Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
So not a single Christian here can explain how they became christian
I fell in love with the Gospels at a very young age (around 8 or 9) and was captivated by Jesus' teachings and example. For whatever reason I related and connected with it, it just resonated deeply with me. I was already thinking about God and talking with God as far back as I can recall, well before I decided to apply the Gospels to my life.
It was not "foisted" on me at infancy, though of course the Bible was introduced to me, it was always in my house. My parents had rough lives and weren't really the church going type until much later in our life. Most of the folks in my culture growing up labeled themselves "Christian" regardless of how they lived their lives, it was just what everybody was at that time, if their parents went to church on Sundays they thought they were Christians lol.
That never agreed with me much, because I would read the Bible often on my own accord and it was in stark contrast to what I saw everyone doing, how they acted, how they treated each other. Most kids my age at that time were little selfish brats, back stabbers, horrible to their parents and into all kinds of mischief and dangerous behaviors. I always had a soft heart, was very giving and loyal to my friends. I thought about God all the time, applied all of Jesus' teachings and tried to live that way. To this day I have kept my passion and love for God despite an uncertain path and a lot of hardship.
I wasn't perfect of course, not saying that at all but I knew I was different then those that surrounded me. Plus I had already had several spiritual/paranormal encounters before I was even ten years old.
Anyways to answer the question directly, I became fascinated with the Gospels like I said about 8 years old or so and just basically followed them. IMO to be a Christian simply means to abide in the Gospels, apply them and be willing and pliable before God. As I got older I had been to many churches, home groups, prayer meetings ect ect....was baptized in a Baptist church and would do anything I thought would get me closer to God.
I went through a bit of a rebel stage during my teenage years, got real loose with my actions and lifestyle. By the time I reached 17 years of age is when I fully committed my life to what I thought was acceptable to God. This is about when the scriptures really came to life in my world, all the verses and passages I had been reading during my childhood were exploding within me and I fell back in love with them and began honoring God with all that did once again.
I had a reciprocal relationship with God, if I held nothing back from God.....God held nothing back from me. I would give to God and God would give in return. So basically God has been the anchor in my life, I've sacrificed many parts of myself to know God on deeper levels and I can honestly say the Gospels have been the single most influential thing in my life.
other than having it foisted on them in infancy without their permission.
Tradition gets in the way sometimes but that doesn't mean at some point in a persons life they will not connect with those teachings. I don't think it matters if families attempt to pass on their beliefs to their kids, I mean it's only natural right? does it make someone Christian? not necessarily no, but it could. It just depends on the individual I would say. A lot of kids grew up in Christian households and probably didn't put much emphasis in doctrines and spiritual principles, because they had yet to really connect with those teachings, but that doesn't mean they won't at some point in their lives reflect on them in a much deeper way and begin to apply them and observe the fruit of doing so. IDK I'm just speaking for myself really and I know many people who were raised "Christian" but really never lived Christian lives, they ended up connecting with it much later in life. And again, I think being a Christian is simply applying those teachings to oneself, and so it is surely a conscious effort/choice. It is between the individual and God, what their parents were is basically irrelevant although it may serve a purpose at some point in their lives.
Created:
Posted in:
With four Gospels and endless examples of Jesus being a peace maker and a lover you cherry-pick a handful of supposed verses that you believe contradict that. How Steven-like of you...
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn“‘a man against his father,a daughter against her mother,a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
Jesus' teachings are principle oriented, meaning there are principles behind what He's saying. Jesus wasn't just bringing peace on Earth but also opposing a contrasting system or force. And in doing so that automatically positions such an opposing force in opposition to Jesus' teachings. So while on one hand there is the breaking down of war, that objective entails a war, you must dismantle a war with a war so to speak. Jesus could not come to bring love and peace without there being a war, every time you have a positive force you have the contrasting side that opposes it. So naturally if Jesus comes to make positive changes He comes with a "sword". Meaning that Jesus is ready to defend and fight, not start a fight. The fight had already began, Jesus was coming to settle it.
And let's not forget that when Jesus was being captured He told His followers to put their sword away, so we know this is more of a figurative passage. Jesus' command was to love not kill.
The opposing side makes no distinction between family, friends and partners. Meaning that if you choose to follow Jesus even your own mother could turn against you, or oppose you. Because it's not your family that is the head of the battle, it is God and so you have no real companions unless they are on that side, they could turn on you just like that. That's kind of the meaning behind what Jesus is saying here.
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
This is true in light of what I just wrote above. All the passage is doing is making a distinction between two forces...two opposing sides. Whether it is your momma, brother, sister ect ect it makes no difference.
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Again this goes in line with what I said about a battle, if you wish to be on the right side then you have to be willing to abandon anything not on that side no matter what it is. It's not a command to leave ones family, it's a principle oriented illustration. Family is used to express that which is very nearest and close to a person, something that means a great deal. Here Jesus is using that to illustrate true and sincere zeal. If a Kingdom must flourish (and those that wish to inhabit that Kingdom) then any threat to that Kingdom must be opposed or stopped at the very least in principle.
Verse 38 speaks for itself.
39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
You're not very good with figurative language are you Steven?
40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.
What's the matter with this one Steve? did you run out of examples lol??
I struggle to read anything that encourages peace about these verses. They encourage division not unity. They encourage intolerance not tolerance. All in all, they encourage everything that isn't peaceful. They encourage everything but to love one another.
That's because you ignored all the verses, illustrations, commands and parables about peace and love and decided to cherry pick a few verses out of context. Sounds like something Steven would do...
It is also interesting that Jesus encourages everyone to " take up their own cross". If you don't, you are not worth a toss to Jesus.... the Prince of Peace. What ever could this mean?
Take up your cross is just analogous to being a participator, in other words don't be a lazy azz. There's two sides with one of those sides being led by Jesus, if you're not on that side it automatically puts you at odds with Jesus. You can't step into a war zone and think you can make peace without their being some altercation. Try going into gang territory and preaching good will to all men and tell me what happens lol, you're going to have bullets whizzing past your little head. You might even get jumped, murdered, tortured who knows. Whenever you bring peace into a bad situation there's first going to be a war, even if your intentions and objection is peace, you have to fight for that peace. So while on one hand you are a peace-maker, that entails you are also a war-maker consequently. Not because you stand for war and division but because the opposition does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Then stop telling me what to do. Unless you're doing it to trick the mods into thinking I am harassing you. Then by all means, go ahead.
lol!
Maybe because you keep deleting my replies and then lying that I didn't reply.
He's mastered this trick, he cuts out the explanation and then claims you didn't have an answer. Many times his questions are nonsensical and they have no answer, and when explained the reason why the question was nonsensical he still avoids the explanation and claims "see! I was right, Christians run from my questions!" ....lol, IDK Ethan, I think Stevie might get coal for Christmas...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I certainly personally believe that we are responsible for our own actions
As you pointed out, the Bible believes that too.
and the suffering of another person cannot bring you atonement.
The principle behind such a concept is that all actions must be absorbed somewhere and somehow. They don't just dissipate into the wind, they are always there for God to see, and for God to feel.
Now, since grace exists as a principle too, God must allow grace for sins to be pardoned and forgiven. But what was done must be atoned for still, someone or some thing must absorb the repercussions of sin.
The reason why God doesn't "ask" us (lol) if we want such an option is because God wants it to be a gift, knowing that we as frail humans making stupid decisions are also in many ways stupid so we should really never have to be fully accountable for ALL the things we do forever, and so God provides a safety net if we wish to abide in it and use it. Many times we make mistakes and do stupid crap because we are just limited in the way we think and eventually we may change, and God understands that which is why grace exists. Any atonement is simply grace which presents itself in the form of forgiveness which simply passes your guilt to another place.
Again, since your actions just don't dissipate they must be absorbed somehow for you to be pardoned of them. And the benefit for you, is that you won't have to absorb the repercussion of things you did that now maybe you don't want to do anymore. Remember, this is not just about passing the buck or creating a means where you are no longer responsible for your actions. Rather this is about your remorse and your participation, the gift of God was provided but only on terms that you want your "sins" removed from your account (or the repercussions of your sins better put). The objective here is that you adjust your future actions so really this is relevant to your past mistakes more than future ones.
In order for such a transaction to occur, someone or something must suffer on your behalf. This is where Jesus steps in, not needing anyone's permission He decided to create an atonement that would absorb the consequence of sins, through His own body.
But does the Bible itself actually teach that we alone are responsible for our sins to the extent that there can be no substitutions?
No, because both principles exist.....grace and consequence...so there must also be an outlet for both.
Of course the OT also does teach that God will punish sinners and that you'll reap what you sow and so on, so there is also a component of personal responsibility. My assessment would be that the Bible says you have personal responsibility but your sins can also be transferred in certain sanctioned transactions.
You're very bright Castin, which is why I always admire you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the atheist reality is not one cogent thing,
I believe that atheism is most likely materialism in a nutshell. Anything outside materialism falls within the categories of spirituality/religion/theism. I'm not going to sit here an argue endlessly over semantics, but that is the basics of what we've been dealing with in concerns with atheism for decades now. To try and change that now is somewhat redundant.
atheists can believe in spirits and ghosts and metaphysical realms
Lol. And now you have to account for transcendent realms and souls that have originated from somewhere (without God), and somewhere independent of how we understand the physical universe from a materialists perspective.
I as do not believe others to exists
That's what makes you an Atheist. Rather than a Theist or some label that is not restricted to materialism. Wow, you say one thing and admit another...
but atheism is not a group thing with regards to assumptions.
I've never met an atheist that supports metaphysical realms, spirits and ghosts. Even if there are Buddhist factions that claim they are atheists, they still have to account for what I said above. In other words there is no such thing, an atheist cannot account for metaphysical realms with an atheist worldview, it's nonsensical. I'd argue that with any person claiming they are atheist. And of course they would lose, as it only makes sense under a Theistic worldview. Because it only follows that God could be in control of multiple realities existing and millions of existing souls or more existing otherwise you get silly. Only one source can be necessary in terms of logic, that source being intelligent.
You can believe others to exist all you like, until you prove it true, I will sit here in reality.
So goes the monotonous battle between materialism and creationism (atheism vs theism). To call it anything else is a pipe dream.
atheists are simply people who lack a belief in god, they can believe any spectrum of things outside of that.
If you don't agree that metaphysical realms, spirits and ghosts are not proposed as religious concepts then you are just lost. They are specific to religious propositions and have been for ages. The soul, transcendent realms and spirits are fully articulated and understood through religious sources and spirituality only, to claim they are atheistic concepts is a denial of reality. Any atheist claiming theistic concepts would have to come and support such notions and how they formulate their beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am starting to think prana is just electricity,
Maybe controlled electricity, which would be power.
and that is really what's alive, the energy in matter.
Sure, but what is energy? is it inanimate or alive itself? is it an inanimate force? or is energy the force itself that is alive....
I believe that energy is generated, and then manipulated.
Energy is the last force of "matter" that can be detected, so it is assumed as existing alone. But energy is only the underlying property of one other single thing. I call that property awareness. First you have conscious awareness, and that is what generates energy (as we measure it), in other words if awareness generates energy then they co-exist, they exist together but only one can be measured.
Because what is measured is movement or activity, but it's the conscious activity that generates the force of energy. Did you know that your thoughts (the activity of your conscious thoughts) generate a form of energy? yes, so if you apply that on an infinite scale you have an infinite scale of energy. Brilliant!
So if that is true now you have a reason to understand why energy exists at all. So basically every time you observe energy you observe awareness, every time you observe awareness you observe energy.
Now you have a reciprocating field of activity that makes sense, because now you can account for what energy produces! which is the products of intelligence!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why is god everything?
This is a misunderstood concept in many ways. Most people would assume that if I said God is everything then that means everything is God. Not so, because you have to understand how creation is put together.
That would be like saying that there was a tiny rock that crumbled and fell from a mountain and that teeny piece of rock looked up and said "I am that mountain". Technically, the rock is made of the very same thing as that mountain but that rock cannot claim it is that mountain, for it is a teeny piece of that mountain. The mountain exists as the full state of what that mountain is, the rock was just a fraction of that mountain.
Similarly, there is nothing created that exists as like God in such a full state of God. Even though the soul itself is made of the same substance as God it cannot claim IT IS GOD, because it is merely a teeny, tiny fraction of God within a world it has been subjected to. It's subject to all that is within creation, God is not. So while the soul came out of God, is one with God before it was sent into creation as a seed, it is not God in God's full state of existence.
Now, on the other hand since God is all pervasive and all encompassing God has access to all channels of consciousness, to all channels of awareness, we don't. God exists both within all of creation and independent of all of creation just like energy both exists within form and independent of form. So God can observe everything through your channel of awareness.
I like to say that there is nowhere something exists where awareness is not present. And that wherever energy exists so does awareness, wherever awareness exists so does energy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If god is everything, literally eveything, (I am within god for example)
There's certain things one must understand when making such a claim. It's a loaded statement.
then that means literally everything is god's play, and objective morality would have to be neccesary,
Okay. I didn't really expect you to dissect my post to mainly this, I was hoping you would find more content. But, TBH this is why I love conversing with you, you have a way with comprehending implications and that's just fine. I would rather someone skip to the implications than banter back in forth with the lesser value content. I do agree with what you said so far.
I don't think god is everything if one were real, I don't really see that as a quality of a god
Then you have to forfeit the quality of God being omnipresent. Meaning, that you're claiming some things exist outside of God if you were to make the counter claim. And while I don't believe any religious person would admit that, they also won't admit the implications, that everything that exists...exists within God. And the implications that everything that exists, exists within God is too much for the average Joe to handle. Because that would entail that God is within all things, and being within all things that would mean that God is everything, or at least present within everything.
This actually, ironically is a very basic quality of God lol. Nothing exists outside of God, because in reality there is nothing independent of the Creator, nothing.
more of a universe.
But the universe exists within God not outside God somewhere....
This is how I used to attempt to conceptualize God (outside the universe, maybe within it), but with time and patience I realized I could no longer conceptualize God as being somewhere over yonder and the universe and everything else being over in another place somewhere. It only makes sense when rationalizing embodiments and form, and God is not a created thing, as a matter of fact God in Its full state of Reality is unembodied..... Encompasses all of creation, pervasive and infinite just like energy pretty much. Even energy itself is within God, and as I explained before it is the quality of the conscious activity of God that generates energy....they co-exist.
One thing that all Theists should consider is consciousness independent of embodiments or matter.
Once one realizes that consciousness exists independent of matter, then what I'm saying must make sense.
Now, could you ascribe that quality to a god? Yes, yes you absolutely could, but why?
Because the alternative would be to believe that a created thing, like embodiment would be a condition of God rather that what God created. And next, to believe that there are somethings outside of God somewhere so the term omnipresent no longer has any meaning.
So the question becomes why NOT?
You have to understand I've been on every side of the fence, my foundation is fundamentalist Christianity.....I grew up reading and fascinated by the Bible...and sense that point I've studied just about every source and proposition about God. Why? because first of all my complete love and dedication to God, and my love and dedication to knowing every part of God. So please don't assume I'm just some hippie brat that has no real grounding in all of this. Quite the contrary, I've put endless hours and nonstop mental debating within my thoughts to bring you what is the most accurate and efficient knowledge I can to you, including my participation and experience directly from spirituality.
So if I make a claim, you should believe I've already thought of every single angle lol. I'm only going to give you the best of the best, unbiased and unadulterated and yet controlled information.
Whats your reasoning there? Why is god everything?
Because God is akin to energy, in that God pervades all of creation. You have to go all the way back to how God creates anything, what God IS...and what anything can be made out of. Again though, it is a loaded statement and with that you have to understand all the implications and what that actually means.
I never actually said that here, so you must have derived that statement from what I've concluded, very good! but we have to elaborate on that and what that entails.
Everything begins with God, all materials and elements to create with come out of God (including the manipulation of energy), there is nothing that God chose to create with that somehow existed outside of God somewhere. The universe only exists because God first exists, not that the universe existed and then God began to exist. So everything that exists first originated with God, came out of God.
So at face value, if nothing exists apart from God than what exists that is NOT God? show me how that would work?
One thing to remember is that anything created as in forms, or embodiments are inanimate because they are a product of isolated energy not pure consciousness. So when we get to the soul itself we have to remember that what the soul is made of, is identical to God. The soul can not be made of some inanimate, foreign material no...it is created or encapsulated from the same material God is made of.
Consciousness is consciousness, it is not something else no matter if it is God or a soul.
How does God create a soul? well if you imagine consciousness as identical to water or an ocean, and everything that exists, exists within that body of water how could you create something distinct from that body of water?
Well I'm glad you asked lol, the only way you could do that is to encapsulate that water into an isolated form. If I took or created a covering or a capsule, I could isolate a tiny bit of water within that capsule. Now we have an isolated form within that body of water that is distinct from that water. It is not separate from that water though, it is merely existing within that body of water as an embodied form.
The question of how God creates forms (within creation) is already understood within quantum mechanics and how we understand energy.
I'd be glad to elaborate more on this but please understand I'm trying to simplify this for the sake of efficiency of reading.
Now, I would agree that god would usually be depicted outside of the universe,
Then you have already abandoned the concept of being omnipresent, remember no matter where you go you have to have a coherent understanding of God. God is not outside the universe somewhere, God is all pervasive and the universe is within God. Also God does not exist somewhere within the universe, or outside it, rather within it and transcendent of it. God can be both within the universe and beyond it, assuming God encompasses creation.
but not actually be in that universe.
You would be the one claiming that God exists somewhere in the universe, or somewhere outside it not me. I'm the one claiming that the universe exists WITHIN God, not that God is in it. Two different things here, the universe exists within God as any form exists within a body of water. God of course being the body of water encapsulates all that exists.
Anything existing within the universe would be an incarnation or some created form. That's a whole nother discussion altogether, which we can get to.
I suppose I could be misinterpreting what you're saying and you could simply say everything is contained within
Stop you here, yes everything that exists is contained within God....not that God exists in some location within it.
Created:
Posted in:
Could a god grant moral objectivity?
As we discussed before, creation is driven by laws.... under natural laws as well as moral laws and principles. But these laws are cause and effect, they are objective not subjective. That's why I put actions and choices within the categories of positive and negative, what effect will they have on you or others. If we take religion out of the picture for a moment it should become very clear for you how to determine what is positive and what is negative.
I'd hate to use the term Karma here but it's the best means of describing such moral laws as cause and effect and what that entails. You could also say sowing and reaping, it just means that for every action there is a reaction, for every effect there was a cause. Creation exists within God, so such a system is not independent of God. On the other hand, it's not personally controlled by God, they are fixed laws.
Whatever negative actions you do dictates what eventually comes back to you, whatever positive things you do also dictates your future experiences. Natural law says if I throw a rock at your head, you will suffer the consequences, but moral law says that eventually I will suffer the consequences. If that makes any sense. This is objective not subjective, keeping in mind I'm not arguing for certain religious ideas and claims. These laws are black and white, and they effect you one way or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
This is good, but I would take it a step further and say not worry about what they do at all. Individuals (we) are not God and they (we) are not the law, so anything within the law is none of our business and anything in between a person and God is none of our business. If we love every man no matter their personal lifestyles there would be no contention, if God wants to judge let God do that, we don't need any part of that. I say we only love, that way there's nothing that could come between you and the other party and then there would be no animosity between souls. Many times it's because of that very thing that someone may reject God, then it's your fault.
Shooting people obviously shouldn't be in the same classification lol, that's probably offensive to someone. Shooting people is against the law and we should always want to prevent harm being done to another person. Morals standards should be left well enough alone because again, if something is within the law it's then none of our business either way. When we let go, we can let God do whatever God wants, our job is to bring people in and not let baggage get in the way of a special relationship. So I agree, but also we need to keep our nose out of people's lives. If we build a bridge and the other party wrecks that bridge then it's their doing and not ours. We should only worry about the building of that bridge no matter the cost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
For me, something which is objective is true independent of any minds, therefore, if there was an objective morality we should be able to reach it WITHOUT god
My only contention with this, is that nothing exists outside of God. Rather everything exists within God. So whatever exists, is not independent of that Reality.
Now let me say this, I don't believe people NEED God (or have to accept God) to lead moral lives, or know how to make moral decisions. Like as to assume say..an atheist is an immoral person, or is incapable of being a good person, that is bull.
I think I believe that compassion and the soul co-exist, I believe it's part of our conscious experience so being a theist or an atheist is neither here nor there, most souls will strive to work within a positive framework. The soul comes out of God, is created by God and with that there will always be the basic standard of the conscience. Now I'm not saying people won't choose to do bad things, but I think doing bad things is an aberration, from conditioned perceptions based on experiences.
If this were true, then you would see that people who have no affiliation with God leading pretty moral lives, being pretty good people. And of course we see that, and as a matter of fact many times it's a person who believes in God being the one who is acting immoral. So in this sense, beliefs play no major role in morality, or leading a moral life.
Then we get to more grey areas, like what some people think is right or wrong, and what kind of lifestyles are right and wrong ect ect. This is where man as well as religion begins to put their noses where it doesn't really belong, many times.
This is why I like to categorize morality as positive and negative (and neutral) rather than right or wrong. Because when we categorize it as right or wrong then it becomes much more subjective. It's not a sure fix of course but it does a decent job of making the subject more clear cut.
This shifts the moral argument more towards what we do and how we act to others and nature rather than what we personally choose to like or dislike. It also helps to clarify any harm we could be doing to ourselves as well in an objective way. Like if I do this or that, am I causing a negative effect on myself or others, or is this a positive thing for myself or others or is this just a neutral thing ect ect.
I'd rather not get into specific arguments of what certain religious sources claim is right or wrong, or what is sin blah blah blah. For this conversation I want to keep it more cut and dry.
So lets say if we use the positive and negative standard we can decide if anything we choose to do fits into one of those categories, or does it fall into a neutral category.
so the lack of any objective standards seem to point out that IF a god existed what that god would be telling us wouldn't be objective.
I would tend to say that is true, coming from religious sources. Since that's who seems to be "telling" us what these standards are. I would say, if you're interested in God...just begin to be open-minded and willing to listen to the inner conscience. Turn within and begin to attempt a communication with God and just be willing to let anything go whatever it may be. Often times religion just gets in the way because really you don't need anything between you and God. If God wants you to know something you can receive that information yourself.
As I said above, compassion already co-exists within your soul. It will always follow you around so the notion to do good things and positive things should always haunt you. That you already have, but with the finer details it's always a good practice to just get quiet and listen, stop thinking and allow yourself the opportunity to connect with God on much deeper levels.
If you do that you won't have to worry about what anyone thinks or says, you have a specific journey with God that is specific to you and no one can take that from you.
To answer your initial inquiry I think you're right. You can reach a moral standard without God, but that's not really the point behind spirituality or being a Theist per say. Spirituality can certainly stretch and challenge your resolve and carry you to your greatest potential but again morality is not the key issue with God. It's your pliability and willingness that spirituality wants, because there are things that you are not aware of in any given moment. There are things you have yet to learn, and without your participation you may never learn them here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I had an epiphany, and now I kind of sort of understand what everyone is talking about when they talk about oneness.
Yeah, basically it's kind of like everything within creation is within the "body" of God, of course "body" being a metaphorical description. Since God encompasses all of creation, everything within that is interconnected. The way we understand energy is pretty much parallel to how we understand the reality of God.
So really God is not over there and something else over here, rather there is an interconnection between layers of form, God is omnipresent and all pervasive. Those layers of form are what give the impression of contrast and separation. But it is the very fabric between all things that always touch, I like to picture creation as an ocean....and all forms and capsules are always within that body of water, surrounded by it, submerged within it. With God being the body of water obviously.
Another way to conceptualize it, is the universe being the mind of God and all manifestations within that mind are the product of God, or thoughts and desires of God. It's easy to understand once you get rid of the misconception or illusion of form being associated with conscious awareness.
In reality, nothing is outside God, so it must be that all things are within one infinite system.
But surprisingly it's a MATERIAL oneness, and now I'm not even sure if there is anything that is "spiritual" or "supernatural". Everything is connected, physically.
That's pretty much true, it's just we use "spiritual" as a means to communicate that which transcends the immediate physical sense perception, not that which is separate from it, but that which goes beyond it. We need a term to understand what we mean when we refer to inner conscious experience, or a transcendental observation.... which is another channel of experience but still within the same fabric. It's kind of like watching TV in a way, even though everything that can be watched is within that TV, you can change the channel and have different observations. That's the best why I can break it down to make sense even though that may sound strange.
Spiritual experience is only distinct from what we perceive as physical because it derives from outside our human channel of observation, but still within the physical system of creation and consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism is not defined as not knowing something.
I disagree.
Lol, that's not how atheism is defined. Anywhere...
ATHEIST is literally "NOT-a-THEIST".
Correct, A-theism is a term in opposition to theism, which persists that they know. At least know what they believe or disbelieve in.
It simply describes someone who does NOT follow the teachings of any THEISTIC god($).
It IS a philosophical position, which is directly in contrast to theism.
Where the fck do you get your definitions lol!
Atheist-
"godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being"
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
"Atheism is in the broadest sense (the least specific) an absence of belief in the existence of deities (note, an absence specific to deities). Less broadly (more specific), atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense ( very specific), atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism"
"in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
Though atheists like to pretend that they know nothing, they don't know how their label is defined. It INCLUDES a denial and a rejection that God exists as well as making a claim that God does not exist. Those are the requirements of being an atheist whether you accept that or not. Disbelief and lack of belief are being used synonymously, there is no word for a lack of beliefs, there must be a denial of theism specifically. Either way, no matter how you wish to cherry pick it, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, that's why the term exists. It's an opposing position, one which DOES express knowing.
An AGNOSTIC is literally, "NOT-a-GNOSTIC".It simply describes someone who does NOT personally have any conscious memory of a GNOSTIC experience (and or does not identify themselves as a GNOSTIC).
Agnostic-
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
"broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
"a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"
So, according to the definitions I provided that are accurately depicted it would be logical to conclude that a person who makes no philosophical stance about God or gods is not an atheist. An atheist is not a person "who simply doesn't know anything", that's not how it is defined within any description. That's why I say it's possible some atheists are probably really agnostic about God (according to the above sources), rather than disbelieving which is synonymous with not having a belief in God (lack of).
An agnostic admits nothing can be known, and does commit to either believing or disbelieving in the existence of God. That's why the term exists. So if one wishes to be neutral about God, they would fit better in an agnostic position rather than an opposing position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Can no one explain the " will" in this prayer?
The answer is as various as there are people saying the prayer, since the will of God would be different and specific to each individual person saying the prayer no? what is the will of God for each individual? I don't think that is answerable, which is why it doesn't need to be specific in this template for prayer.
For example, every day I make hundreds of choices, perhaps thousands. Some important others not so important. I would imagine that the gravity of each choice would determine the importance of God's will being done. As Jesus also said "let not thine will, but your will be done". That's sort of the attitude I believe is to be expressed as we carry out our decisions in our day to day activities. And as I mentioned, the more salient the choice, the more significance in allowing for God's will to be done. I imagine that it's not always known what God's will is to be done in any given scenario, the importance is allowing for such an opportunity. And that simply involves a persons attitude and willingness. Whether or not they end up doing the will of God is immaterial to the point behind Jesus' prayer, which is to at least acknowledge the option.
As we read further along in the chapter it says...
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
It's the same principle involved. It just means to put God first in all that you do and decide, and hopefully in doing so the will of God may be done. Again, the will of God is specific to any given scenario, so it needs not to be answered as it apples to many things not just one thing.
What actually is "the will" to be done?
No one knows, until a choice is to be made. That's why it just says, "thy will be done." There's a will for each decision to be made, I can do my will or God's will...
How is the "will " to be done on earth?
It's carried out in any given scenario, depends on the choice being made. The objective is to be open to it and ask God, whether or not you get it right 100% of the time is irrelevant.
How is the "will" done in Heaven.
It's just an analogous sentiment, meaning that the thing God would want you to choose is the same thing God would want for both heaven and earth.
And by whom is the "will" being done, on earth?
It's carried out by the individual, again which is specific to each choice being made. Some more important than others. For example, someone pisses me off and I want to punch them in the face, or someone lied about me and now I have to get even...perhaps your girlfriend cheated on you and now you're going to do something bad. Well God's will in each scenario might be different than your will in each scenario, so that's where we have to learn how to let go and ask before we react. What is your will God in this moment and choice? do I do what I want or do I ask God what to do first?
How long does it take to carry out this "will" of the "father"?
It depends on how long you reflect on the choice being made, and how long you wait until you feel there is a sufficient resolution.
The point being, is to reduce the reaction of what I want, and reflect more on what God would want me to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
But that doesn't mean that men's spirituality is founded on reason.
And who are you to say it's not BTW? what reasons do you have to make any assumption?
If you're not the one having the experience of it, then you really ultimately have no say in the matter is what it comes down to. All you can do is judge, or make wild assertions about it because of your own bias. It's up to the ones that support it to make claims about it. Or whether they have reason that is the basis for their experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Sense experience isn't necessarily objective reality.
I knew you were going to try and say that, which is why I said it wouldn't matter even if it were subjective. Either way, to experience something is an observation, which can be based on reason. However, I never said sense experience, since we would agree if a transcendent reality exists it exists objectively no? say...if God exists, then that would be an objective reality right?
Rather, the experience of spirituality eludes the immediate sense perception, but not the conscious experience/observation. Just because it eludes the immediate physical sense perception does not mean it eludes reason or objectivity. If it exists, then it is objective because it's not dependent on feelings or opinions.
Experience isn't always observation of facts and events.
Then what is an experience?
Experience-
"practical contact with and observation of facts or events."
Schizophrenic people suffer from hallucinations all the time, those aren't objective, nor particularly reasonable (In more ways than one). It hasn't been demonstrated that anyone's spirituality is founded on reason.
Lol, it hasn't been demonstrated that spiritual encounters only happen to schizophrenic people. Not even remotely. Did you even know that one out of three people (normal people) have had an encounter with a spiritual being or seen one? are you aware of the full scope of spiritual experience within the whole of human history? it exceeds any other single phenomenon by far. Go ahead and assume it to be a product of schizophrenic people, I would hope you are satisfied with such a narrow view of reality. If making blanket assertions and making ignorant assumptions is your thing then maybe you shouldn't be debating such topics.
As a matter of fact, why even come here at all?
What a shame, because for one....if any of this is real you're never going to know because of your stubbornness and bias. Without the ability to be open minded and flexible, you can never allow for truth to be revealed.
This is why atheism is really more of a disease than anything constructive. It is very destructive for ones enlightenment to truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
But if the resolution is positing that God exists, then the BoP lies solely with the affirmative.
Of course, again, I don't think anyone has denied that. But once a counter position is offered (atheism)....someone says that God does not exist, then there is a shared BOP.
There's two positions with one being in the middle. God exists, God does not exist and I just don't know either way. Atheism is not defined as not knowing something. Perhaps there are more agnostics that are atheists they just don't know it lol. Atheism is a counter position to theism, both share a BOP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
belief in something with no evidence
Do you know anyone who does that? if evidence is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
If we are in a debate forum, most likely there's going to be reasons for beliefs that indicate to the person something is true.
And if an atheist takes the position that God does not exist, most likely there is some reason that indicates to them to refuse such a proposition. If they have reason, then they have a position that needs substantiation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Why don't you believe in big foot ?
Never said I didn't, there is sufficient reason to consider the amount of testimonials. However, since I have no official experience with Bigfoot (unlike I do with spirituality) I cannot take a position, OR a counter position.
How did ya figure out that you don't believe in big foots.?
Did I make that claim? lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
But with topics related to the existence or non-existence of something, I feel the BoP naturally lies on the person making the claim that the thing exists to prove beyond reasonable doubt it does or doesn't exist.
I don't think anyone is denying that. The point is to show the counter position, not a neutral position. Atheism is not a neutral position, it is directly a counter position to theism. If I say God exists I need to show why I think that, if an atheists say no, God does not exist or probably does not exist they need to show why they believe that. Note you said to "prove it does OR doesn't exist". Both are positions.
If you said I still believe Santa Clause exists I would say give me reason why, if I said Santa does not exist I would have to provide a good reason why I have offered a counter position.
BOP isn't always about proving something, but offering the reasoning behind a position. If there is a counter position, then there is also a shared BOP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists do not make claims, and so have nothing to prove.
Baloney, they make claims all the time.... being an atheist consequently means your refusal to accept that God or gods exist. Of course, you don't have to "prove" that but here in a forum tailored for religious and Theistic debate you have to provide reason you don't accept it. So why don't you accept the existence of God? there must be some sort of reasoning no?
Theists claim that specific GODS exist.
Theists believe in the existence of God and have reasons for doing so. Atheists reject (disbelieve) the existence of God and have reasons for doing so, don't be silly.
Atheists do not claim that GODS do not exist.....
They do all the time, where have you been? not only that but claim and think they can show it as well.
All that atheists require is for you to unequivocally substantiate your claim.....And then we can all be true believers together.
Lol cute, atheism is to disbelieve in the existence of God or gods. To disbelieve something, you must show what it is that has convinced you of disbelieving. If you refuse to accept the existence of God, or reject Theistic claims you must have reason for doing so, to be an atheist one must have a counter position. If you have a stance that God does not exist, you have to provide good reason for believing that.
Theists could sit back and say nothing, and wait for atheists to show and give reasons for why they insist God does not exist. Or why they disbelieve. I love how atheists pretend that both "disbelieve", and "in the existence of God or gods" is not in the definition of an atheist lol. Even if you claim you lack a belief, you still lack a belief in the existence of God, why?
Even if you were to take the easy route and claim there is no good evidence to accept it, you would still have to account for all the evidence that points to it, that indicates the human experience goes well beyond an atheists worldview. Having no good evidence to accept it, must mean you have good evidence to reject it.
It's not a Chicken and Egg scenario.
Yes is it actually, I say yes you say no. But there is a middle ground between theism and a-theism. Atheism is not some default position and don't pretend that it is. It is a term used in association that directly opposes theism. Otherwise the term has no meaning. Atheism is not a lack of beliefs, it specifically refers to Gods existence. So if you lack belief in Gods existence you must have a reason why. Once you have a reason why, you have a position.
But we know you could say you are agnostic concerning the proposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
But that doesn't mean that men's spirituality is founded on reason.
Is there any reason it can't be? if spirituality is an experience (which is what it is), that experience can be justified or explained. Whether or not you find that explanation compelling is neither here nor there.
Such as?
Anything man experiences can be explained, articulated and even justified. Experience is observation of facts or events, if a transcendent reality exists independent of the immediate physical sense perception then that reality is also objective. If it is objective then it is also compatible with reason. Even if it were subjective, it wouldn't matter because anything that is to be experienced can be founded on reason. Your particular taste or distaste for the topic is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherent. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?
Lol the simplicity of what you're saying seems to be going over his head. Part of the problem is that the poster thinks atheism means a lack of beliefs. Rather than a disbelief specifically in God.
Atheism is not defined as a lack of beliefs, why that doesn't sink in I have no idea. A-theism is specific to Theism, which is the comprehension of the existence of God or gods....otherwise atheism means nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@amandragon01
Disbelief and (or) lack of belief are being used synonymously, because it is specific to the existence of God or gods. Atheism isn't defined as "lack of beliefs" it is specific to the rejection (or disbelief) in God (or more specific, to the existence of God), as opposed to Theism. The definition would not exist without the cognition and understanding of theism, thus an understanding of God is necessary. This is so simple to understand, I have a "lack of" patience engaging any further in the topic at hand.
Lets call a disbelief in leprechauns A-gnomism.....as opposed to gnomism which is a belief in leprechauns.....Saying I lack belief in leprechauns is also saying I disbelieve in them, or have no belief why? because I first have cognition of them to have no belief specific to the existence of leprechauns. Claiming I lack beliefs is not the same, it has no relevance to A-gnomism specifically.
A-gnomism is not a lack of beliefs, that's not how it is defined, it is a disbelief (or lack of belief) in leprechauns. Again, the misconception that atheism means a lack of beliefs is somewhat silly, because we all know that without the cognition of Theism the term makes zero sense, it no longer means anything not to mention the reality that the definition itself insists the cognition of the existence of God or gods. There is no word for "lack of beliefs", other than saying "lack of belief". Babies can lack beliefs, but can't disbelieve in God (which is synonymous with a "lack of belief" IN GOD). .
A-theism was intended as a term for the lack of belief (or disbelief) in God specifically, for one to have no beliefs in the existence of God specifically one has to be aware of such concept otherwise a-theism is a worthless term. Without a belief in God there can be no term opposing it, and upon opposing it or rejecting it the term a-theism now has relevance. A baby cannot be an atheist (which is an opposing position to the existence of God or gods), though they can lack beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Nothing you've said so far indicates that there is a designer besides your assertion that processes correlate to intelligence.
The fact that processes are associated with intelligence IS the indicator of a Creator.
Also, if the designer needs natural processes to design things, then why assume a designer?
That makes no sense, perhaps because you're adding the word "natural". I'm saying the very processes themselves are used to brings about results. So in other words they don't occur naturally, and cannot occur naturally or by themselves. Rather the processes are the results of intelligent cause or intervention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Natural Processes =/= Intelligent design nor intention.
Who said natural? I did not indicate that processes occur naturally on their own. That is your assertion not mine.
Nothing you've said so far indicates that there is a designer besides your assertion that processes correlate to intelligence.
That's right, perhaps read that again. I explained why I don't use the "designer" claim. Read that again.
This feels like an allusion to the watchmaker argument. Also, if the designer needs natural processes to design things, then why assume a designer?
I explained why there needs to be intelligence for there to be a process.
The designer in your examples remains superfluous to otherwise working models of reality.
Lol, I never even used the term designer. Read all that again and then respond to my content as I wrote it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Lack of belief is not the same as lack of belief in God. Once you add the words "in god" you've added content that needs to be understood. I can have lack of belief in general, but a lack of belief in fairies presupposes an understanding of that concept. This is simple to understand. For a baby to lack belief in God, it must have an understanding of God's existence. A baby therefore cannot deny the existence of God, or have a lack of belief in that. It simply does not know either way, and certainly has no understanding of existence or nonexistence.
And the way I'm using agnostic is a person who simply does not know. But as I said many times now, I'd rather not claim that a baby can take any philosophical stance. So I'm not going to argue that a baby is agnostic at this point, but a baby is definitely in a default position. And the default position is not atheism because it is in contrast to Theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
@Sum1hugme
must show that there is a designer and that the designer is intelligent, both of which are impossible.
Well to focus on perfection or imperfection is not useful, because for one the physical world was never created to be a model of perfection, rather a model of cause and effect which incidentally begets imperfection. I focus on processes more than "design" per say, because there could be imperfections of each process or even in the grand system of cause and effect so the "design" begins to look flawed, therefore ID might be rejected if the design has imperfections.
I believe it's easy to show intelligence in the processes of the universe though. And I do that through correlation which serves as strong indicator or evidence. When we observe the universe as a whole from the beginning (not literal beginning) it's easy to see there is a succession of events that have a desired outcome, a production if you will. Since we know that processes are associated with intelligence or agency, we can make a case for creation as a proposition.
I don't think it is a long shot to correlate such processes with intelligence, because it is somewhat absurd to accept that inanimate forces and inanimate materials could begin to produce anything, let alone processes that have specific results. What results? the results we observe as processes occur within the universe as materials come together is what I'm referring to. It is no stretch to make the claim that there must first be forethought or mind for a process to occur, and understand what materials are needed to accomplish the results of that process.
Evolution is very much included as a production of this system of processes to bring about desired outcomes. So to say that ID denies evolution is stupid, not denying that proponents of ID deny it of course but not as a concept. Mainly, it's an opposition of worldviews namely atheism vs theism, or more accurately materialism vs creationism. The reason why there is opposition to evolution is because it is associated with materialism or proponents of atheism. In other words people like Darwin for example assert that such a process occurs naturally without the need for any intelligent influence and while he is perfectly within his rights to interpret it that way it's not the only option.
Having said that there's really only two options involved which makes this choice much easier to determine individually. Only one option is valid or true, either God created the universe or God did not.
as for Intelligent design, since it denies evolution, it is very unlikely to be true.
The proposition of ID does not deny evolution rather proponents of ID may deny it. ID denies materialism and atheism not evolution as a process..at least not from my understanding. And that's usually due to the fact that evolutionists deny such a process as having correlation with a Creator. So what we have is a battle of worldviews, as proponents of evolution are mostly proponents of atheism. That's why Theism and evolution have any beef to start with, and it is unfortunate TBH because no worldview or proponent of atheism gets to claim scientific observations, because science is a neutral study not a worldview. Same goes for Theists, there's no need to deny or oppose scientific discoveries or observations because God uses processes to bring things into existence and those processes can be studied in various ways. And through science is how we understand the processes of creation!
Evolution fits within the category of an intelligent process, one that produces desired results. I don't know if it's just me, but in order that God creates something there must be a process to bring about such results. In other words God doesn't just poof things into existence (despite what religious sources may or may not claim), there must be an idea, materials gathered and then a process that produces that idea. We can correlate that with anything we observe being created in our own world and extend that same premise to the universe. It's just the Creator does it on a much larger scale but the principal is the same.
Created:
Posted in:
A baby cannot reason within themselves that they have no belief in God, or that they "lack" belief in God. They cannot reason that they have one, in order that a baby have a belief in God or have a lack of belief in God (disbelieve) they first must have an understanding of that concept. Having a "lack" of belief in the existence of God is the same as not believing in God, or disbelieving in God. That is why the term "disbelief" is within the definition. Disbelief or lack of belief are being used synonymously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Atheism is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄθεος atheos meaning "without gods; godless; secular; refuting or repudiating the existence of gods, especially officially sanctioned gods"
"godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).
Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god (s)".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
I have spoken with theists and atheists who have convinced me there doesn't need to be that much ability to reason on either side.
That would be more of an intuition then, because intuition can occur without the ability to reason. That's why I said it would be a much better argument titled "can a baby have intuition of God"?
I don't make any claim that a baby cannot have intuition of God, they may not have access to what God is proposed as by religion but in terms of feelings and instincts that is irrelevant. Like I said in this thread, I never made a transition from not believing in God (atheism) to believing in God (theism). So just as someone can claim they were never a Theist, I was never an Atheist. I was thinking about God in diapers and as far as I know there was never a time when I said "hey, I believe God exists" as opposed to "I have no belief that god exists, or a belief that god does not exist". Heck, babies don't even know what the term exist mean, so they can neither believe that God exists or disbelieve that God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
All it takes is to lack belief.
That's basically where you go wrong here, more precisely it is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, as proposed by Theists. If you have no concepts of the existence of God or gods, or have not heard of that, or has never been proposed to you.... then there can be no atheist, which is a counter to theism. Better put a counter position to theism. This means that there is a default position, neither being atheist (anti-theist) or theist (anti-atheist).
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You cannot lack a belief in (or not have a belief in) the existence of God or gods without prior knowledge of that which you disbelieve in, or chose to not believe in. "I don't believe in the existence of God or gods". What do you not believe in? "that which is proposed by theism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
To make this more clear, you should understand why the term atheist even exists. It's a term created in direct opposition to theist. One party says I believe God exists, the other party says I don't believe God exists (a lack of belief God exists). Both are a position...In other words, I don't have a belief that God exists, I believe that God does not exist.... that's not the same as having a neutral position. One believes and the other disbelieves, they are in contrast to one another. If there is no theism in a baby then there is no atheism in a baby, they are locked in a default position between the two. That's the simplest way I can break it down for you.
The misconception is coming from the misleading statement that atheism is to have lack of belief. But actually, more accurately they have disbelief in god, or a lack of belief in the existence of God as proposed by Theists (which a baby has no understanding of). A-theism is a counter position to Theism. A baby cannot have a counter position to theism, which is why they are agnostic if anything. But again, I take the position that they cannot have any philosophical stances at all. Intuition though, is an entirely different matter.
Does that make sense to you? atheism is a philosophical assertion, not a default term or stance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This is why God should speak to the people from a burning bush on the Jim Bakker show.
This would presuppose that God would want this particular world other than what it is. Do you agree that if something like that were to happen it would change the nature and course of this particular world, making it something entirely different? if it were to become something entirely different, then the experience would also become something entirely different.
This would also assume that the account in the Bible actually literally happened (not saying it didn't either), and apart from the fact someone said it did, we really can not say either way. So basically there's no reason to assume that God wants that to happen on the Jim Bakker show. The question becomes, are there alternatives to knowing God exists? I would say of course so, that's why millions of people believe in God without that taking place. And as well without altering the course of this particular world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Lack-
to be deficient or missing
to be short or have need of something
deficiency or absence of something needed
something missing or needed
A baby is not lacking belief in gods existence or disbelieving it, an atheist is. A baby is in a position of not missing anything, it is not lacking anything, and it does not disbelieve. It is agnostic if anything, do you make the claim agnosticism is not a usable term? if it is, could you please explain why a baby is not an agnostic?
Agnostic-
one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.
A baby does not have a belief that god does not exist!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Are you asserting then that one can have belief in the existence of gods, if they're unaware of gods, or the concept of gods?
I'm asserting one must be aware of such a concept to either believe it or disbelieve it, and there is no such a thing as a lack of belief in God in a baby without first a belief in God. A baby cannot have a lack of belief in God because that asserts that a baby is deficient of something or does not have something....which creates a negative position. That's why there is a third category, a default position. Basically you have a scale, with atheism on the left, a neutral position in the middle and theism on the right. Because again, atheism cannot exist unless theism does. Both theism and atheism create such a contrast, and if there is a contrast of beliefs then that makes a middle ground.
I never said that they disbelieve in gods,
But that is how it is defined, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". My claim is that there cannot be a disbelief or a lack of that belief, which would require the missing of something. A baby is not missing a belief in God, they simply can't have belief either way. Again which is why we have a neutral category.
simply that if they don't believe gods exist then by simple definition they lack belief in the existence of gods.
They are not lacking anything, they are neither having nor missing something.
To not lack belief in the existence of gods one must have belief in gods. Do you assert infants have belief in the existence of gods?
They neither have a belief nor a lack of belief. And lets not pretend that atheism is not defined as a disbelief.
Do you assert that infants have belief in the existence of a god or gods?
I'm saying there is a default position, with theism and atheism being positions.
Do you accept that to be without a thing is to lack it?
A baby is not missing anything or lacking anything, it is not deficient. It is in a neutral category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
As I've been saying, I think "intuition" as opposed to belief (theism) or disbelief/lack of belief (atheism) ...would be a much better argument here. Because intuition occurs independent of conscious reasoning. Therefore there would be no need for any religious claims, and so could a baby have instinctive feelings about God?
In order to have a disbelief in the existence of God or a lack of belief in that, one must have an understanding of God. To be neutral of either side is to be agnostic. I put atheism then in the category of a positive assertion. Atheism doesn't come along until Theism does, therefore atheism is not a neutral position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is the argument that there are three options instead of two as it comes to belief in god or gods?
Yes, because atheism can't exist until I make a claim that God exists (Theism). That's make a neutral position by default. Now we have three categories, positive, negative and neutral. Neutral being simply "not knowing" or ignorant of...
1) Atheist2) Theist3) Inanimate Object
I don't know what that means but I would say the 3 categories are Theism, Atheism and Agnostic. However a baby is not able to take philosophical positions.
If there's a third 'neutral' position, does whatever is in that neutral position believe in god or gods?
Neither, it has no ability to understand concepts, or reject concepts. It neither believes nor disbelieves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic. That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category? we have two categories here with one being a default position, the other two being that of chosen positions, or negative or positive....again the term atheist can only exist if I come along as a theist, every time I say hey! God exists (because of so and so), you say hey, no god exists (because of so and so). Before I came along and said God exists, there was a neutral category. Both atheism and theism are philosophical positions because there first needs to be the ability to reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods. This is atheism as defined by the Oxford dictionary of English an atheist is someone who lacks belief or disbelieves in the existence of a god or gods.
We went over that already, to have a disbelief or a lack of belief there needs to be an understanding of God. As I wrote above, atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the lack of belief in gods.....see the difference there?
As such the traits necessary to be an atheist are to be a person and to lack belief or disbelief in a god or gods.
Correct, which is why a baby cannot be atheist lol. They have no concept of God, therefore they cannot have a disbelief.
To assert that infants aren't atheist would require the claim that infants aren't people, are aware of the concept of god
That's ridiculous....One has to be aware of the concept of God to reject that concept, or have a lack of belief in that concept, babies are not aware of concepts. That is why agnostic fits better. Because a baby simply doesn't know and are ignorant. Therefore atheism is not a default position. It is a chosen position, either by asserting or rejecting a belief.
(and accept it as true), or that it's possible to believe in something without being aware of the concept of it. This is of course a semantic argument. There seems to be a group of people who refuse to accept that by definition of the Oxford Dictionary of English anyone who doesn't actively believe in a god is an atheist. The real question does anyone assert infants believe in god(s)?
No, the real question, or better question would be do babies have intuition or instinctiveness when it comes to God. They have no reasoning abilities.
If not then by my definition (the one in the Oxford dictionary), they are atheists.
If you wish to be illogical and have no understanding of how terms are defined then I guess so. But we know that to disbelieve or have lack of belief IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, one has to be aware of such concepts. Again, atheism is not defined as lack of beliefs, it is defined as lack of belief IN the existence of GOD, or a rejection of that belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sounds correct to me, thanks for the input.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Because both theism and atheism are concepts derived of data acquisition, storage and manipulation
That's why a baby cannot be atheist. Atheism is certainly not a default position like atheists like to assert. A neutral position would be one ignorant of knowledge or claims period. Not knowing is not the same as a disbelief of a proposition being put forward.
On the other hand intuition of God apart from religious claims is a very real possibility for babies, I say that because of my own experience. Intuition occurs without the need for conscious reasoning, it is instinctive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Evidence for me would be anything that shows by necessity the natural world required an intelligence to create it.
That's easy, so we would use common sense and correlation. The universe is constructed through a succession of processes, processes are associated with intelligence or agency. The counter position would be to accept that inanimate forces and materials can begin to generate intelligent processes all by themselves. But, we know through commonsense there needs to be thought (mind) to understand how a process should unfold and what materials are needed. So really the evidence, or indication that intelligence is required for the processes that created the universe to unfold is pretty strong if not unanimous as far as commonsense goes.
I don't in any way insist there is no god
Excellent, then you come across as someone I'd like to converse with.
only that nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.
That's a shame, hopefully I gave you something to ponder above.
Here's a good way to consider it, every time you observe energy you observe awareness, every time you observe awareness you observe energy. Basically they co-exist. I can make that claim simply by how energy acts within our universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
A more concise answer for why trees aren't atheists. An atheist isA person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.Trees aren't people.
And that's precisely why babies are not atheists, a baby cannot choose to believe or disbelieve in Gods existence. They cannot have a lack of belief either obviously, because again, there first needs to be an understanding of what the counter position is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@amandragon01
@RoderickSpode
I think what Ethang is trying to say (and He's right) is that there are three positions with one being neutral, the other two obviously theism or atheism or positive and negative. Atheism isn't a default position, it's one of a proposition (or rejection of a proposition) and that assertion being that atheists either reject the idea of God's existence or simply make the claim God does not exist. It is a BELIEF (or disbelief) that no god exists. Either way atheism is a positive assertion not a neutral one because there needs to be counter position for atheism to exist.
Babies are not born atheist, they are born ignorant to what might or might not exist. Because of their lack of CHOICE, they can neither be considered an atheist or a theist, if they must be labeled it probably should be agnostic since it is true that they just don't know. I rather say they simply cannot take any philosophical position at all really.
Atheism is not a lack of belief, it's a lack of belief in god therefore there first needs to be an understanding of god. And if you say atheism is a rejection of theism the same is true, there first needs to be an understanding of what is being rejected.
Having said all of that, there was never a time when I started to believe in God so there was no moment when I made a transition from not believing in God to believing in God. I remember thinking about God while I was in diapers, I know that sounds strange but it is true. With babies we would be dealing with intuition more than reasoning, and can anyone make a claim that babies have no natural intuition or instinctive feeling about what might exist? this would be a much better argument but we don't even have to go there because I would put babies in a neutral category not a negative or positive one.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
in that scenario, it wasn't the state of being aware that caused the ripples. It was the physical structure of the finger
Every heard of an analogy lol?
Every time you have conscious activity, that generates a ripple effect or movement. That's why energy exists, it is generated by activity. The finger in water scenario was to create an analogy of how conscious awareness generates energy my friend.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What I mean by "generate" is a cause and effect scenario. Like if I were to dip my finger in water I would cause movement, a ripple effect in the water. Same scenario, conscious activity is the component that generates movement/vibration (kinetic energy) which then energy is observed... and the ripple being the effect of that cause. Before the Big bang it was conscious awareness, conscious activity generated megatons of energy. That energy was condensed and released to cause a change in conditions, more materials to create with. Within our universe, energy is isolated and manipulated to create form through processes.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
you don't need consciousness to create energy
Actually energy is not created, it is generated by conscious activity. Energy in return is manipulated to create form. Energy co-exists with awareness in other words. Neither are created and both eternal.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Okay, but you don't need consciousness to create energy
Thanks for the speculation....so then you can account for why energy exists and why it generates processes I presume?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Wym when you say energy?
The very activity of energy, the measurement of energy. The quantified state of energy in every form or change.
a change in the physical state of a system
I'm addressing that change in that system.
Created: