Not everyone who believes in a god belongs to a religion. Some just believe for whatever reason one has. That's what I meant by people adjusts, "god", to what allows them to believe in a god even though it's not what a religion or doctrine preaches about some god. It's also why in topics of God, you ask a question and 100 people will give 100 different answers. This forum has a few that believe in a god, typcially the Abraham God, but don't belong to any church, so I assume, it's because a church doctrine doesn't quite allow one to believe in a God without the box of religion and the God(s) change slightly to fit the beliefs each has from their own life experiences. I do have a bad habit of responding to posts in kind, so perhaps if a post seems dismissive, it's likely because I feel the post I am responding to is similar?
"How so" is self evident. If you think that your personal feeling is Gods holy spirit, then you think that you are God by your own hand, taking honor and glory to yourself and exalting the abased. And God is no more. It is perdition. There is a difference between the divinity of Gods spirit and our mortal feelings. And great care should be taken to distinguish the matter. Otherwise we might fall into the same trap as David Koresh and Jim Jones.
I have seen written many times that one needs to have a personal relationship with God. Is that not one's personal feelings? That may not be The Holy Spirit, but it has to come into play when one feels they have The Holy Spirit. Thanks for your replies.
We are all, to a degree, unique, because our minds vary, and our realities are created, completely, by our minds. We have no cameras in our heads, for instance; the images that we see have been assembled by our brains, from electrical impulses, through our optic nerves. No two minds' pictures, will perfectly match. So if we all see the blue (or the green?) of the sky, a little differently, this gets compounded, when moving into more complex attitudes, opinions, and perspectives on life, drawn from all our unique experiences. Hence, it should be no surprise, that our relationships with our God, would be individualized, as well. A certain degree of variation, is expected to be found, in any religion, just as a functioning of human social structures; it's not like the congregants are workers, producing precision lenses, for a space telescope. However, when one considers oneself a Christian, but his tailoring of his beliefs is too far afield of any given denomination, it points to one of two things. First, though, let me say that this is not the way I typically see that situation. When someone calls themself Christian but w/out being part of a church, the list of possibilities that come to my own mind are things more akin to: they like believing in something, but don't want to be bothered with the weekly obligation (would rather be home, watching football, etc.); or they are just not particularly social, or not into group, social organizations & activities. That is, my first guess, would be that church doesn't fit either their schedule, their degree of commitment, or their general nature. But the thing that you talk about, is also a possibility, that what they want to believe is just the wrong shape, to fit into any church box. Even that phrasing, though, only works for some of that number-- by saying "what they want to believe," the suggestion is that they would be choosing to believe whatever casts their own behavior into the best light, or makes them feel good about themselves, without requiring any sacrifice, which would feel like an imposition to them. IF this is what you had been talking about, then that is what I had thought you'd meant: self-justification and hypocrisy. I had only thought you'd been applying it to all believers, which is the idea, on which I was pushing back. Not that I don't agree, that these things are a salient feature, among the religious. I am just more against the broad brush stereotyping and prejudging of others. To finish off the list: for some, they may be trying to come to their own, best reasoned idea of what God is, and reject certain ideas, not out of personal convenience, but because they do not ring true, in their hearts, and they are the type who trusts their own intuition and insight, over those of vaulted institutions. They may accept the basic Christian idea, feeling that all those churches had at least gotten some basic ideas right. Or they may just lack the imagination or temerity, to reimagine the basic god concept, outside of the mold which had been shaped in their formative years. By the way, I have that same bad habit as you, of responding in kind. Though often, I don't think of it as a bad habit but, even as more of a strength. You see, self-serving beliefs are an innate part of our humanness, and not limited to theological matters.
If that is intended to be a summary of my quote-- it bears no resemblance, whatsoever. My words, you quoted, for reference: DEFinning said: ↑ Or they may just lack the imagination or temerity, to reimagine the basic god concept, outside of the mold which had been shaped in their formative years. Wow, are you presumptuous. Where do you see, in that short quote, me saying that God does not exist, or is a "figment of anyone's mind (in your inept translation)?" I will explain your error to you. Hopefully you will take it into consideration, because your doing this, here, points to there being good chance that this is a habit, in the way your mind works or, in the way you evaluate information; and doing things in that manner, inevitably leads one to having more erroneous ideas. My quoted words are merely acknowledging the patent truth, that it is a more difficult conceptual leap, for nearly all, if one has been raised their whole life in a religious tradition, in which God is presented in a certain form-- anthropomorphized, and thought of as a Father-figure, for instance-- to conceive of the Divine, in a far different way. Do you not agree that this is true? If so, why do you read so much, beyond that, in-between my lines? If you do not understand the dynamic, of which my quote speaks, I will try to give you some analogies. You are sitting at a dinner table, and are presented with a meal of dogmeat. Are you going to take, as easily, to eating that as will, perhaps, your (merely for argument's sake) Korean companion, who grew up, with dog being a part of their diet? Or, for a more common example, imagine how much more difficult it might be, for someone who has adopted the beliefs of some church which regards homosexuality as a sin against God, and something that can be changed, through prayer, to accept the notion that he (or she) is gay, and that this is the way that God created him. I could come up with a dozen more, but I will wait for you to ask, if you still miss my point. The reason for you to jump to such an unpredicated conclusion, about my quote, would logically be because: 1) you assume that humans can know, with any certainty, anything about God (including whether or not It exists); 2) you further assume that I would, naturally, see this the same way as you do. Both of those assumptions are wrong. If you dispute that, about the first one-- by all means, lay out you proof, for your certain facts, about the Divine. Hopefully your presumptive disposition toward the world, has not progressed so far, that you assume I must be lying, about not believing it possible, to factually know anything about God, while we are still on this physical plane. If you can accept at least that I feel this way, though, then it follows that I would also feel the chances of a person's faith turning out to be "the right one," are about equal, regardless of what faith that is. My personal guess, is that none of them is, for the most part, correct. But perhaps all of them are right! Like I said, I don't see any way to guage the objective truth of any such proposition. Just so you don't leap, once more, to the false assumption, that this means that I do not think anything at all about God: that is not my way of viewing it. While I accept that there is no way to be sure if any ideas I may have, regarding this broad topic, are right, that does not, to my feeling, make it not worthwhile, to try to gain insights, into the Divine nature, underpinning our reality. Who knows, some of my thoughts, might even contain a bit of truth! If this seems an odd disposition for a person to have, it would be due, once again, to your assuming that the way that you would feel, in the same position, would be the way that anyone-- so, then, everyone-- would feel. This is something that can, factually, be known to be wrong. No two human minds are identical. To assume that all see things alike, is as manifestly a false idea, as imaginable. You, presumably, see differing opinions, regularly, on this forum. And you attribute them to what-- defective brains? Character flaws? If you don't mind the suggestion, you might find it enlightening to, as an experiment, consider your ideas/beliefs on any subject, in which there is the possibility of speculation-- you don't have to jump right into questioning your religious faith-- and just carefully note, how much of those conclusions of yours, are based on hard fact, as could be demonstrated in court, for instance, and how much is truly only assumption. Then, examine why you make those assumptions, and what is the origin, in each case, of your tendency to make whatever assumption your mind automatically takes for granted. Just a suggestion.
His post does. As my posts also do. God is whatever, whomever one wants it to be. See the 100s or 1000s of Christian denominations. And 3 major religions, all stemming from the same Abrahamic God. Are you being dismissive of others?
Your post is unintelligible, to me. "His post does..." what?-- as your posts also do? My first assumption, was that you'd meant: make unwarranted assumptions. But then the third sentence, which you'd grouped with the other two, in the same paragraph-- all part of one thought-- would be non sequitur. If you want to share a thought with me, please express the thought fully, preferably in completely coherent sentences. Clearly, you have no authority in the matter, to declare what "God" truly is, or is not. Just as obviously, people can each think of God, in any way they choose. Whatever point you have, is in no manner being lucidly expressed. Lastly, your implying dismissiveness, on my part, is counter-factual. My post had said that I have no way of judging who is right. Is your argument that it is being "dismissive" of me, to not come to a conclusion, without facts? Really, the worst "argument" I've ever seen from you, Dairyair.
I don't have a religious faith. I'm an atheist. To demonstrate anything in court means something has occurred that you have witmessed. I have witnessed nothing to testify that god exists. From the beginning early man had questions he could not answer about the world and nature. He ascribed this to some unknown 'source' which became 'god'.. The only 'hard fact' was that the world existed. The rest was in the mind of man which is subject to a mans upbringing and a mans need for something to believe in.
A puppy isn't ripe enough to eat. You've got to wait until at least 2 years before the meat has been tenderized enough for eating.
Now you have removed all doubt from my mind that the problem in your perception, is what I'd suggested was likely: that you make too many, unwarranted assumptions. You had misassumed my intention, in your last reply, based on nothing that was actually in my post. That is why I had recommended you try to evaluate, before you jump to erroneous conclusions, how much of any given idea of yours, is without any factual basis. And you quoted that suggestion-- in which I even specifically said that I was not limiting my suggestion to examination of any of your life's conceptual moorings (spiritual or otherwise)-- to tell me, that you have no belief in a God, to examine. Well that's fine-- in that case, you could have given a fact check to your impression that I had been talking specifically about your religious beliefs, before responding, as if I had been. As the instigating factor in my suggestion, had not been related to your spiritual beliefs, but to your reading into my post, things that were not there, it seems you might have been able to recognize this, had you given it a moment's thought-- thereby not repeating the error of your prior post. Have I been clear enough, this time? The next time that you think I am saying some certain thing, please ask yourself, "where is that actually written? What evidence is there, for my interpretation, of what I just read?" You can use that technique, for any idea. If someone asks if you know if such-n-such bank is open on Saturday, and you are about to say "yes, until noon," you could instead think, "have I ever been to that bank? Then why do I feel so sure that it is open until noon? Oh, that's right, my bank is open until noon. Is my certainty that all other banks will necessarily keep the same hours as mine, warranted?" Sorry that was not the best example, but it was drawn from an actual presumption, made by someone in my own life, who has your same problem with assuming she knows things, that she really doesn't know. To clarify, I did not just say that I had asked the person, about my own bank's hours-- as that seems a ridiculous question, to my mind. But that was the conversation I had heard (not participated in). From your last two replies to me, I would guess that you do that sort of thing, all the time.
Why do you think that man has this need or compulsion, and what is it? Have you no such need yourself, and are you satisfied? Do we invent our Parents or do they create us? If this need springs up from within us, how can it be said to be a myth? By definition, a need, compulsion, or want, is real. So what is this hunger that can't be satisfied with tangible things such as food, water or intimacy. Are drugs the answer, or do they simply delay and procrastinate. Is it to live that we have this yearning, and were it that we lived not, then so too would the need dispel. Yet we know it is good to live. So to live more than this life is the want, compulsion, and need. Sedation isn't more. It is less. So what is more of this good life before us. Does it hold no miracles or surprises. So we plumb the earth and mine its treasures, being placated for a time by fatigue and the accumulation of wealth. Still the want and need springs up. And we, in spite of our mounds of wealth, sit like beggars with empty cups. Is this a myth too? We are separated and cut off. So it is for reuniting that we long, for salvation and to be reborn, to see heaven again and find rest. Yes these are just words. But the fact remains that mankind is unsettled.
It would be nice to believe in things that are worthy of being believed in, not raising our kids to believe in fantasy characters with questionable morality. Now obviously we can have fictional characters be moral guides for our children but there is a lot of questionable morality in the Bible that may have seemed nice at the time but by today’s standard it’s pretty barbaric. I mean it’s great that they advised us not to beat our slaves but like let’s get real. And it’s not the fictional aspect of the characters that bothers me. It’s when we encourage children to believe fictional characters with questionable morality are real people, including spirit beings which are always watching them etc. It’s creepy ****.
I initially read your response, quoting part of my suggestion (for you to examine the factual bases of things, which you accept as facts) as saying that you can't do, what I'd suggested, because you are an atheist. It now occurs to me, there is another possible interpretation: namely, that your reply was your attempt, to do that. Granted, it would have been a piss poor attempt, but I do not want to seem, myself, to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions, while encouraging you to stop doing that very same thing. So, if that had been your reply's intention, to show the facts supporting your atheistic belief, then this post, is my reply to that: you should have applied the idea, to the other half of the equation. What I mean, is that even an atheist has a belief: the assumption, of an atheist, is that God does not exist. Therefore, that is the proposition, you would be examining, for its factual basis. Having been given little from you, for me to go on, I will have to do some speculating, here. But my impression is that many atheists think of themselves as looking at spiritual matters, from a "scientific" perspective. This is a false analogy. In science, yes, until something is proven to exist, it is not considered to exist. The difference, however, is that is not the same, as assuming that it couldn't exist. For example, until fairly recently, we had no evidence of life at the bottom of the ocean. The scientific assumption was that, at those great depths, the tremendous pressure would preclude biological organisms from existing. Now, if scientists had treated that lack of evidence, the same way which atheists do, they would, of course, have never bothered to go down to look, at the ocean bottom, just in case (where they found, when they did, that they had been wrong-- life does exist, even under those unlikely conditions). For another example: we have no absolute "proof" of advanced, alien life, even existing (much less visiting our planet). So if that lack of proof were regarded, the way atheists regard the lack of evidence of the Divine, it would mean a scientific certainty, that extraterrestrial intelligence, does not exist. And we certainly would not see the large investment in radio telescopes, by SETI, searching the heavens for signs, of that unproven intelligence. So the significant difference, is that a scientist's holding out for proof, before accepting the existence of something, does not mean that the scientist also discounts the possibility, of its existence. Unless I misunderstand what it means to call oneself an "atheist"-- you all do reject, even the potential, of anything resembling a "God."
Science rarely makes definitive conclusions. “Based on the evidence we have so far, it is unlikely that aliens exist” is a more realistic statement from scientists who had no evidence of alien life. “Based on the evidence we have so far it appears that there were rudimentary life forms on Mars” if they had actually found such evidence. I think that generally, many scientists do see a real possibility of extra terrestrial life since a lot of effort has been made to find such life
Brilliant argument. I'll have to give your points, the serious consideration, they deserve. P.S.-- LOL: even you are not going to try to explain what you'd been trying to say, in that incomprehensible post of yours!
I don’t want to get into this part of the discussion again that much since it’s been rehashed on this forum a zillion times but Atheists don’t follow a religious system because there is no evidence that there is a god. There is also a lot of reasoning to show that is unreasonable to believe a god like the Abrahamic god exists.
As your reply clearly is responding to my own post, I will ask for you to kindly either quote me, or at least send me an alert (by writing @DEFinning ), so that I will see your post. Without your doing so, I will likely not see, more of these unaddressed posts, than will I stumble upon. Thanks. As I had only been making analogy, and nothing in your reply affects that analogy, I have no further reply to it.
I've explained it. People will make God be whatever they want their God to be. That's it. How many times do I need to say that? You want me to argue an opinion? Why?
So, why would anyone start from the assumption, that "God," would need resemble any specific model: that is the opposite of an open minded consideration of a concept; that is only looking to cast doubt, on a pre-conceived image. What would be the point of that?
I was an atheist long before I became a Christian. As a former atheist I can certainly understand how belief in God was unreasonable, but then I was introduced to evidence that for me was convincing enough to believe. Can my personal experience be reproduced? Not likely, but I don't think the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God to be valid for anyone other than the individual. Evidence and it's interpretation is highly subjective.
Where does your asking me, if I am being dismissive of others, fit into your translation, above? What you write, here, was actually an earlier post of yours. The post of yours, you are here responding to my comments about, was a completely separate one of your posts, in reply to my post, addressed to someone else. And it is not evident how the earlier post would have applied, as a reply to my later post. So, you are saying, you were just reiterating yourself? While I see some repetition, I also notice additional material which is enigmatic, in how it would fit into your translation, of the post's meaning. You are saying that the bolded sentences below, have absolutely no additional meaning, whatsoever-- so those words of yours, quoted above, mean the same thing as these words(?): dairyair said: ↑ His post does. As my posts also do. God is whatever, whomever one wants it to be. See the 100s or 1000s of Christian denominations. And 3 major religions, all stemming from the same Abrahamic God. Are you being dismissive of others? I had only been making you aware, had you been thinking I understood what you were saying, that I did not. If you did not expect any reply, we could have left it at that. Instead, you offered the very mature reply: dairyair said: ↑ Ditto on your posts to me. If you have difficulty understanding my sentences, or how they fit together, in a consistent line of thought, I think the problem lies on your own end, there. I would not write "His post does," as a sentence, unless the sentence to which it replied, ended with the naming of the thing, which that post "does"-- you know, so my reader could know what I was talking about.
