Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I was simply trying to show an example of tentative beliefs that are only half-believed and of little consequence in one's life. The issue of pessimism versus optimism has little to do with my main point, which is the life-influencing nature of personal truths.
Would you like it if I attributed your acceptance of God to your personal failings, your intellectual immaturity, your psychological need to be special and cared for, and your fear of death? How about if you show the people who disagree with you some fundamental respect and assume that they are at least as intelligent and unbiased as you. Why do I constantly have to teach the Golden Rule to theists?
Really, this was in your OP:
Do YOU realize that it's arrogant in the extreme to assert that you know better than someone else why they believe as they do?
Oh, post-modernist constructivism, nihilistic anything-goes believe whatever you likeism? So much for science, then, eh?
It's an example, Super. Think harder. My point, which stands, is that science shows us over and over that things that are intuitively obvious usually turn out to be wrong.
It's not about their character but their method--the scientific method. Does it work, or doesn't it?
*controls temper* I think I know the inside of my own head better than you, Super. It is because of a lack of evidence, as well as logic. I used to believe in God. I thought harder about it and realized I was wrong. My character and psychological needs didn't change; my opinion did.
Exactly. That's why I asked you first to define your terms. Your definition doesn't match most of what you describe, unless you think people talking in a bar are a first cause of anything.
Lots, isn't it interesting? Maybe there are some fundamental laws of nature that tend to create that structure.
I know, isn't it cool?
And I want you to know that I do not appreciate being preached to. If you have an assertion to make AND SUPPORT please do so. I don't feel, Super, I think. I figured it out. Nothing happened to me, except that I came to a logical conclusion. That's it. Now quit playing amateur psychologist and give me a good logical argument, preferably including evidence, as to why I'm wrong.
If you didn't want other people to post, why on Earth would you start a topic in an online forum? You can write all you want in a word processor and not have your position challenged at all.
O.K., well if you had any chance of persuading me that you know anything I don't, you just blew it right there.
Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.
And which one are you, pray tell?
Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose. It's a method. It either works or it doesn't. If the method works, then rejecting its conclusions cuz you don't like them is inconsistent.
I don't have to see or experience them myself, as long as there is good evidence of their existence, such as testimony, pictures, resulting measurements, etc. etc. I apply the same standard to God as I do to fairies and Antarctica. I don't believe the first two exist, but I'm pretty sure the last one does.
I have never made this claim, and it seems somewhat dubious to me. Why do you keep attributing it to me?
If it makes you happy to think you can read my mind, by all means persist in your delusion. It is not increasing your ability to persuade, however. I am neither for nor against God, because it doesn't look to me like there is any such thing.
Well, I am a hopeless "detail freak". Have you heard the saying, "God is in the details"? Trust me, I have the time and I have the patience to unravel what you are saying and that my friend is precisely what I am going to do. You asked me to cite where you are wrong and where you have abandoned logic so I thought I would create an object lesson for you to study and ponder.
You do see this incredibly negatively Super_Universe. What about those who simply, humbly and with humility ACCEPT their responsibly for their own actions. Some folks who do this DO have faith in a "god" whereas many others do not. There is no credible reason to even play the "god card" at all. Why do you insist on doing so?
There is no putting anything past you, is there. Um, yes. That is what I am saying... based on the outlandish pronouncements you have made in this thread.
I have little illusion that you are hardly "in the lead" Super_Universe. BTW: Lyricus.com comes up with a weird music lyric page. Am I supposed to be impressed with that? This is obviously a typo, on your part, but it just fits your slip-shod holier than thou thinking and approach so... perfectly.
"Ascended beings" who do work here? Just a tiny bit of proof or even a miserable excuse for evidence would be helpful, but I guess I am just supposed to "Grok" it through osmosis.
I already conjectured the reason very clearly. People are fascinated by your outlandish, unsupportable claims. That is the only real reason, Super_Universe. Don't flatter yourself too much, just yet.
Perhaps you have and yet you failed to notice them because of your rather dim view of your fellow human animals.
Why do you play the "fear card" now? I am hardly afraid of anything you are blathering on about, so again, quit flattering yourself. Am I afraid of reading the Bible? Excuse me? Your flow of thought is extremely erratic, but curiously, somehow to you it makes sense. Can you coherently explain WHY your appeal to fear is relative to my statement about channeling?
I am not so much belittling them Super_Universe, I am simply exposing them for the nonsense that they are. It is nothing personal. Spear throwing? Should I simply sit back and wait for your latest baffle-gab and smile politely in response? Perhaps I should treat you the way Mrs. Faulty refers to her inept worker Manuel when she glosses over whatever inane thing he has done with the catch-all phrase, "Oh, he is from Barcelona!"
Great.
Who do you think is bullying you, and how? You're the only one insulting people, Super. I'm just trying to have a discussion. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them your enemy or a bully. Indeed, that's the purpose of this forum. There is also no need to be a bully, just to avoid being perceived as weak. There is a Japanese saying, "He who raises his voice first loses the argument." Your need to resort to insulting people raises a red flag as to the weakness of your argument.
Super, this is getting tedious. Accusing people of maintaining positions they have not advanced could be a simple mistake, until it is corrected. At that point it's merely obnoxious. No one here has said anything of the kind, nor have you established that such a position is implied by or entailed in any position that anyone here is maintaining.
Then calm down. The only person who is losing their temper here is you, Super. You seem to have a problem with people who don't conform to your preconceived views.
Thanks, I did that. Quite satisfied with the results, too.
Well, you really have two choices, follow the golden rule or be a jerk. Which do you prefer?
Well, not and be consistent. And of course, if you're not consistent, then you're wrong. So again, does the scientific method work, or not? Because that's all science is, Super, a method.
Yes, all of these are evidence, both in court and in science. They're the same kind of evidence you rely on throughout your life. Why do you find that startling? Is it your practice to believe things without evidence?
Kinda the format of the whole discussion thing.
There are no angry words anywhere in my post, top, bottom or middle.
Now I realize you are making this somewhat metaphorical, but the question remains and also highlights the flaw in your thinking. How can nothingness produce a "law" in the first place? There is no subject/object division, so how could there possibly be a "first cause"? Sadly your thinking is muddled in a mistaken notion of time, Super_Universe.
Super_Universe, the reason there is no so-called "first cause" is that time as it is conceived is an illusion. In many respects there is no "future" or any "past" and all there really is, is now. In light of this using an arbitrary reference point, a supposed "start point", is relatively meaningless. So-called "creation" is happening as much this very moment and it "was" 15,000,000,000 years "ago" or "will be" in 15,000,000,000 years. There is, imho, simply no single point where one can point to and say, "It all started here." Do you understand?