bias?
Testimonial evidence is used widely as a means to evaluate claims, with spirituality it should be considered the same process. Because we have first hand observations that something may be true, and that's better than nothing or simply guessing right?
When you combine the amount of spiritual based experience and observations including NDE's and OBE's as well as religion that's quite a hefty package of evidence. Religion is a decent source to consider information because it is based upon observance of a fact or situation, it's not just based off of ideas and assumptions. It begins with an observation and collectively grows. That's part of the reason I study religion as a whole because I can gather a ton of useful information, kind of like putting together a puzzle with many various pieces.
But I've been reading all kinds of spiritual literature and examining testimonies for a long time, so I have a huge data base I pull from. I can imagine as an atheist who really has spent very little time even considering such a thing that it probably comes across as silly, I get that. But, if any this is true or that God exists you want to know about it because the implications for you are dynamic. This should be something every soul is very serious about, that's why I frown upon atheism as a mentality that could damper a persons potential.
So when you talk about the amount of evidence behind a claim, don't forget Theistic propositions are not deficient in evidence. It just comes down to will you consider the type of evidence that correlates with that nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I consider all propositions the same, with the weight and amount of evidence behind the claim, therefore any proposition of god would be met with the same standard. I do not judge the proposition of god on the arguments, I judge religion based on the people. But I would object to the notion that good portion of theists use skepticism, I would argue that the minority employ it, they are most certainly the exception to the rule. Considering that a notion of "faith" is so popular and all... I realize some call it "trust" however I whenever a christian says faith, I assume they are talking of their holy book's definition of faith.
Well I'm assuming you're going to point out that Hebrews verse, but even that verse is misunderstood and worded poorly. If you read through the Gospels though faith is used to produce results, and the basis of those results relies on a persons confidence (trust) it really had nothing to do with the acceptance of religious doctrines...The kind of faith Jesus taught was more of an action, like the more confident a person becomes the more "faith" they would obtain and so the more effective it would become in their life.
In this light, it's more of a universal tool rather than a belief in doctrines.
This is why Jesus describes a persons faith as either "little" or "great", because it's based on the trust factor, or confidence. To have trust and confidence in something that entails reason and evidence, experience and such. This idea about believing in things for no reason and with no evidence is not useful for anything. That Hebrews passage is widely misinterpreted, as it follows in that chapter it supports the idea of faith with examples of trust and confidence. But more importantly, read how Jesus exemplifies faith in the Gospels if you want a real understanding of what spiritual faith is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Doesn't T. D. Jakes, the bishop of The Potter's House, a non-denominational American megachurch being worth $150 million show that God is dead?
Not at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That's a good point, which is why you never have to consider religion or religious proponents of God to consider God's existence, or even to connect with God. You are not forced to believe anyone or anything that does not sit right with you. You have that freedom in God as a soul that came from that Reality.
Basically I would urge you not to judge God or spirituality based on what others do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thanks for the honest replies.
the bible being false does not necessarily mean that god does not exist, simply that the one of the bible likely does not.
Okay that is what I was looking for. But just for the sake of curiosity, how do you go about making the assumption that all the information in the Bible about God is false? for instance.....lets say the opening book of Genesis is not a very accurate depiction of how God created the world, does that mean that all the books within the Bible should be discarded as not containing any truth?
Just so ya know BTW I'm not a Christian fundamentalist if you haven't already figured that out. But it is my own opinion that the Bible does have useful insights and information. These to me are more or less the underlying principles that are throughout the Bible. But I study religion as a whole, I don't believe God is observed by a single group of people, not do I believe that God would favor a specific group of people...these are ideas that seem immature to me personally.
On another note...more specifically...in a nutshell I guess I'm asking if you believe there is any indication at all that the universe was created, could you make any argument to make such a consideration? say if you were just entertaining the idea on your own. I'm just trying to get an idea of how you think is all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
That's not conservativism, that's religious extremism
That's a good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Did you hear about the baby born with tetra-amelia – defined as the absence of all limbs
- He also has severe malformations of the face, heart, skeleton and genital
What a joker God is.
This is a cause and effect creation on all levels of experience (for every effect there is a cause), there are many implications to that you must learn. However this world, these physical bodies and this particular experience (whatever that entails) is insignificant compared to the journey of the soul, which is eternal. I'm not going to make any judgements about anyone's particular experience that's not my place I'm just sharing with you the overarching principles and you can connect those dots.
The soul undergoes several experiences while they play within the created worlds, many times that includes experiences we would label very sad or cruel and what you may not see is that also includes experiences of grandeur and positivity. In light of that I must say that this is a very temporal sojourn here, a person with a mutilated body will one day leave that body and they will understand that the time they spent here was minute in comparison to eternity. They may have animosity at that point or they may somehow understand they either created that experience or they had something to gain by that experience. So while we may sit back and judge another persons life we really have no clue what we are judging, our perception of what we see is nothing short of a limited distorted vision. We don't have the compacity to observe the many layers of reality of what is taking place.
The soul, that inhabits physical bodies (whether they are healthy or abnormal) is unaffected by this other than having a seemingly negative experience. Again I'm not making any judgements about anyone in particular you can make your own judgements but don't forget that your immediate perception of things may not always be the full picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
I completely agree with you that God would exist even if the Bible does not. I believe he created the Bible rather than vice versa. I think I can illustrate my perception of the relation between God and the Bible with an analogy. If you click on my name, you will visit my profile, which will give you a general idea of who I am. However, there is no way you can truly get to know me unless you talk to me and see how I respond and what I have to say. My words do not define me, but because we are long-distance, you have to rely on them to know who I am.Similarly, God is spirit, and while we have spirits, we remain rooted in the physical world. God's creation gives us an idea of who he is and what he is like, just like my profile. The theological term which I am sure you have heard of is general revelation. However, the Bible is God's words written down through cooperating humans and that is considered special revelation. It allows us to have a greater idea of what God is like just like my posts give you insight into my personality. If we were to become really good friends, exchange numbers, and talk on the phone, that would be like prayer, where we can talk directly to God and "hear" his voice.So while I completely agree that the Bible is not exhaustive or a limit on who God is, it is the only document I believe comes straight from God himself. And I trust God's words about himself more than I trust other people's. Therefore I rely on the Bible for the foundations of my beliefs and investigate extra-biblical concepts that seem in line with the messages of the Bible. I hope this clarifies what I meant better.I really like your point about Jesus changing the normal depiction of God. It sounds like you have seriously studied theology and philosophy and I like how you think. What I think is best about what you are doing is you do not limit God. I can only imagine the kind of insights you have gained from this point of view.
Very beautifully put. Much of this is the same as I believe.
How long have you studied religion and philosophy like this?
I would say roughly 15 years, the first half of my life I mainly studied the Bible, Christian testimonies and Christian literature. Actually, the time I've spent arguing with atheists and the time I've spent studying spirituality as a whole are about the same, perhaps arguing with atheists compelled my fixation even further. Maybe they exposed flaws within my belief system and because of my determination and desire to know truth I've adjusted those flaws. My fixation with God and my love for truth are one and the same, so I always align myself with what is true without compromising my love for God. I don't place beliefs and religion over God's status in my life, so I don't let beliefs dictate anything about God unless those beliefs are accurate. How I determine what is accurate follows in many different ways, basically the process that I personally use to discover truth or what follows in logic is a rigorous procedure. I'm cursed with non-stop debating in my own head and the constant sifting of information lol.
What is the most interesting thing you have learned or discovered?
Lots of interesting things. The nature of God (what God is), the specifics of the soul (what the soul is), how creation is put together, specifics of alternative dimensions.....just more insights about all aspects of creation in general. Quite fascinating really.
I'll tell ya what, here are the main sources I've really found a lot of useful information within, or rather the ones I favor most. Just consider that OT Jews are not the only people or culture capable of having observations about God or the afterworlds.
Hinduism was probably the first one I considered studying, then of course Buddhism, Native American Spirituality (whos culture I most love), Eckankar and then various factions of eastern and tribal religions.
Hinduism seems to posses very instinctive knowledge about the nature of God and the nature of consciousness, meaning what God actually is and what that entails. Buddhism and Buddhist cosmology has great understanding and insights about how creation is put together, Native American Spirituality really has a lot of depth about the spiritual worlds, spiritual beings and so forth. Eckankar is beautiful in that it has wonderful knowledge about the soul and how that relates to God, they also have a very unique understanding of how creation is put together which is very similar to Buddhism.
Creation is put together in layers (which explains the afterlife), or you could say there are multiple parallel worlds. The closest theory put forward in philosophical circles is the multiverse theory, in time I believe this will become more prominent. It will be what opens the door for spirituality to become a global phenomenon once again, but not like the old days where fundamentalist religions ruled the world through tyranny and control rather the simple truth of what exists will captivate people.
One reason why I refuse to limit God or what God has done is because we seldom consider what an eternal Being means, in that God is not just a God but a creative Entity. Putting both the concepts of eternal and creativity together makes for very interesting implications. Since the nature of the soul is eternal God knows that the created worlds must be vast and various. Our physical universe is but one little cosmos and experience in the grand scheme of the eternal journey of the soul. This is why the multiverse theory fits so well in my estimations, because within creation the experiences the soul can have are virtually endless with heaven being only a single place and a single experience. In the multiverse theory there are several universes and within each universe there are countless galaxies, solar systems and planets. These are areas that the soul can sojourn.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the heaven scenario either, but it fits within the overarching reality of God's creative abilities, there's room for that and much more. This fits much better with the conception of a creative God and loosens the rigidity of how we normally think of God, creation and religion.
The is probably the most interesting thing for me because I too am very creative and something about there being just two places when we leave the physical body that just doesn't sit right with me. The Bible is very vague about the parallel worlds that exists and what that entails. It seems to have a certain focus for a specific group of people which is fine because the Christian Heaven is certainly a Kingdom, but a Kingdom that fits within a series of parallel dimensions, it resides on a planet of its own within a universe full of other planets. For Christians "heaven" is very much like the way we experience earth. To us earthlings, the planet earth is really the only thing that exists....and to Christians, heaven is the only place that exits when they die. Again though, this is all fine I'm just detailing what I feel is much more accurate.
NDE's (as well as paranormal observations) are a very good source of evidence that correlates with the proposition of the soul and alternate dimensions. These are first hand observations of what it is like leaving the physical body and so I've invested a lot of time in researching them and considering all the countless testimonies. That complied with my study of religion as a whole there's a wealth of knowledge and information that is highly beneficial for understanding spirituality and creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay thank you for the insight. I like to get to know whom I'm speaking with and I appreciate everything you have to offer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh negatively for sure. My step-dad tried to have me exorcised, almost tied me to a bed restrained, and had the priest on the phone. My mother forced me to attend church 4 days a week, for several hours per each day I went there. Plus, I was pretty much forced from all media and stuff like that. It was only a couple months later that my mom calmed down and lightened up on all that. My step dad has only recently stopped with all of his, "you're possessed by demons" stuff. So, I was treated very negatively, and still am in fact. Of course, I live in the bible belt, so that should be expected.
Wow, this is the kind of thing that really pisses me off, I'm sorry you ever had to deal with that. I would only hope that your consideration of God or spirituality will not be permanently marred. Just realize religious people (people in general) can be real ignorant, many times they just have problems that aren't even relevant to God, so that impacts their decision making. My parents were off the mark as well so I can relate in some ways, but I can see why you would carry animosity.
I learned early on that I wasn't going to be able to rely on parents or people, I was surrounded by a lot of weirdos lol. I was able to make a distinction between the flaws of people and spirituality as a whole. So I got lucky that the stupidity of others never affected my relationship with the Creator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
I haven't quite figured out the quote feature without retyping everything
Just copy and paste the posters paragraph or comment you wish to reply to after you hit the reply button..... after you paste their comment in this box just put your reply underneath of theirs after a space. Then highlight their comment again with your mouse by clicking and dragging (I'm sure you know how to highlight something) and then select the " (quotation mark) above in the highlighted column with the letters and symbols. That will highlight the posters comment. Repeat as necessary, you can also copy and paste their whole comment, paste it and separate it with your own responses and do all the highlighting and quotation after, it works the same way either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism
That's a very narrow approach to the subject and does not apply across the board. Religious fundamentalism does not apply to everyone and brain deficiencies also do not apply just to those who happen to be Theists, to believe otherwise is plain ignorant, to be nice about it. I would say to believe such things is stupid but I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings or anything.
It is intelligent man that has made life livable, not religious man.
Life is livable no matter what kind of man. Intelligence is not just limited to the non-religious, again I would hate to say to believe such a thing is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
If no Bible existed, I would still believe in the existence of God because having a creator makes more sense in my mind than evolution.
Not to drudge up another topic but don't forget that the processes of the universe that bring things into existence are compatible with a Creator. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you have discovered as well that the majority of those who push evolution also push atheism and materialism but they are not one and the same. The battle is not between theism and evolution it's between atheism and theism....creationism and materialism. There's a clash of ideologies not necessarily a clash between theism and scientific findings.
There's no real reason why Theism is not compatible with evolution, God uses processes to manifest things into existence. Then again, I'm not a Biblical Genesis literalist either so I don't have a real problem with evolution as simply a process by means to create, my problem is with those who assume evolution or interpret it as atheism. Scientific discoveries are a neutral study, nobody owns them, they can be interpreted however one sees fit. I'm not saying you have to believe that just consider it.
People who are vastly more intelligent and informed than I am have debated that issue into the ground, so I do not want to debate it again, but having a supernatural being like God ruling over the world makes sense to me and helps me make sense of the world around me. It also helps me cope in difficult times without turning to destructive behaviors. I do not think I reject the Bible at all; I believe it whole-heartedly :)
Just remember that the universe as we observe it currently was due to a succession of processes to become what it is. These of course are intelligent processes, and you and I know there's basically zero chance that inanimate forces and materials began to generate processes and bring about intelligent results and desired outcomes all by themselves. But there's no reason to discount the processes God uses as a means of creating what we discover though the scientific method. I like to think of creation in the same light we understand how anything is created, with the use of an idea, gathered materials and then a process that brings it together. Science and theism are compatible, they both study two different natures and they work in harmony because they run parallel to each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Wow, so any person with a thinking brain decides to inherit a worldview differing from atheism they have some sort of brain impairment? It's a wonder why this place suffers a lack of intelligent conversations with people like you plaguing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is just a sincere question not meant to interrogate you or undermine your position. But do you think your rejection of the Bible justifies your rejection of the existence of God as a concept on its own? let me ask it another way, could you justify any existence of God without the urge to justify the Bible? or would you consider the existence of God without the need to consider any Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
My opinion about God is hard to describe succinctly, but I subscribe to Orthodox Evangelical Christianity. My denomination is called Assemblies of God. I believe that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and all knowing. I think he is the origin of everything good and the creator of everything. I could go on, but I feel like that's enough to give an idea.
Thank you, I was searching for more than a philosophical understanding but I guess I didn't make that clear. I was going to see what you thought about God apart from a religious conceptualization. That sounds weird, but I actually believed in God long before I understood Christian beliefs. It's possible I'm just an oddball lol.
I don't like the term religion because I see my belief system as a relationship
Yeah I'm with you there.
but the average person would say I subscribe to religion.I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the gospels are various accounts that emphasize different facets of who he is and what he did while on earth.It would be hard to view God independently of the Bible because I see the Bible as the only completely reliable way of connecting with him.
I understand that, but what if I told you that God exists independent of the Bible? in other words if the Bible did not exist God would still exist. I'm not against the Bible or anything I'm just curious about people's understanding about God without the need for using religion to describe their notions about God. I try to avoid conditioned thinking, for some things I find it to be a useful practice. I do get the fact that we should have access to objective concepts about God too. But, just as a general rule of thumb it's always good to be open to fresh ideas and accurate concepts that might drift outside of what we believe.
I hope this answers your questions! I would be happy to clarify further if you like.What do you think about Christianity?
Apart from labels and religious control I love it, I fell in love with the Gospels at a very young age so it is very much apart of who I am. I've always been fascinated with Jesus, the message of His teachings always resonate deeply with me. To me anyways, Jesus was a pioneer in changing the normal depiction of God to that of something much more approachable and likable.
I do study all forms of spirituality at this point in my life. Because of my raw curiosity about God I want to know every part of God. So I try not to limit God to this or that when it's not necessary. And like I said above, I don't want to fall in the trap of conditioned thinking and miss out on very important things.
If you do not believe in it, why? I would love to learn from you.
I do believe it, but it's not the limit of my beliefs. You can say that I've expanded my beliefs beyond just the Bible. I take a more Omnist approach to religion in terms of gaining access to information.
The Bible has a lot of useful information but it only touches on certain things. I like to gather as much knowledge as I can about God, the soul and the afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
You weren't unclear at all, I was just more or less elaborating on what you were asking.
The comment about "unchained from a belief system" was referring to OP. Personally, I do not feel my beliefs chain me at all. I choose my beliefs and so they describe me instead of limiting me.
That's a very cool way to put that! I've never heard anyone say it like that...
I agree with you that becoming closer to God is what releases chains.Regarding belief, I was confused about OP because they seemed to imply you can live without belief. Even if you believe in a negative, that is still a belief system.
I agree with this but atheists love to claim they simply "lack beliefs" lol, but to have a lack of belief specifically in the existence of God or gods requires comprehension of what that entails, so they DO believe that God does not exist, that is indeed a positive claim.
For example, I do not believe in Santa Claus, but the fact that I have a stance and opinion on that topic means that I have a belief even though it is negative.
Smart woman.
So I was thinking that atheists still have a belief system, it is simply not rooted in the Christian God. So I was asking OP to clarify so I can better understand what I am missing. I hope this explains my questions better!
Yes thank you. I definitely agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I just explained it... did you not read it? There wouldn't be a name for it besides spiritualism. Which is just the view that a spiritual realm exists without a god. That's all. You don't need to know what created it to believe in it. And atheists can who follow it can simply say that there is evidence for a supernatural but not for a god, inserting god without connecting evidence is a god of the gaps fallacy (hence why i say that people would need to prove both that a god exists and a supernatural they are separate claims, you not being able to comprehend it is another fallacy)
Can we get to the bottom of this before you start assuming fallacies? many times when someone is claiming a fallacy it's because maybe they're not seeing the rationale, missing the argument. I get what you're saying but somehow I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I'm no longer arguing that an atheist cannot believe in what we've been talking about that's no longer the issue. The issue I'm bringing up is the foundation (worldview/conception) of those beliefs, and that if you say God did not create the universe then that means everything that began to exist exists without the need for God, it began by natural means and there is a term for that. If you believe that God created the universe then we call that creationism, the only other alternative to creationism is naturalism/materialism, meaning that the universe began to exist without God through natural means. Philosophically I'm unaware of any third premise, which is probably because there's only two choices, this is simple logic.
Now before you go and repeat yourself again, would you agree that God either created the universe or God did not create the universe?
I don't care personally if there's an atheist out there who believes in spirits and alternate dimensions, it's nonsensical but it's not the point I'm making. It's much like believing that a football belongs on the basketball court lol....sure we "could" play basketball with a football but it would be somewhat stupid right? because we're using the wrong medium to be on that court.
Perhaps don't be so stubborn because you don't want to be wrong and just realize the simplicity of what I'm getting at. You don't want the atheist to carry the label materialism I get that, why you're adamant about that is somewhat weird. Why don't you create a pole and ask atheists on this site how they understand how the universe began and then we can evaluate their clams? because at this point the conversation is getting silly, so maybe it's better if we just see what they say themselves.
If there is an atheist that pops up and says they believe in other dimensions, spirits and ghosts I'll put the same questions to them. Only in an attempt to show which category their worldview falls under.
I'm not being close-minded here, not at all I'm just using commonsense and you've given me no answer or reason to believe any other conclusion. Saying "they don't need to know what created it to believe it" is avoiding the issue...because there's only two options. And an atheist only falls in one of those two options whether it's apart of the definition or not.
Materialism-
is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist.
Creationism-
is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You should very much limit what is possible by the rules of possibility.
That's true, which is why I attempt to show you how things fit together and work, what is possible. If I have no explanation (that makes sense), then you can say I haven't done that. What is possible will always make sense, will have an explanation, it will always follow through in logic. This is why I insist you pay attention to spirituality (at least entertain) because while it is incredibly dynamic everything fits together and follows in rationale. What doesn't work we can throw out, what works we keep...but once you label yourself I feel you have made a decision prematurely.
I didn't particularly choose to be an atheist, nor do I choose to continue to be one.
That is the label you've given yourself not me. I only feel you've limited yourself to that label (maybe you haven't), and at a young age where many things are still possible.... I get worried. But I'm just being me, I see your potential and I hate to see you define yourself to a label that might not be necessary.
I have the opposite PoV, I believe those off theistic positions to be chained and tethered by their immortal oppressor.
Maybe you have a legit POV...I guess that all would depend on whether or not God exists, and whether you are talking about God or talking about religious sources. I've been trying to convey to you that you don't have to go through religion to get to God, we can get to God without any religion involved, pure logic, rationale and reason and believe it or not evidence. There's as much freedom in God as freedom itself, that is where you originated and that is what you exist within.
One of the things that concerns me is that it's religious people and religion that turn people away from God or discovering God. I hope to change that.
I think that the necessary morality that such a theistic being would employ to be bankrupt and void of all value to consider.
What did you think about my contributions in your topic of morality?
I employ a worldview of skepticism
I think you will find that both Theists and Atheists can apply skepticism, if you had any idea how much emphasis I put in sifting through what is useful and what is not, what is true and what is not it would blow your mind lol. Unfortunately I think a lot of Atheists assume Theists lack healthy skepticism and again, I hope to change that opinion. Maybe with such a dynamic system of information it may seem like we just accept anything and everything without any consideration but you have to know that is baloney, that's not true. In the Theistic arena there is a wealth of knowledge and a huge data base of information. Not all of it is accurate and yet a good portion of it is. Some things are useful and some things aren't, it takes participation and experience to know how to sift through it.
It doesn't help that many religious people confine themselves to particular belief systems with no regard for what is true and what is useful. But just remember that if God exists God exists independent of both people and religious sources, so try not to judge Theism (or God) based on that alone. I think there is plenty of reason for you to consider that God exists, or that there is a Creator. When considering that concept don't let anything else influence your consideration but that alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The logic you think it follows does not matter, as I have said over and over. No. IF you think that god does not exist, and you also think that there is a spiritual realm, all it means is that they do not know the exact cause, just that there isn't evidence for a god. You are committing a fallacy of false dichotomy. People could believe in other means of there being a spiritual realm, such as one having the same attributes as god in the sense that is has always been there and never needed a creator, you are limiting it out of your own view of creationism, and you are therefore being closeminded. Kind of ironic.
If I'm being close minded, please tell me what that other option is. What do you label it? creationism...materialism...OR....?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I feel like I was being to crass. I apologize for any harsh language or such, I am really just tired of talking on this specific subject. Not an excuse for improper regards however.
Apology accepted.
How many times have you had to address this subject? I've done it for 15 years lol. I'm the one who should be getting sick of it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
First of all, I know how atheism is defined, I guess I was being less vague about it. I see only two options here as a world view. Either God created the universe or God didn't. So that equals (at least in my mind) creationism (God did) or materialism (God didn't). If an atheist is that who does not believe in the existence of God or gods, then in my assumption they would fall into the other category (materialism). If there is a third option please open my eyes to it.
No, because you do not have to neccedarily believe in a god to believe in other dimensions.
As a rule of thumb, "other dimensions" are those usually depicted within the spiritual spectrum. The spiritual spectrum usually falls within the category of Theism, you know...what an atheist is defined as having a "lack" of belief in. So I guess I'm adding to the definition, not to be stupid but rather to follow the logic. If you believe an atheist CAN believe in other dimensions I won't argue that, fine. IMO it seems nonsensical. But whether they believe in other dimensions doesn't change the fact they don't believe in God, and if they don't believe in God then that is to believe that natural causes formed our universe....so somehow under a materialists/naturalists worldview other dimensions now exist. So not only do we have the natural physical world, but alternative worlds that somehow began to exist (without God).
It is perfectly possible that people believe this without any justification, but there are also some that find proof of the supernatural and simply say none of the evidence is attributable to god, I don't find the argument compelling, but you are incorrect. Materialism is not that popular of a mentality outside of scientific discourse and my particular brand of thinking (as in the generalities not specifically me). You are the one being closed minded if you are not open to the obvious evidence before you.
But atheists are those who normally take what is defined by science, and attribute it (interpret it) to processes that involve no Creator. This is not my assumption, but the assumption that atheists always propose. Again, I'm not restricting my idea of an atheist to merely the definition here but how atheists interpret the world. So what category would you place atheists in if there were only two categories? 1. God created it and...2. God did not create it? if God did not create the universe how would you then define that presumption?
The literal definition of atheism is only about a belief in a god.
Right, and there are only two options unless I'm missing a third one. Creationism or materialism....God or no God.
Whether you think you have to believe in a god to get to other realms doesn't matter, not because your take doesn't matter in general, but because we are discussing other people's beliefs. Which aren't always cogent, but on top of that, you are also flatly wrong. You are simply repeating yourself.
Sure. But I'm not arguing over merely how atheism is defined and what that definition "allows" for. I'm narrowing the definition to what follows in logic. If you want to claim that other dimensions, spirits and ghosts fall within the category of atheism fine, but I want to know how an atheist accounts for those other dimensions, spirits and what world view follows. If God didn't create them, and spirits now exist without God, and these are things that have been proposed by religious sources then what other world view does this fall under if not theism or materialism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Factually you are incorrect. The only thing an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god(s). I do not care what you think on the topic or of people you happened to meet, I don't care. I have met those people, but that doesn't matter, because the only thing that is necessarily true of an atheist is that they do not believe in god. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, because that's not my belief, all that it means is that other people can believe in dumb shit. I am really tired of having to correct people on this, NO, Materialism and Atheism are not the same things, no, they aren't even synonymous.
If an atheist doesn't believe that God exists, then the alternative to that is materialism. You say you don't care what I think but that is what you believe. Not sure why you are angry about that. To believe in God is not "dumb shit", but to say that it is an example of what you're denying. Theism is just as rational as materialism and or atheism, you're world view is not anymore rational. Theism as a proposition has just as much weight as materialism, seeing as there are basically only two options. We could argue which one of the two options are more logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
I was intrigued by your point that some people are unchained by any belief system.
You can be in love with God and be completely unchained. I would say the closer you get to God the more chains are unleashed. If you ever feel chained then you probably have been conditioned.
Could you expound upon that further for me? If this is referring to atheism? If so, does that mean that atheists have no beliefs at all? Is it possible to not believe in anything? I have never been an atheist so I am so curious!
You don't have to have any beliefs, even if you're a Theist believe it or not. Just be in love with God if you believe God exists, leave it at that. What does that mean? it would just mean that you are intuitive about God but have no specific beliefs about that other than you just have feelings that God exists. How you express that is completely in your court. God is freedom, loving God is the ultimate freedom. Why? because God exists and loving God is letting go of all illusions and carnal desires. You want to have an eternal view not a temporal one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I haven't read your debates yet but let me say this...I'm jealous you're on the atheists side lol. I think you're a very smart young man, I like the way you think. You have a dynamic quality, which is what I am attracted to (intellectually speaking). I wish you would engage with me more though, I think you would find spirituality very dynamic as opposed to rigid and one-dimensional. But I know what you feel about that subject. We need more dynamic thinkers on our side, too many religious die-hards when God is not rigid or one-dimensional, rather extremely creative and extremely dynamic.
I'm sure you will improve with every step you take, just don't devote yourself to any ideology just yet. Be free and adventurous, don't limit what could be possible.....atheism can be a ball and chain if you're not careful. Don't take that as an insult, I just don't want to see such a potential wasted on a rigid mentality when there is so much to invest in. Be open to any possibilities, is my only advice. If you're willing to look into whatever we talk about I'd be happy with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
Well I must say...there's nothing wrong with being conservative, but ULTRA conservative?? that must suck lol.
I'd rather not harp on your upbringing so here are my questions...I'm always thinking about God so obviously that's going to be my subject. When you answer though just be relaxed, I'm not judging anything I just want to know about you.
What is your opinion about God?
Do you connect with religion or spirituality?
What is your opinion about Jesus or the Gospels, or both?
What is your opinion about God independent of the Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Hey Willy, what are you editing your posts for? lol, to make sure they are stupid enough? I know you aren't correcting grammar....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses
What would you say to that finding out God exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In the first grade, we would put germ-x in our paper cuts to see who was the toughest.
Oh Lord, we would do the dumbest things when I was young to see who the toughest was. I still have rotator cuff problems from punching each other in the arms until they were black and blue lol.
Would you rather have to bathe in a tub of cockroaches or a tub of wolf spiders?
Wolf spiders, cockroaches seem filthy to me! they just gross me out...
Would you rather eat a slug, or steal a bees nest for honey?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Would you rather have to fight 10 angry geese or 100 pillsbury doughboys?
lol, fighting 100 doughboys might be fun actually. When I punch em in the belly, do they go "oo hoo"...?
Created:
Posted in:
Which is more useful than a bucket of prayers that have gone unanswered for years on end.
Well I appreciate you saying that since it's probably the most honest and sincere thing you've ever said to me. We could expand on this, but you'd have to be willing to communicate in a rational way.
At least when I asked Santa for something I did get it!!!!
You got something from someone whom doesn't exist?
Created: