Let's talk here....

Discussion in 'Your Religion & Spiritual Corner' started by Intrepid, Jun 24, 2008.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. Intrepid

    Intrepid New Member

    I really like the exchange of ideas, theories, energy that was taking place on the other thread.
    Let's make this place a new home for those who want to continue talking. I may not agree with everything said but I have enjoyed reading all the different perspectives. I love the energy that comes out of the meeting of minds; it's how new ideas and interests are born and theories developed.

    Please keep contributing your thoughts and feelings :)
     
  2. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Okay, we'll move over here. :)


    In keeping with the original question, plainly there is a group who feels like their beliefs on the matter are attacked by those who espouse a belief in God and perhaps are felt to proslytize the same. To these folks, their religion is no religion. That's one way to look at it. And they believe their religion, being no religion, to the same extent that many of us believe in God. So in essence, their religion is attacked any time another religion is in their minds forced onto them. They are put off by this just like you would be put off by someone who doesn't believe in God proslytizing their belief to you. Eventually in some cases that turns to anger. And eventually that anger turns into decrying the message. I believe folks can get overly sensitive--on both sides of the discussion. Still, it is human nature, I believe, to defend your principles, and your religion, even if your religion is no religion, when you feel that it is attacked, whether it is or not.

    From my standpoint, no organized religion has instilled in me a belief in God. Just like for the scientist, reason commands the notion that science is the answer to the question of existence, for me, a belief in God is a more powerful reason than even science. I see more discrepancies in science's explanation than I do with God as the same. And as anyone who has read my posts might discover, when it comes to such things as science, I am not completely unaware of what is going on. I have been to the Keck Observatory atop Mauna Kea on the Big Island of Hawaii, 13,800 feet above sea level. I marvel at the same celestial features that Joe, Lee and Dianne have written about. But when I marvel at the heavens, when I marvel at the human body, at what intelligence really means, what awareness really means, what existence really means, there is no doubt in my mind that what I see was created by something that was all-knowing and all powerful, not just by chance as science requires.

    Perhaps one of the foremost exhibits of evidence against science in my mind, is science itself. Take thermodynamics again. Joe will appreciate this if no one else does. According to one of the basic axioms of that field of study, within any system containing a certain amount of energy, unless more energy is imparted to the system, entropy, randomness, will always increase. To explain what that means, just look at the leaves on the trees in the fall. When energy to the tree decreases or stays the same, the leaves fall off in a random fashion to be carried off by the wind. They end up all over the yard in a random pattern. But in the springtime, when the flow of energy is restored and added back to the tree, leaves appear in perfect order just like they were before. In the fall, look at how much energy is required from us to make order out of chaos when it comes time to rake the leaves back into an orderly pile. In one's house, somehow unless cleaning energy is introduced eventually dust and dirt take over. Add cleaning energy to the system, order is restored. That is what the axiom means in layman terms.

    Now look at the universe. If there were no hand to guide order, nothing imparting coordinating energy to the system that can make order out of chaos, then science would predict complete and utter randomness. Such a state would prevent life, a form of order, from developing. Such a state would prevent uniformity between one human body and another. Such a state would prevent DNA from matching from one possible source to another. So you see, in my mind, science actually predicts God, requires God. For only God, an all powerful source of infinite energy, could impart the necessary energy required to overcome the natural tendency of the universe toward randomness, toward a state of entropy. But that is just me. I respect the thoughts of everyone here who has contributed.

    I apologize when I may seem to press. But pressing only reflects my natural tendency to want to understand things I do not. It does not reflect an assault on anyone's beliefs. I respect you all.

    Hank
     
  3. old timer

    old timer Guest

    hank,
    I, too, am interested in how much you seem to need to prove the existence of a god.

    It's ironic because Alladin's original question was why atheists felt the need to prove there is no god .

    The majority of atheists/agnostics on this board that have posted are not trying to prove anything.

    I am with Intrepid on this one. Who cares if there is a god or not as long as we are comfortable in our beliefs?

    Just because science has not yet satisfactorily explained to you how the universe has come to be, doesn't mean that sometime in the future it will not be be explained by science. Something that is not explained is not necessarily unexplainable.

    You seem to suggest that there are only two alternatives to the creation of the universe--god or science. Is it possible there is a yet to be discovered third choice?
     
  4. pardonme

    pardonme Guest

  5. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Yes, Dianne, I agree that these are apples and oranges. I did not convey the sense of that remark very well. So perhaps this is a better way to convey what I mean. I am only talking about intensity, not subject matter. They (the atheists) believe in apples to the same extent that we ( the believers) believe in oranges. Does that make sense? I am making no value judgments in statement, simply conveying the truth of the extent of the belief. I'm drawing an analogy between religion and no religion and the extent to which, the intensity if you will, with which each believe in their own ideas.
     
  6. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    OK, Oldtimer, I'll try you next. We'll go reverse order here. You say that I am compelled to prove the existence of God. Wow, what you think so?

    But whether I am here to prove the existence of God, it seems to me that there are folks on this thread, perhaps yourself, who are just as determined to disprove it. I mean look Oldtimer, you are here, I suppose an atheist, on the forum room reserved for religion. Now, if you were not here to present your viewpoint as correct, that there is no God, then why would you find yourself in the room reserved for religious discussions? I mean, really, man. Why else would you be here? This is for religious discussion and you do not believe in religion. So what on earth could be your motivation here if you did not want to disprove religion? And rather than selecting any number of aspects of this discussion for further analysis, you ignore all that and make an assertion about me rather than what I've written. You make it about my motivations, about my defective personality rather than about what I've written. That is a very poor debating technique. It's like calling you adversary a name or something. I'm glad to talk about thes things. But you really ought to keep it on the subject.
     
  7. old timer

    old timer Guest

    Sorry Hank, I didn't intend to insult you. I don't get how you would interpret my words to mean that you have a defective personality. That's not what I said and it's not what I meant.

    Not that I have to justify why I am posting in the religion room, but I will explain it as best I can. If you can find a post of mine where I am trying to disprove the existence of a god then please point it out to me. I caught the title of Aladdin's thread on the main board and it piqued my interest and curiosity. I am not an atheist but rather an agnostic.

    I was not aware that only believers are allowed to read and post in this room. There are several other non believers who have been posting in the last few days.

    I like to hear other points of view and I am interested in what other people think. Because I am agnostic, I am open to the possibility of there being a god or higher power. At this point I lean towards the belief that there is no god, but my mind is open. So I came into this room to answer Aladdin's question and as I read all the different thoughts on the subject, I remained interested.

    So you are incorrect when you suggest that the only reason I am in the room is to disprove the existence of god.

    I did select aspects of this discussion for further analysis when I asked you if you thought there might be another explanation for how the universe was created other than god or science and you chose not to answer.

    Where did I stray from the subject? I thought this thread was a continuation of Aladdin's original question Why do Atheists need to prove there is no god and it struck me as ironic that there were a lot of believers, you in particular ,that had the need to prove there was a god. I am unclear as to why this statement offended you . However, I am sorry that it did so I'll go back to reading and learning.
     
  8. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    Pardonme Di

    Recently, I was accused of being preoccupied with numbers (polls) and I admit I am because they help me make sense of things, and here is how I apply them to what this topic. 35,000 living breathing folks were asked about their beliefs and 92% said they believed in some higher power. Over 19,000 said, like you I assume from what you said in your post, theirs was a personal God, and about 8,000 said theirs was impersonal. Some might reject the premise that one can view God as impersonal, but to me that limits what God can be and makes it more difficult for me to understand God. For others, it makes it easier to understand or connect.

    Clearly the majority feel more like you do. It doesn't work for me, but I still have a very strong sense that I am defined as being a part of some infinite life force. It is not anti-religious, but it is more akin to transcendental philosophy than it is religion--to me it is essentially non religious although I believe religious concepts often provide wonderfully rich and enlightening ways to view the world.

    Now, one may infer this is all in my head (as opposed to heart)--basically saying it is intellectual and there is something deeper or grander than that (I am paraphrasing you). And, if I admit my God is an impersonal force, it may be easy to conclude it is all a head thing. However, I think the head and heart are inseparable. (This notion is the basis for many therapeutic approaches.) I don't know that I ever really have "peak" experiences where I feel some connnection with the "uttermost" (quoting Gibran). I do, however, have moments that I feel are transcendent and those times I am not in only my head--something else is there I can't totally identify.

    I am not attempting to debate you--I am interpreting what you said and perhaps inaccurately. I just felt my "way of seeing", which perhaps includes a different kind of relationship (maybe neither personal nor impersonal, but that would require explanation) could include a spiritual component as well.
     
  9. Trish

    Trish Guest

  10. Trish

    Trish Guest

  11. Trish

    Trish Guest

    ---------
     
  12. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    I'll agree with you on much you say here, OT. Perhaps I should have waited until I had more time to write. Promulgating the idea that I 'need' to prove the existence of God, however, does convey the attitude that outside of what I have written conceptually there is an overriding compulsion, one that I cannot control, thus a sort of defect in my personality, that is driving me to write what I have written. If that is really the case, that compulsion then becomes more important than the content of my writings. What I have written become diminished in the minds of those who might agree with you that I wrote these things not because I had good relevant things to say on the subject, but because I felt compelled to prove a point. And then I see atheists and agnostics on this religious thread compelled to prove their points no more or less than myself, folks who do not believe in God or religion, but who are doing the same thing that I supposedly feel the 'need' to do, making me somehow 'needy' when these other folks I debate with are supposedly not. I still contend that your remark, whether you meant it that way or not, was a practical device, the effect of which was to knock my arguments without having to deal with the arguments themselves. I am ready at any time to deal with the arguments. As for my personality, well, my wife is the only one who can state categorically if it is defective. :)

    There, perhaps I have said it better this morning. I apologize for taking you down the wrong thought path with my previous entry.

    Hank
     
  13. pardonme

    pardonme Guest

  14. pardonme

    pardonme Guest

  15. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    So I did inaccurately interpret your words because I took them to mean you had a personal relationship with God, especially when you used the comparison of defending a loved one. So instead of actually expressing what you might have believed, it seems you were doing what I often do, offering an explanation that makes sense for or about others. I included the numbers BTW to indicate there are obviously many who don't consider their relationship personal but still believe--appears we are both in that category.

    A final note to which you may or may not relate--when I said neither personal nor impersonal, it may have made more sense to say, one may think (an intellectual view) ones relationship is impersonal, but the relationship may be very personal without one being able to define or recognize it (so both rather than neither). That too would require further explanation and I think many would say it doesn't align too closely with their defintion of or relationship with God--but who knows until I ask them?
     
  16. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    When Intrepid submits to me her understanding that to folks who believe in God, God is a feeling, that statement is just so far away from the way I think that it does not make any sense to me. Yet to others who think like she does, her statement evidently makes perfect sense. And on the same hand, when I purport to Intrepid that to those who do not believe in God, the self is God, it makes no sense to her or any of the folks who who think like her. Yet folks who do believe in God understand very much of what I mean. So there appears to be a fundamental disconnect, not only in our backgrounds and experiences, but also in the way we think, the way we reason. Evidently, the two sides just make no sense to each other. It's like we are talking separate languages or something. Intrepid expressed early into the discussion that she disagrees with just about everything I write. Conversely, I must confess there are times when she confuses me as well (maybe not 100%, but a lot). Perhaps we are using different sides of our brains or something. That's all I can figure for the moment.

    So perhaps this is a rule we can agree on. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

    If God makes sense to you, you believe in God. If God does not make sense to you, you don't.

    To me, God makes perfect sense, and I mean perfect.
     
  17. pardonme

    pardonme Guest

  18. gardenfish

    gardenfish New Member

    I used to have Jerry Springer's telephone number...
     
  19. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    no hair pulling, a favored activity on his show--I would have the distinct advantage
     
  20. Terri-Lee

    Terri-Lee New Member

    I like that Hank. Cause for me, the notion of God just doesn't make sense. But I respect that to some, s/he/it does. And because it doesn't make sense to me (and I have given it alot of thought and went from being a believer to a non-believer - or "athiest" if that is the correct term) I cannot honestly believe.

    So...why did I come to the "spiritual" corner to join in on this conversation. Well, for one, I think being spiritual is not limited to whether or not you believe in god. I consider myself a spiritual person - by virtue of the connectedness I feel with the people who share the planet that I live on. So having read the explanation of the spiritual corner, I thought I might gain some insight into that which brings us together or alternatively, makes us different - aside from sharing a common sickness. Having entered the spiritual domain, I noted the title of the thread and felt that it was directly related to my beliefs - or non-beliefs (if you will). So despite getting side-tracked into this wonderfully enlightening discussion from time to time, I felt inclined to try and answer Alladin's question from the perspective of one who doesn't believe in god....surely that insight is as important to the equation as having people who do believe try to suppose why it is that those of us don't, feel a need to argue our perspective.

    I am hoping at this point that I am still welcome in this domain because I feel my spirit has a lot to gain (even if I am unprepared to relent on my disbelief in god), from dialogue with others of similar and/or differing perspectives.

    I truly believe that the key to human spirituality, the sister-hood and brother-hood of human kind, is in connecting with others and understanding (or trying to) where they come from. That connection - at just about any level, is a real spiritual happening for me!
     

Share This Page