For the chosen ones (theists)

Originally posted by googlefudge
hmm, several points....

Love is a function of how the brain works. it is a measurable brain state/set of states, and can be verified to exist.
Also it has an associated set of experiences that we have a name and label for.
So it can certainly be said to Objectively exist.
No faith required.

As for goodness prevailing in the world... That require ...[text shortened]... iew point, it is so much easier to reject any other viewpoint you
don't happen to like.

christianity shouldn't be about "being right". the need to "be right" is what drove the inquisition, the crusades, wars, muslim terrorists.

there may never be a "right" religion. a nice tv show i very much enjoy said that all religions are different ways to reach the truth and each is tailored to suit the individual. i don't believe being a muslim automatically disqualifies you from entering heaven.

atheism is different as it isn't a "way" towards the truth in itself. however atheists believe in mostly the same things theists do, just they don't personify it. this is also a path that is okay to take.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
christianity shouldn't be about "being right". the need to "be right" is what drove the inquisition, the crusades, wars, muslim terrorists.

there may never be a "right" religion. a nice tv show i very much enjoy said that all religions are different ways to reach the truth and each is tailored to suit the individual. i don't believe being a muslim autom theists do, just they don't personify it. this is also a path that is okay to take.

Ok taking on two posts in one...

""Originally posted by wolfgang59
... but your belief must be based on something? Even if its a "gut feeling".

I have posed a similar question to atheists - I'm interested in what it takes to change ones mind ... we arevery stubborn creatures aren't we?!?!

This is not a theist-bashing thread!!! (Or at least I dont want it to become one)"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it's ok, i have read some of your previous posts and i know you have no bad intentions. i enjoy discussing my faith with someone who doesn't resort to "you're stupid" or "you're a heretic that will burn in hell".


i believe it takes a sort of optimism to believe in god. believing in a supreme benevolent being that will take care of you after you're dead. not go into oblivion after dying. someone who watches you and is hurt and you are hurt, hurt because he can't intervene, and is glad when you overcome obstacles.

i don't think i would ever come to not believe in god. sometimes theists become atheists because something bad happens to them and blame god. and rather than deal with an uncaring god that "dared" to let the bad stuff happen to them, they stop believing in their existence altogether. i think that for me, to come to think that, my optimism has to die and i become coarse. i don't want to believe that. another reason for me that may never happen is because i believe god to be an observer, someone who doesn't get involved. all things that happen are consequences of human action or a random natural event. these are conditions of the game of life and we should play it to the best of our abilities."

You don't need to be a pessimist, or lack optimism to be an atheist. You need a certain realism to accept that their is no afterlife, but I don't know any atheists who
are overly worried about it (there must be some, but they are in my experience at least the minority).

Also I think it is useful not to be deluded about what happens after you die, ie nothing. The thought that there is a nice warm fuzzy afterlife waiting for you after death
can, and does, affect the decisions you make during life.

Also while it is certainly true that some atheists became atheists because of some bad event that made them loose faith, most don't follow that route.
And certainly those who were never theists in the first place can't have followed this route.


""Originally posted by googlefudge
hmm, several points....

Love is a function of how the brain works. it is a measurable brain state/set of states, and can be verified to exist.
Also it has an associated set of experiences that we have a name and label for.
So it can certainly be said to Objectively exist.
No faith required.

As for goodness prevailing in the world... That require ...[text shortened]... iew point, it is so much easier to reject any other viewpoint you
don't happen to like."

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
christianity shouldn't be about "being right". the need to "be right" is what drove the inquisition, the crusades, wars, muslim terrorists.

there may never be a "right" religion. a nice tv show i very much enjoy said that all religions are different ways to reach the truth and each is tailored to
suit the individual. i don't believe being a muslim automatically disqualifies you from entering heaven.

atheism is different as it isn't a "way" towards the truth in itself. however atheists believe in mostly the same things theists do, just they don't personify it.
this is also a path that is okay to take."



I am afraid I am going to have to pretty much totally disagree with this.
First, I am not going to try to define what Christianity 'should' or 'should not' be. It's not mine to try to define.
However I have to totally disagree with your statement that 'the need to be right is what drove the inquisition, the crusades, wars, and Muslim terrorists.'
it is most emphatically not what drove them.

The inquisition was the stick to keep people in line with the church, to maintain the churches power. It wasn't about being right it was about being
unquestionable.

The crusades were about religions not liking each other and the Muslims being a major military threat, again being right was irrelevant, it was two tribes
go to war.

Wars in general are two unspecific to be specific, but they are almost always about, land, power, or wealth.

Muslim terrorists are again not about being right, they are not trying to persuade us of their point of view, they are trying to kill/terrify us.

Your choice of examples about 'being right' suggest that the desire to 'be right' is inherently a bad and divisive thing that leads to conflict and war.
And thus implying that my position is likewise suspect.

I will restate my position so that you can understand what i am saying better (hopefully).

I think it is self evident, that people make decisions and judgements based on what they believe to be true about the world.
Their beliefs shape their morals, and their view of how the world works, which is fed into the decision making process.

Thus what people believe is important, because it shapes their behaviour and has effects on others.

I believe that in light of this, one should strive as much as is possible to believe as few wrong things as possible, and as many right things as possible.
Right and wrong here meaning as close as possible to reflecting the common reality we live in.

The methodology of testing beliefs against reality being the scientific method, as it is the only method currently known to work, and is conceptually the only method
I can think of that could possibly work.

Having a set of beliefs that as accurately as possible reflect the reality we live in provides the soundest footing for building our codes of behaviour and ethics,
and grounding our laws in.
It also enables the best possible decisions to be made regarding our interactions with the physical world, by being able to more accurately predict our interactions
outcomes through a more accurate understanding of how it works.

Where I use the word 'right' here and 'accuracy', in reflecting the reality we live in, I am really saying I want my positions to be as True as possible.
It is in fact a dedicated search for truth.

Under this system a belief that is shown to be false, or inaccurate, is thrown out, or modified, to take the new information into account.
Thus this system progressively moves closer and closer to the 'truth' of the universe, the reality.


Note this is not a tenet of atheism. Atheism has no tenets as it is simply the lack of belief in god's.
Atheism is in my case a product OF the above world view, not the cause of it.

So atheism is indeed not a 'way towards truth', nor is it a religion, But atheists Don't mostly believe the same thing theists do but without personifying it.

We do tend to have a large overlap in morals and ethics, with some important and significant differences, but to say we believe mostly the same things
is just plain wrong.



You are trying to put all/most religions and atheism on some kind of equal footing, and they just aren't.
Not all moral systems are made equal, not all ways of determining truth are equal, and not all beliefs are equally true.

The point about objective truth, is that it can be measured, and tested. Degrees of accuracy can be obtained.
'truths' can be evaluated against each other and some can and will be found to be better than others.

Those who destroyed the world trade centre had 'truths' they clung to that you would almost certainly not agree with, and I certainly don't.
What you are suggesting in your post, intentionally or otherwise, is that many different positions are equally valid, and that each individual should be allowed to have their
own and have it respected.
This makes it very hard to state the obvious, you and me have better morals and ethics and 'truths' than those who destroyed the twin towers.
We are more right than they are. And massively so.
I would also hold that I am more right than you, but the important point I am trying to make is that all beliefs, and all ways of coming to beliefs are not made equal,
and do not all come to equal results.

This is why what you believe and why is important.

You don't need to be a pessimist, or lack optimism to be an atheist. You need a certain realism to accept that their is no afterlife, but I don't know any atheists who
are overly worried about it (there must be some, but they are in my experience at least the minority).

Also I think it is useful not to be deluded about what happens after you die, ie nothing. The thought that there is a nice warm fuzzy afterlife waiting for you after death
can, and does, affect the decisions you make during life.

Also while it is certainly true that some atheists became atheists because of some bad event that made them loose faith, most don't follow that route.
And certainly those who were never theists in the first place can't have followed this route.


why is it realism to not believe something on which you have no proof either way? your stance should be agnosticism: i can't know for sure either way and nobody may know it. realism is to realize betting your life savings on a dice roll (1 in 6 chance) might not be the best idea. however when you don't know the probability of there being a god, and believing in him brings you joy while not believing in him brings you nothing, practicality (even if that would be a selfish reason to believe in god) might make you go the theist route.



those who were never theists in the first place simply find a way to live their life as they see fit. that alone doesn't make them more or less worthy than theists. i was simply discussing that, as i see god now, as i see myself now, i in particular can never vision myself losing faith in god.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
You don't need to be a pessimist, or lack optimism to be an atheist. You need a certain realism to accept that their is no afterlife, but I don't know any atheists who
are overly worried about it (there must be some, but they are in my experience at least the minority).

Also I think it is useful not to be deluded about what happens after you die, ie od now, as i see myself now, i in particular can never vision myself losing faith in god.

I will do a more detailed answer later when I have more time... but.


On the point about my position 'aught to be agnosticism' I reply that atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily
mutually exclusive.

I have said this before elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating...


If you simply define atheism as a lack of belief in god's... (a common and probably the most useful definition)
So that if you ask the question "do you believe in god's" you answer "no".

then you can also be an agnostic. where the agnostic doesn't know if there IS a god.
so you answer the question "IS their a god" with "I don't know", or even perhaps, "probably not, but I don't know for sure".

You are only an atheist but not an agnostic if you claim to KNOW their is no god.
Thus even some variants of strong atheism can be classed as agnostic, depending on your precise definitions.

The point about the realism is that believing in an afterlife, in god, ect, is a positive belief. that should have evidence to support it.
In the total absence of ANY evidence for it, or any test that could detect it, the neutral position IS non-belief.
So I don't believe in an afterlife, there is lots of evidence that the sum of our existence is manufactured by the workings of our brains,
and when they break down and stop working, we cease to be.
Thus the rational realist position is that there is no afterlife.

Anyhow. I have to go do stuff.
I will comment on the rest in more detail later.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
... but your belief must be based on something? Even if its a "gut feeling".

I have posed a similar question to atheists - I'm interested in what it takes to change ones mind ... we arevery stubborn creatures aren't we?!?!

This is not a theist-bashing thread!!! (Or at least I dont want it to become one)

My belief is based on the encounters with the Holy Spirit. I have been
taught by the Holy Spirit, relieving my doubts so I could have faith in
the Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My belief is based on the encounters with the Holy Spirit. I have been
taught by the Holy Spirit, relieving my doubts so I could have faith in
the Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ.

Copied from page 1 spirituality thread "Belief"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=141932&page=1

"Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Interesting story. I had a similar experience some years ago and concluded similarly. I considered one of your threads (from the point of view of a 'scum', although only a soft atheist) but couldn't think of anything which would convince me of the reality of a god. Then I read Bbarr's post and he had a pretty good point - maybe if I see a big beardy ...[text shortened]... have other people confirm that they're seeing it the same, maybe then I'd believe. Maybe.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands;
and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving,
but believing.” Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed
are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:27-29 NASB)

Today you are called to believe without seeing to be blessed.
Believe before your time runs out.


So we are supposed to believe without seeing in order to be blessed, But you believe because you have seen...
What makes you so special that you get to see, where others don't?
And having seen, and thus no longer need faith to believe, are you still blessed?

You are trying to have cake and eat it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Copied from page 1 spirituality thread "Belief"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=141932&page=1

[b]"Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Interesting story. I had a similar experience some years ago and concluded similarly. I considered one of your threads (from the point of view of a 'scum', although only a soft atheist) ...[text shortened]... ed faith to believe, are you still blessed?

You are trying to have cake and eat it.

Thomas saw with his eyes before he believed, who said I saw
anything with my eyes other than the writings in the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thomas saw with his eyes before he believed, who said I saw
anything with my eyes other than the writings in the Holy Bible.

Ahh, well I was actually taking seeing to be in the more general sense used in these
circumstances, where people say I SAW god in a dream or such, it isn't usually
taken to mean with their eyes.

However the point still stands, You (believe you) had a vision of your god come and
enlighten you.... Why don't the rest of us get one?
You are still claiming the divine came and showed itself to you as your justification for belief.
In which case you are not believing blind, you are believing with proof (from your POV)
So again, what made you so special?
And if your god had to actually come and show itself to you, why do you think you still qualify
for belief without proof?


Also this means that your evidence for your god is that you had a vision, which has much more
plausible explanations than god. So you have to be dismissing many alternative explanations for
what you 'saw', which is not logical or reasonable, and is of even less evidentiary value for anyone
else.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What would it take to pursuade you of the NON-EXISTANCE of your god?

I can't hear you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ahh, well I was actually taking seeing to be in the more general sense used in these
circumstances, where people say I SAW god in a dream or such, it isn't usually
taken to mean with their eyes.

However the point still stands, You (believe you) had a vision of your god come and
enlighten you.... Why don't the rest of us get one?
You are still cl which is not logical or reasonable, and is of even less evidentiary value for anyone
else.

...not to mention , that if he (RJHinds)did have a "vision" of god, how can he tell it was like the one MOST chrsitians describe/prescribe to?
Did the 'holy spirit' say" this is jesus communicating to you"?

I had a parrot say to me, telepathically, that he was the buddha. (I believe that the buddha was communicating throught the parrot).
But it did not make me into a buddhist.
far from it, it just told me that I was on the right track,(dharma).

I call myself a hindu now, but that is just for the sake of giving people some info on my beliefs on this forum.

It amazes me that people can be converted (to christianity) by having a trippy experience and attributing it to a christian god.

"God" is simply all and everything ,(percieved and not percieved), in every universe/multiverse.
It's a useful word,("God"😉, but it is not to be understood as a separate entity .
Wrong ballpark,. And if we start in the wrong ballpark, then there is no going forward with additional teachings/info because the origonal premise was wrong.

As I have said before, there is no such "thing" as god. There is only the idea, which may be helpful for enquiring youths, but is really missing the mark for more mature/experienced spirituality seekers. (And when it comes to that, a miss is good as a mile)

Dualism is a killer of anything remotelty spiritual, as spirituality can be done many ways, but if it is not a wholistic/all inclusive approach, then it is already lost.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I can't hear you.

Get skype😉

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ahh, well I was actually taking seeing to be in the more general sense used in these
circumstances, where people say I SAW god in a dream or such, it isn't usually
taken to mean with their eyes.

However the point still stands, You (believe you) had a vision of your god come and
enlighten you.... Why don't the rest of us get one?
You are still cl ...[text shortened]... which is not logical or reasonable, and is of even less evidentiary value for anyone
else.

But I did not see a vision or have a dream like those people in the
Holy Bible. The Holy Spirit moved and influenced my spirit not
because I was anymore special than anyone else, but because I
was seeking and open to it.