Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Bubbles on September 28, 2015, 09:48:40 PM
-
.
-
Does anyone else feel being an Athiest involves closing your mind to interesting questions? Wider than those involving gods?
Do some feel being an atheist is like putting shackles on your brain and limiting your inquiry into " life the universe and everything?"
No. There is no closing of the mind it is just the way our minds are.
-
All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational "
All too often theists lie about what it is to be an atheist.
I don't aim to close my mind in that fashion.
What fashion? In what way are the minds of the atheists on this board closed?
It would be like wearing shackles.
I used to be a Christian, losing my faith was like having the shackles taken off. It was very liberating.
Do some feel being an atheist is like putting shackles on your brain and limiting your inquiry into " life the universe and everything?"
That, by definition, is limitless. What is limiting is pretending you have the answers just because some guesses are written in an old book.
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I don't like it when atheists want me to 'see sense ' or 'come round'; very occasionally I've been offered atheist book lists. It's still less offensive than being told I'm led astray by Satan though.
I get Jeremy - I found no longer being a Christian both liberating and less stressful.
-
There are none so closed minded than those who are convinced they have the right answers even without evidence or in the face of contravening evidence. How that is supposed to apply to atheism in isolation, I have no idea.
As it happens, being atheist does nothing for me either. Oh, and science didn't get me here and neither will it get me out. It's totally irrelevant to why I'm atheist. If you want to point the finger, blame theists.
-
I agree with JeremyP here. Consider the idea that it is you who are closing your mind, turning away from metaphorically opening a door to a world where any and every god is acknowledged to be a humanly-created idea and that, whether ideas are good or bad, useful or not, it is the infinite capacity of the evolved human mind which thinks of it all. One can then more greatly appreciate the freedom and of course the responsibilities we humans have.
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I don't like it when atheists want me to 'see sense ' or 'come round'; very occasionally I've been offered atheist book lists. It's still less offensive than being told I'm led astray by Satan though.
I get Jeremy - I found no longer being a Christian both liberating and less stressful.
Well I don't think you are led astray by Satan.
I think you are a bit overly sensitive sometimes and have a bad habit of taking things personally.
Sweetpea I think was talking generally, not personally.
Everyone has been led astray by Satan, according to someone somewhere, look at how Catholics and the Pope are regarded by some other areas of Christianity.
The Jews have had even more problems with Christians in the past, probably at least as much as Pagans.
There are so many groups who's beliefs in religion has a negative view of those outside it, that it doesn't pay to take it all personally and get upset.
Life is too short.
No, I didn't take it personally, because I'm secure enough in my beliefs to know I don't need to. But as a pagan I know only too well the damage such nonsense causes. Matt's experience with his daughter's school and ex are hardly isolated instances. Such ignorance needs to be exposed for what it is, otherwise innocent people will continue to have their lives damaged by it.
-
Sometimes it's not so much about believing something but of being able to keep an open mind about a variety of things.
:(
Atheists at least on the Internet, don't seem to be able to do that.
Most atheists DO do that. Most of us a ready and willing to consider evidence for gods or souls/spirits, etc., and weigh up the strength of it. The problem is that so far no testable evidence has been presented.
-
Sometimes it's not so much about believing something but of being able to keep an open mind about a variety of things.
:(
Atheists at least on the Internet, don't seem to be able to do that.
Most atheists DO do that. Most of us a ready and willing to consider evidence for gods or souls/spirits, etc., and weigh up the strength of it. The problem is that so far no testable evidence has been presented.
Well I'm still weighing up and looking, and enjoying doing so 😉
Most atheists give the impression they have already made up their minds and don't engage.
Have you made up your mind that you don't believe in Thor ?
-
Have you made up your mind that you don't believe in Thor ?
Exactly!
-
Have you made up your mind that you don't believe in Thor ?
Exactly!
I suspect Rose is open- minded about Heathenry.
-
Have you made up your mind that you don't believe in Thor ?
Exactly!
I suspect Rose is open- minded about Heathenry.
You mean she may believe in Thor? :o
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I have seen pagans suckered by atheists on message boards like this.....useful when they support antitheist aims only to have their beliefs cruelly mocked by former allies.
Rhiannon...You are only acceptable because of you're utility.
-
All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational "
I don't aim to close my mind in that fashion.
It would be like wearing shackles.
Sometimes it's not so much about believing something but of being able to keep an open mind about a variety of things.
:(
Atheists at least on the Internet, don't seem to be able to do that.
Everyone is different I suppose. Not everyone is cut out to be an atheist.
The idea of being an atheist does nothing for me.
Xxxxxxxxxx
I know being an atheist is supposed to just mean no belief in gods but often comes across as being closed to considering other possibilities.
I thought it might be interesting to open a thread to explore the idea that being an atheist now seems to mean closing your mind to things not already supported by science.
Does anyone else feel being an Athiest involves closing your mind to interesting questions? Wider than those involving gods?
Not everyone wants to be an atheist, not everyone is cut out to be an atheist.
I'm not.
How do others feel?
Do some feel being an atheist is like putting shackles on your brain and limiting your inquiry into " life the universe and everything?"
Is there something that lies beyond 'life the universe and everything' ? I think not, by definition.
Nobody wants to be an atheist; we are all atheists by default, we all start out without theist beliefs; some are attracted by a religious life and start 'searching' for God and those that succeed in finding something that fits the bill call themselves theists. The idea of 'wanting' to be an atheist makes no sense. You cannot search to not find God.
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I have seen pagans suckered by atheists on message boards like this.....useful when they support antitheist aims only to have their beliefs cruelly mocked by former allies.
Rhiannon...You are only acceptable because of you're utility.
Stop being so tribal, Vlad. Whatever happened to all humanity being brothers and sisters?
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Out of the frying pan...
We can only continue to fight all non-evidenced beliefs.
-
I have seen pagans suckered by atheists on message boards like this.....useful when they support antitheist aims only to have their beliefs cruelly mocked by former allies.
Rhiannon...You are only acceptable because of you're utility.
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist ;)
-
Is there something that lies beyond 'life the universe and everything' ? I think not, by definition.
Nobody wants to be an atheist; we are all atheists by default, we all start out without theist beliefs; some are attracted by a religious life and start 'searching' for God and those that succeed in finding something that fits the bill call themselves theists. The idea of 'wanting' to be an atheist makes no sense. You cannot search to not find God.
Piercing clarity!
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Out of the frying pan...
We can only continue to fight all non-evidenced beliefs.
Why? Nobody wants you to be a heathen and nobody claims you will go to hell if you aren't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ásatrúarfélagið
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I have seen pagans suckered by atheists on message boards like this.....useful when they support antitheist aims only to have their beliefs cruelly mocked by former allies.
Rhiannon...You are only acceptable because of you're utility.
Stop being so tribal, Vlad. Whatever happened to all humanity being brothers and sisters?
Non sequitur
-
Nope. You talk of 'allies' - you're the one going to war on this.
-
... it is the infinite capacity of the evolved human mind which thinks of it all. One can then more greatly appreciate the freedom and of course the responsibilities we humans have.
Susan, it is this very idea of the 'evolved human mind' that leads me to a feeling of human non-responsibility. We have no control over our mind and how it controls us. For me, the sense of responsibility for the rest of creation - be that humanity, the natural world or whatever - comes from my faith in a Creator God who purposely developed humanity to be the guardians and protectors of creation.
Sadly, it hasn't done a very good job, but that doesn't discount the intentionality of humanity.
-
We can only continue to fight all non-evidenced beliefs.
Yet you're happy to fight for belief(s), the evidence for which keep changing?
-
We can only continue to fight all non-evidenced beliefs.
Yet you're happy to fight for belief(s), the evidence for which keep changing?
Eh ?
-
We can only continue to fight all non-evidenced beliefs.
Yet you're happy to fight for belief(s), the evidence for which keep changing?
Not sure what belief you're referring to here, but if it's science then it is the only way towards finding the truth, no matter how many times we have to change it.
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Rhi, Heathenry?
Now that is 40 feet over my head? Lollipopism is the way!
ippy
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Rhi, Heathenry? Now that is 40 feet over my head? Lollipopism is the way!
ippy
What is heathenry?
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Rhi, Heathenry? Now that is 40 feet over my head? Lollipopism is the way!
ippy
What is heathenry?
Are you asking me or Ippy?
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Rhi, Heathenry? Now that is 40 feet over my head? Lollipopism is the way!
ippy
What is heathenry?
Are you asking me or Ippy?
What do you understand by it Rhi.
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Rhi, Heathenry? Now that is 40 feet over my head? Lollipopism is the way!
ippy
What is heathenry?
Are you asking me or Ippy?
What do you understand by it Rhi.
It's the name given to the pagan beliefs associated with Norse and Germanic peoples. Also known as Asatru.
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Rhi, Heathenry? Now that is 40 feet over my head? Lollipopism is the way!
ippy
What is heathenry?
Are you asking me or Ippy?
What do you understand by it Rhi.
It's the name given to the pagan beliefs associated with Norse and Germanic peoples. Also known as Asatru.
Thank you.
-
Heathens do, and heathenry's a growing path within paganism. I suspect Rose is open to the idea that heathens have experiences as 'real' to them as the one she had.
Iceland recognises its own form of Heathenry as its second religion. It's entirely possible it will overtake Christianity in popularity there.
Rhi, Heathenry? Now that is 40 feet over my head? Lollipopism is the way!
ippy
What is heathenry?
Are you asking me or Ippy?
What do you understand by it Rhi.
It's the name given to the pagan beliefs associated with Norse and Germanic peoples. Also known as Asatru.
Asatru? Is that origin of the phrase "bless you"?
Sorry.
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
Your self-satisfaction is nauseating. This is the kind of shit that leaves me shaking my head. All it indicates to me is that you refuse to see value in things that help other people find meaning in their lives. The truth of their beliefs matters not one jot as long as they do not ask to impose them on you or society.
You could simply state you don't understand why people feel the need to participate in those beliefs, but why miss an opportunity to scoff from the side of the playground eh? pathetic.
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
No, you're right, clearly people like Jez, ht, Matt and myself are thick as shit. Keep going, maybe you'll get us to see your one true way.
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
Your self-satisfaction is nauseating. This is the kind of shit that leaves me shaking my head. All it indicates to me is that you refuse to see value in things that help other people find meaning in their lives. The truth of their beliefs matters not one jot as long as they do not ask to impose them on you or society.
You could simply state you don't understand why people feel the need to participate in those beliefs, but why miss an opportunity to scoff from the side of the playground eh? pathetic.
It's not even that we need it to find meaning, Sam, it just is. Paganism isn't something I do, it's what I am. That may change of course but right now it's like saying I'm a woman in order to find meaning.
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
Leonard you know less about science than religion.
Science arbitrarily excludes God and therefore cannot make any judgment on God.
-
Science arbitrarily excludes God and therefore cannot make any judgment on God.
No it doesn't. Arbitrarily, I mean; science certainly excludes gods but rather than being for arbitrary reasons, for extremely good reasons.
-
Your self-satisfaction is nauseating. This is the kind of shit that leaves me shaking my head. All it indicates to me is that you refuse to see value in things that help other people find meaning in their lives. The truth of their beliefs matters not one jot as long as they do not ask to impose them on you or society.
You could simply state you don't understand why people feel the need to participate in those beliefs, but why miss an opportunity to scoff from the side of the playground eh? pathetic.
Meanwhile why miss out on an opportunity to shake your head and scoff at the scoffers. :)
-
Perhaps you might note that Samuel is being specific about his disapprobation rather than making genetic dismissals of groups of people, jakswan? If you want to compare behaviour ironically, would be good if the behaviour was comparable.
-
genetic dismissals of groups of people,
This particular typo has really made me giggle. Thank you. Even tho unintended (at least I think it was) its much better than the bile and grouchiness on display from some.
-
genetic dismissals of groups of people,
This particular typo has really made me giggle. Thank you. Even tho unintended (at least I think it was) its much better than the bile and grouchiness on display from some.
And as with the best typos, mebbes a hint of truth.
-
Science arbitrarily excludes God and therefore cannot make any judgment on God.
No it doesn't. Arbitrarily, I mean; science certainly excludes gods but rather than being for arbitrary reasons, for extremely good reasons.
Of course, science is a card carrying antitheist and will sometimes appear at antitheist comedy gigs.
-
Perhaps you might note that Samuel is being specific about his disapprobation rather than making genetic dismissals of groups of people, jakswan? If you want to compare behaviour ironically, would be good if the behaviour was comparable.
I think neither contributed much to the debate given the tone of the posts, there again neither have I, coat please!
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I don't like it when atheists want me to 'see sense ' or 'come round'; very occasionally I've been offered atheist book lists. It's still less offensive than being told I'm led astray by Satan though.
I get Jeremy - I found no longer being a Christian both liberating and less stressful.
Well I don't think you are led astray by Satan.
I think you are a bit overly sensitive sometimes and have a bad habit of taking things personally.
Sweetpea I think was talking generally, not personally.
Everyone has been led astray by Satan, according to someone somewhere, look at how Catholics and the Pope are regarded by some other areas of Christianity.
The Jews have had even more problems with Christians in the past, probably at least as much as Pagans.
There are so many groups who's beliefs in religion has a negative view of those outside it, that it doesn't pay to take it all personally and get upset.
Life is too short.
Thank you, Rose.... you're absolutely right.
Anyway, I'm done with this place.
-
Science arbitrarily excludes God and therefore cannot make any judgment on God.
No it doesn't. Arbitrarily, I mean; science certainly excludes gods but rather than being for arbitrary reasons, for extremely good reasons.
Of course, science is a card carrying antitheist and will sometimes appear at antitheist comedy gigs.
Antitheist or atheist or materialistic or ....
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
No, you're right, clearly people like Jez, ht, Matt and myself are thick as shit. Keep going, maybe you'll get us to see your one true way.
I have heard can't remember where I read it but it seems that there are still a few followers of Zeus; I don't know and can't predict your impressions of believers/followers of Zeus, I'm sure there are some followers of this deity, would I be expected to take them seriously and be silent about how I feel about their belief, on a debating forum, a yes or no will do?, but please feel free, either way I promise I wont let it upset me.
As for the true way; look for the evidence or the lack of.
ippy
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
Your self-satisfaction is nauseating. This is the kind of shit that leaves me shaking my head. All it indicates to me is that you refuse to see value in things that help other people find meaning in their lives. The truth of their beliefs matters not one jot as long as they do not ask to impose them on you or society.
You could simply state you don't understand why people feel the need to participate in those beliefs, but why miss an opportunity to scoff from the side of the playground eh? pathetic.
You obviously haven't realised how these beliefs look to a lot of people, the lot you probably refer to as atheists, it isn't unusual to hear this type of comment when talking amongst other atheists, as you call us, the only difference here is it's been said to your face.
ippy
-
You know Samuel's an atheist, Ippy?
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
No, you're right, clearly people like Jez, ht, Matt and myself are thick as shit. Keep going, maybe you'll get us to see your one true way.
I have heard can't remember where I read it but it seems that there are still a few followers of Zeus; I don't know and can't predict your impressions of believers/followers of Zeus, I'm sure there are some followers of this deity, would I be expected to take them seriously and be silent about how I feel about their belief, on a debating forum, a yes or no will do?, but please feel free, either way I promise I wont let it upset me.
As for the true way; look for the evidence or the lack of.
ippy
'Followers of' the Greek pantheon most definitely do exist; that doesn't mean they 'believe in' them in the same way most monotheists 'believe in' God. Many pagans prefer to explore myths as Gonnagle describes elsewhere - for what they teach us about ourselves and our existence.
There is no reason to see a belief in Zeus or Thor as less sensible than a belief in the God of the Abrahamic faiths. But I get that you think all belief ridiculous.
-
You know Samuel's an atheist, Ippy?
Atheist or not I don't mind his approach, there's room for all.
ippy
-
Seriously these ludicrous beliefs leave me shaking my head, it looks like group madness to me, absolutely gar gar, funny farm fodder time?
ippy
And yet no doubt intelligent people believed them in the absence of scientific knowledge.
Christianity/Islam and other current beliefs will no doubt look just as daft in a couple of thousand years time.
No, you're right, clearly people like Jez, ht, Matt and myself are thick as shit. Keep going, maybe you'll get us to see your one true way.
I have heard can't remember where I read it but it seems that there are still a few followers of Zeus; I don't know and can't predict your impressions of believers/followers of Zeus, I'm sure there are some followers of this deity, would I be expected to take them seriously and be silent about how I feel about their belief, on a debating forum, a yes or no will do?, but please feel free, either way I promise I wont let it upset me.
As for the true way; look for the evidence or the lack of.
ippy
'Followers of' the Greek pantheon most definitely do exist; that doesn't mean they 'believe in' them in the same way most monotheists 'believe in' God. Many pagans prefer to explore myths as Gonnagle describes elsewhere - for what they teach us about ourselves and our existence.
There is no reason to see a belief in Zeus or Thor as less sensible than a belief in the God of the Abrahamic faiths. But I get that you think all belief ridiculous.
Followers, believers, take your pick, all the same to me and as I said follow the evidence, and no I wouldn't see belief in Zeus or Thor as less sensible than a belief in the god of the Abrhamic faiths.
I would be lieing if I said that I thought all belief in the mythical, supernatural and magical elements of any of those beliefs made sense to me.
ippy
-
There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.
-
There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.
"there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers", yes and I've often noticed that on this forum usually where someone is on a looser and the only way out, as they try, is to try splitting hairs on the semantics, now where have I seen that most recently?
ippy
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I don't like it when atheists want me to 'see sense ' or 'come round'; very occasionally I've been offered atheist book lists. It's still less offensive than being told I'm led astray by Satan though.
I get Jeremy - I found no longer being a Christian both liberating and less stressful.
Well I don't think you are led astray by Satan.
I think you are a bit overly sensitive sometimes and have a bad habit of taking things personally.
Sweetpea I think was talking generally, not personally.
Everyone has been led astray by Satan, according to someone somewhere, look at how Catholics and the Pope are regarded by some other areas of Christianity.
The Jews have had even more problems with Christians in the past, probably at least as much as Pagans.
There are so many groups who's beliefs in religion has a negative view of those outside it, that it doesn't pay to take it all personally and get upset.
Life is too short.
Thank you, Rose.... you're absolutely right.
Anyway, I'm done with this place.
That's a shame, SweetPea. But...it isn't that I've taken what you said personally I haven't - but that the beliefs that link New Age to 'being led astray by lucifer' aren't just intolerant and inaccurate, they are dangerous. That you tried a path and found it wrong for you is completely understandable but that doesn't make it evil. The persecutions that happen to pagans and followers of other alternative spiritualities aren't made up; they affect lives, including families. Matt nearly lost both his kids and his liberty because of them. I know you didn't mean a direct comparison of your path to mine - although they were not dissimilar until recently - but giving credence to the idea that leaving conventional Christianity is in any way satanic or satan-led leaves pagans and others unsafe and open to persecution.
-
There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.
"there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers", yes and I've often noticed that on this forum usually where someone is on a looser and the only way out, as they try, is to try splitting hairs on the semantics, now where have I seen that most recently?
ippy
Actually to be entirely accurate most pagans who work with a particular pantheon use exactly that term - 'work with'.
The difference is possibly best understood if you compare 'working with' with wood or clay, to 'believing in' wood or clay.
-
Have you made up your mind that you don't believe in Thor ?
Exactly!
I suspect Rose is open- minded about Heathenry.
Yes I am, and I think the one I have encountered is very interesting, pity she left here.
I'm all for learning about a variety of viewpoints 😀
Agree totally.
-
Dear Rose,
"Small amounts of philosophy leads to atheism, large amounts leads us to God".
No not Gonnagle,
Sir Francis Bacon.
-
Dear Rose,
"Small amounts of philosophy leads to atheism, large amounts leads us to God".
No not Gonnagle,
Sir Francis Bacon.
If you were to consider just a couple of words out of place could have you burnt at the stake even if you were
the equivalent of an atheist in those times, he or anyone else would be more inclined to say things like that, so would I, had I been around in those times.
Sorry Gonners that doesn't carry much weight, better to try something else.
ippy
-
I like being able to explore a wide range of topics, and find my own answers from Sikhism to UFOs.
Wouldn't you rather have the right answers?
-
There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.
"there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers", yes and I've often noticed that on this forum usually where someone is on a looser and the only way out, as they try, is to try splitting hairs on the semantics, now where have I seen that most recently?
ippy
Actually to be entirely accurate most pagans who work with a particular pantheon use exactly that term - 'work with'.
The difference is possibly best understood if you compare 'working with' with wood or clay, to 'believing in' wood or clay.
And the meaning of followers and believers often convey completely different meanings depending on the context, just as I said, then in comes the semantic pickers:
Following in Wotan's footsteps or believing in Wotan, split the difference there, oh and do it without appearing to be a hair splitter too.
ippy
-
I like being able to explore a wide range of topics, and find my own answers from Sikhism to UFOs.
Wouldn't you rather have the right answers?
Bloody hell, Jeremy. :o
-
I like being able to explore a wide range of topics, and find my own answers from Sikhism to UFOs.
Wouldn't you rather have the right answers?
Seems to me the right answers are a bit subjective,
You mean UFO's (by which I assume you mean alien spacecraft) are true for some people and not others?
-
Dear Rose,
But once you jettison all your personal beliefs, when you resign all that makes up Rose to the waste bin, when you can look at the garden and not wonder about the gardener, when you can stop and think, hell we are just an accident of nature, when you can cease to be amazed at humanity and all that it can achieve just by this thing we call imagination ( good and bad ).
Lastly and most importantly, when you can look at religion and think, what a load of rubbish, nothing to be learned here, science is my new religion, then and only then will you be an atheist my child and the universe and all that encompasses will seem to be................ see them tumbling down, blowing along with the tumbling tumbling tumble weed.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
But once you jettison all your personal beliefs, when you resign all that makes up Rose to the waste bin, when you can look at the garden and not wonder about the gardener, when you can stop and think, hell we are just an accident of nature, when you can cease to be amazed at humanity and all that it can achieve just by this thing we call imagination ( good and bad ).
Lastly and most importantly, when you can look at religion and think, what a load of rubbish, nothing to be learned here, science is my new religion, then and only then will you be an atheist my child and the universe and all that encompasses will seem to be................ see them tumbling down, blowing along with the tumbling tumbling tumble weed.
Gonnagle.
Why would not believing in a deity aka "the Gardener" mean that I am not amazed at what humanity is capable of?
I'm sorry Gonners this from you on this occasion is unutterable and faintly insulting nonsense.
-
Dear Rose,
But once you jettison all your personal beliefs, when you resign all that makes up Rose to the waste bin, when you can look at the garden and not wonder about the gardener, when you can stop and think, hell we are just an accident of nature, when you can cease to be amazed at humanity and all that it can achieve just by this thing we call imagination ( good and bad ).
Lastly and most importantly, when you can look at religion and think, what a load of rubbish, nothing to be learned here, science is my new religion, then and only then will you be an atheist my child and the universe and all that encompasses will seem to be................ see them tumbling down, blowing along with the tumbling tumbling tumble weed.
Gonnagle.
There is much to be amazed and to wonder about in the natural world Gonnagle without the need to believe in God.
Science isn't a religion but it is a tool which lets us discover some amazing things.
The view of an atheist presented in this post isn't a very accurate one I'm afraid Gonnagle - but I can understand why this impression is gioven by the posts of some on here.
-
There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.
"there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers", yes and I've often noticed that on this forum usually where someone is on a looser and the only way out, as they try, is to try splitting hairs on the semantics, now where have I seen that most recently?
ippy
It's a huge difference: followers of Christian ethics don't necessarily believe that Jesus walked on water or that God is real, but they do (probably) believe that you should 'love thy neighbour'.
That's a massive difference.
O.
-
Dear Trent,
Just faintly, well let me insult you a little more, do you not think that the person who calls himself Trentvoyager is unique, I do, as I find all Posters on here unique, tell me, why is this, why in all this world could I search and never find another Trentvoyager, oh! I could find someone who has the same tastes, likes the same music, even if you had a twin he would still not be Trentvoyager, why!! is that not a terrible insult you lovely man.
Atheism, I just don't get it. :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Trent,
Just faintly, well let me insult you a little more, do you not think that the person who calls himself Trentvoyager is unique, I do, as I find all Posters on here unique, tell me, why is this, why in all this world could I search and never find another Trentvoyager, oh! I could find someone who has the same tastes, likes the same music, even if you had a twin he would still not be Trentvoyager, why!! is that not a terrible insult you lovely man.
Atheism, I just don't get it. :o
Gonnagle.
So, because there are unique things you think there is a god.
Is god unique? Must there be a god that created him too?
Also, if the universe is infinite, it could be that there are exact copies of all of us somewhere, so we would not be unique at all.
Does this remove the need for a god?
-
Dear Berational,
IF!! big ifs, if the universe is infinite, if there is a exact copy of me out there somewhere.
So, because there are unique things you think there is a god.
One of the infinite reason why I think there is a God, but I suppose the important word is "why".
Another reason why I don't get atheism, just is, is not a answer I am happy with.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
But once you jettison all your personal beliefs, when you resign all that makes up Rose to the waste bin, when you can look at the garden and not wonder about the gardener, when you can stop and think, hell we are just an accident of nature, when you can cease to be amazed at humanity and all that it can achieve just by this thing we call imagination ( good and bad ).
Lastly and most importantly, when you can look at religion and think, what a load of rubbish, nothing to be learned here, science is my new religion, then and only then will you be an atheist my child and the universe and all that encompasses will seem to be................ see them tumbling down, blowing along with the tumbling tumbling tumble weed.
Gonnagle.
Why a garden, Gonners? Why not the wilderness, the mountains, the oceans, the thicket and the desert? No gardener necessary, just nature shifting, creating and recreating itself.
-
Another reason why I don't get atheism, just is, is not a answer I am happy with.
Its good that you concede to wishful thinking. :)
-
One of the infinite reason why I think there is a God, but I suppose the important word is "why".
At what point can you stop asking "why"?
-
But once you jettison all your personal beliefs, when you resign all that makes up Rose to the waste bin, when you can look at the garden and not wonder about the gardener, when you can stop and think, hell we are just an accident of nature, when you can cease to be amazed at humanity and all that it can achieve just by this thing we call imagination ( good and bad ).
Why do I need a deity to be amazed by reality, including our own part in that?
Lastly and most importantly, when you can look at religion and think, what a load of rubbish, nothing to be learned here, science is my new religion, then and only then will you be an atheist my child and the universe and all that encompasses will seem to be................ see them tumbling down, blowing along with the tumbling tumbling tumble weed.
That's not tumble-weed, that's the remains of your straw-man :) There is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bath-water in the dismissal of religion, there are things to be learnt. That's why people are adopting the model of churches and congregations to try to build communities in atheist and secular circles, for instance.
There is also what appears to be errant nonsense, from the instutionalised homophobia, misogyny, racism, caste discrimination, climate-change denial and evolution denial, and the abhorrence (not unique to religious organisations, by any means) of putting the reputation of the organisation above the wefare of its constituents.
As always, there is never a simple, pithy phrase that encompasses it all. As one of my personal heroes would have it:
"I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." Dr Ben Goldacre.
O.
Gonnagle.
[/quote]
-
There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.
"there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers", yes and I've often noticed that on this forum usually where someone is on a looser and the only way out, as they try, is to try splitting hairs on the semantics, now where have I seen that most recently?
ippy
It's a huge difference: followers of Christian ethics don't necessarily believe that Jesus walked on water or that God is real, but they do (probably) believe that you should 'love thy neighbour'.
That's a massive difference.
O.
I do agree with you there, love thy neighbour, in spite of their rather strange ideas.
ippy
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Why a garden, Gonners? Why not the wilderness, the mountains, the oceans, the thicket and the desert? No gardener necessary, just nature shifting, creating and recreating itself.
Why!!
Dear Outrider,
To us it is complicated, but I suspect ( me personally ) that in the very far future, we will say, bugger, that simple, what were we thinking, and God ( whatever God is ) will say, yep, first take an old washing up bottle, and some sticky backed plastic :o
Gonnagle.
-
To us it is complicated, but I suspect ( me personally ) that in the very far future, we will say, bugger, that simple, what were we thinking, and God ( whatever God is ) will say, yep, first take an old washing up bottle, and some sticky backed plastic :o
Gonnagle.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic miracles, to paraphrase Mr Clarke.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
And to paraphrase Prof Cox and his wooonders of the universe, "it is a miracle we are even here".
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
And to paraphrase Prof Cox and his wooonders of the universe, "it is a miracle we are even here".
Gonnagle.
Yes Gonners it does look that way, where it looks like it is in fact a miracle we are even here", but then any old story can easily be made up to incorporate that lot.
ippy
-
Dear Trent,
Just faintly, well let me insult you a little more, do you not think that the person who calls himself Trentvoyager is unique, I do, as I find all Posters on here unique, tell me, why is this, why in all this world could I search and never find another Trentvoyager, oh! I could find someone who has the same tastes, likes the same music, even if you had a twin he would still not be Trentvoyager, why!! is that not a terrible insult you lovely man.
Atheism, I just don't get it. :o
Gonnagle.
Well right back at ya.
Christianity - I just don't get it.
As I have said before were you born in India you would more likely than not be Hindu and be just as unable to get Christianity as you are currently unable to get atheism. Why the religious don't get the localism of religion and the implications of that I shall never know.
I still don't get why you think I am not capable of appreciating the uniqueness of everything around me. In fact I have often thought that for the religious it can be an easy way out to hold to the line that it's Gods creation all around us - as it negates the responsibility of having to find out WHY.
Religion in so many ways has been, and continues to be, a block on the progress that we need to make as a race. Religion holds us back. That you and many other religious people cannot see that simple fact does not make it any less true.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Why a garden, Gonners? Why not the wilderness, the mountains, the oceans, the thicket and the desert? No gardener necessary, just nature shifting, creating and recreating itself.
Why!!
Dear Outrider,
To us it is complicated, but I suspect ( me personally ) that in the very far future, we will say, bugger, that simple, what were we thinking, and God ( whatever God is ) will say, yep, first take an old washing up bottle, and some sticky backed plastic :o
Gonnagle.
Why what?
-
Dear Trent,
Well right back at ya.
Christianity - I just don't get it.
As I have said before were you born in India you would more likely than not be Hindu and be just as unable to get Christianity as you are currently unable to get atheism. Why the religious don't get the localism of religion and the implications of that I shall never know.
I still don't get why you think I am not capable of appreciating the uniqueness of everything around me. In fact I have often thought that for the religious it can be an easy way out to hold to the line that it's Gods creation all around us - as it negates the responsibility of having to find out WHY.
Religion in so many ways has been, and continues to be, a block on the progress that we need to make as a race. Religion holds us back. That you and many other religious people cannot see that simple fact does not make it any less true.
No argument here old son, if I was born in India and walked into a Temple, but I was born in Glasgow ( thankyou God ) at a time when Temples were not to be found, then maybe, but I have walked with Jesus for a long time ( sometimes stumbling ) but I am like the originator of this thread, Christianity is my home not my prison ( yes I know Rose is not a Christian ) I can find wisdom in other religions.
Uniqueness, why I find it fascinating, science ( but I do find the fingerprint of God ) no two snowflakes are the same, how the hell do they know, no two fingerprints are the same, how the hell do they know, but science tells me this.
But I do catch a glimmer of this uniqueness in us ( we are made in Gods image ) art, music, dance, each person appreciating or bringing something totally unique to it ( and if you ever saw me dance, but there are bigger horrors in this world :o )
And I could go on, the list is endless, why I ask "WHY".
As for religion holding us back, we need something in place, if not religion sticking its oar in, then what, man thinks he is so intelligent, he is not :(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Just agreeing with you, why a garden, and it is a garden.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Just agreeing with you, why a garden, and it is a garden.
Gonnagle.
But a garden needs a creative mind, and if our garden has been created by this mind it's been created with a lot of suffering to which the gardener doesn't turn his/her attention to resolve.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
My answer ( my opinion ) I don't want it all handed on a plate, that for me stops me growing, but the stock answer, why do babies get cancer, why even bloody cancer, I just don't know.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
My answer ( my opinion ) I don't want it all handed on a plate, that for me stops me growing, but the stock answer, why do babies get cancer, why even bloody cancer, I just don't know.
Gonnagle.
See, this is one of the places where I struggle. I can't grasp a situation where you can have a vivid enough imagination to conceive of a god, yet not vivid enough to conceive of a world where such things don't need to happen, and if they don't need to happen yet the god you conceive of makes a world where they happen anyway... To say 'I don't know' is a fair enough answer to the problem of evil, but only if it's a fair enough answer to 'is there really a god'?
O.
-
I don't want it on a plate either, but nor do I want my kids to have had the loss of a playmate as their first experience of death. If women are designed so childbirth can result in recto-vaginal fistulas then the designer is a sadist.
-
Dear Rhiannon and Outrider,
To answer both your questions I would need to tell you what is God, a description, another, I just don't know.
What I can tell you through personal experience is that Our Lord walks with me every step of the way, but to know this feeling, this certainty, you would need to walk in my shoes and yes sometime I do tell God to go and take a run off a high dyke, and no that is not a woman in high but comfortable shoes.
Gonnagle.
-
What makes you think I didn't once have exactly the same certainty that you do, Gonners? I didn't want to be a priest because I liked the floral blouse/dog collar combo.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Sorry but you have baffled me, how you got from my post to me questioning your journey. :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Sorry but you have baffled me, how you got from my post to me questioning your journey. :o
Gonnagle.
Not at all, I was just saying I can imagine how you feel because I once felt the same. Time was when I couldn't understand any other way of living and would never have believed I could lose my faith.
-
What makes you think I didn't once have exactly the same certainty that you do, Gonners? I didn't want to be a priest because I liked the floral blouse/dog collar combo.
Interesting.
So you were quite into it then?
🌹
The only reason I didn't go through with the selection process for the priesthood was that I found out I was pregnant.
-
Rose, am an atheist but I'm with you on this one.
For me atheism is the rejection of the various Gods as stipulated and defined in many of the religions, specifically the monotheistic ones, as they have intellectualized to the nth degree the archetypal elements of the psyche and hence produced rubbish. I do not reject the numinous and other aspects of the psyche and the unconscious which is where our original elements of religion came from. Your experience, as outlined in my thread, is of the latter.
The psychological acceptance of the unconscious allows for the openness you wish for, but also broader aspects if one wishes.
-
What makes you think I didn't once have exactly the same certainty that you do, Gonners? I didn't want to be a priest because I liked the floral blouse/dog collar combo.
Interesting.
So you were quite into it then?
🌹
The only reason I didn't go through with the selection process for the priesthood was that I found out I was pregnant.
Yes that would keep you very busy 😀
Just found out my ordained best friend's son is going to become a vicar ( the whole family is very very religious although they are accepting of other paths unless they involve the occult) .
He's a bit of an enthusiastic chap and I have been watching some of his Facebook entries with a growing sense of unease.
Before we moved away, I had about 15 years of challenging his mum on aspects of Christian belief.
I can see me getting into the same with her son ::)
I did go to church for about ten years, and met some lovely people and I enjoyed the sense of community, but really only learnt I'm not a Christian ( which I really knew anyway) I just have a respect for the ethical lessons of Jesus minus the theology.
I could have just as easily shared a church building with a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, a pagan, an Athiest, a Sikh etc. altogether and been happy to find ethics and direction in common.
Just me I suppose.
I think if someone has a faith then it's important to engage with the beliefs and practices of others, if only to understand. It's a shame your friend still has the old 'everything's ok apart from the occult' attitude that I'd had drummed into me. I can't go into details but once someone gave me some very good advice and I ignored her because a Christian friend said she was into the occult and was 'led by the devil'. It's superstitious claptrap.
-
All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational "
I don't aim to close my mind in that fashion.
It would be like wearing shackles.
Sometimes it's not so much about believing something but of being able to keep an open mind about a variety of things.
:(
Atheists at least on the Internet, don't seem to be able to do that.
Everyone is different I suppose. Not everyone is cut out to be an atheist.
The idea of being an atheist does nothing for me.
Xxxxxxxxxx
I know being an atheist is supposed to just mean no belief in gods but often comes across as being closed to considering other possibilities.
I thought it might be interesting to open a thread to explore the idea that being an atheist now seems to mean closing your mind to things not already supported by science.
Does anyone else feel being an Athiest involves closing your mind to interesting questions? Wider than those involving gods?
Not everyone wants to be an atheist, not everyone is cut out to be an atheist.
I'm not.
How do others feel?
Do some feel being an atheist is like putting shackles on your brain and limiting your inquiry into " life the universe and everything?"
Quite the reverse.
When I came to recognise that I didn't believe in god in 1989 is was like my eyes, ears, the rest of my senses being opened. Up to then it was as if I was looking at the world through a prism, through a window with imperfect or dirty glass. That prism being a mythical god. Once I removed god from the equation I could see the world directly, clearly, as if a veil had been removed.
Now I am sure others will have different experience, but this is mine. So rather than atheism putting shackles on my mind, it has removed them. Rather than my atheism closing my mind, it has opened it.
-
Dear Prof,
Except to the possibility that there is a God, but then atheists only dismiss man's interpretation of God, our feeble attempts to try and imagine the unimaginable.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Except to the possibility that there is a God,
Gonnagle.
Why is it any more a sign of a closed mind not to accept the possibility that there is a god than not to accept the possibility the there isn't a god. Surely each are equally closed.
And actually I doubt that most atheists are of that mind - there is a difference between belief (or lack thereof) and knowledge. I do not believe in the existence of god or gods, I do not know that they don't exist. I remain open to the possibility, but until or unless there is evidence to convince me I will likely continue not to believe in their existence.
but then atheists only dismiss man's interpretation of God, our feeble attempts to try and imagine the unimaginable.
But surely one of the most feeble attempts of man to explain the unexplained is to invent a god and then ascribe 'goddidit' to things we don't understand.
The mature approach is to accept there are things we currently don't understand and work hard to try to understand them.
-
I do not believe in the existence of god or gods, I do not know that they don't exist. I remain open to the possibility, but until or unless there is evidence to convince me I will likely continue not to believe in their existence.
You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.
For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?
-
You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.
For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?
Yes, this pretty much sums up my position as well. If the definitions we get given of god are either in my view logically contradictory or meaningless then the concept of possibility cannot be appllied any more than the possibility of jupremangandi existing.
-
You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.
For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?
Yes, this pretty much sums up my position as well. If the definitions we get given of god are either in my view logically contradictory or meaningless then the concept of possibility cannot be appllied any more than the possibility of jupremangandi existing.
A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.
-
A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.
How can it be a possibility if you don't even know what it is? If there is no meaningful definition then, applying the concept of possibility is meaningless.
-
You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.
For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?
Yes, this pretty much sums up my position as well. If the definitions we get given of god are either in my view logically contradictory or meaningless then the concept of possibility cannot be appllied any more than the possibility of jupremangandi existing.
A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.
Thinking about it a little more, perhaps my view is due to the fact that I am a scientist.
As a scientist I use evidence to derive theories, which provide the best model to explain the evidence. But I am always open to the possibility that the current theory could be disproved by the appearance of new evidence in the future. While it might be very unlikely for the most well evidenced theories that possibility remains and as a scientist you must always be open to that possibility.
So currently there is no evidence to support a view that god or gods exists. Therefore that view or belief is rejected. But however unlikely, you shouldn't discount the possibility of being wrong and that new evidence might arise that turns you view on its head. But note that this requires evidence.
-
]Thinking about it a little more, perhaps my view is due to the fact that I am a scientist.
As a scientist I use evidence to derive theories, which provide the best model to explain the evidence. But I am always open to the possibility that the current theory could be disproved by the appearance of new evidence in the future. While it might be very unlikely for the most well evidenced theories that possibility remains and as a scientist you must always be open to that possibility.
So currently there is no evidence to support a view that god or gods exists. Therefore that view or belief is rejected. But however unlikely, you shouldn't discount the possibility of being wrong and that new evidence might arise that turns you view on its head. But note that this requires evidence.
But without any form of meaningful definition one cannot even be wrong. If someone asked you as a scientist could there be a four sided triangle, you would simply state that it is definitionally unsound. If all the definitions of a god add up to nothing sensible then definitionally applying possibility is impossible.
-
But without any form of meaningful definition one cannot even be wrong.
Pauli's famous quote is something that I almost put into my earlier post - it was very much in mind.
-
Pauli's famous quote is something that I almost put into my earlier post - it was very much in mind.
This relates to my issue with the prayer experiments which I was having with Outrider and bluehillside lats week. The use of terms are so badly defined that applying the concepts of science to them or respondingto the question of possibility of such things seems logically incoherent.
-
There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.
"there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers", yes and I've often noticed that on this forum usually where someone is on a looser and the only way out, as they try, is to try splitting hairs on the semantics, now where have I seen that most recently?
ippy
It's a huge difference: followers of Christian ethics don't necessarily believe that Jesus walked on water or that God is real, but they do (probably) believe that you should 'love thy neighbour'.
That's a massive difference.
O.
I think you are trivialising and twisting what Christians are saying.
To love one's neighbour properly one has to deal or more to the point get the mote in one's eye dealt with.
-
This relates to my issue with the prayer experiments which I was having with Outrider and bluehillside lats week. The use of terms are so badly defined that applying the concepts of science to them or respondingto the question of possibility of such things seems logically incoherent.
Ah, now then - I disagree with you on this particular issue. I didn't contribute to the aforementioned discussion but I did read it carefully and with great interest, and there sided with Outrider insofar since (if I understood him aright), whereas trying to define a supernatural agency at whom petitionary prayers are directed may well be a non-starter, such petitionary prayers could have detectable, testable results in the end user (so to speak). Those results aren't seen, or to be precise are absolutely indistinguishable in every way from random, God-free events (interestingly, something that Alan Burns surprisingly admitted to a few days ago - who'd a thunk it), so the hypothesis of petitionary prayer can be considered falsified.
-
The problem is petitionary prayer is not a hypothesis in any scientific sense. The claim is nonsensical and using science on meaningless.
-
The problem is petitionary prayer is not a hypothesis in any scientific sense. The claim is nonsensical and using science on meaningless.
Not sure that is actually true - I think you may be confusing phenomenon with mechanism and both are of course subject to reasonable hypothesis based investigation.
So on phenomenon it is perfectly reasonable to frame a hypothesis that being the subject of petitionary prayer affects clinical outcome (for example). This makes no inference on mechanism involved if an effect is demonstrated. So for example a patient who knows they are being prayed for may experience psychological effects (positive or negative) that affect their clinical outcome.
And you may want to investigate mechanism (as far as is possible) - so an obvious way is to have two prayed for groups, one that is aware they are being prayed for, the other not. If the mechanism is purely psychological there is a requirement that the patient is aware of the prayer for the effect to be seen. So by seeing whether there is an effect when someone is prayed for but this vanishes when they are unaware tells us something about the mechanism of action.
-
Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.
-
Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.
I'm not sure I agree. Science is very good at debunking woo - either by proving that it doesn't work or through carefully designed experiments proving that is doesn't work via supernatural mechanisms.
The experiments on prayer are pretty good in this respect - typically showing that prayer only works of the person being prayed for is aware, therefore disproving the notion of intervention by a supernatural power where the notion of whether the prayed for person knows or doesn't know is irrelevant.
So in a way this demonstrates that there is an effect but it is a placebo effect via psychological triggers.
-
They are well designed experiments if one assumes a naturalistic cause, and you cannot not when doing science. The only results you can get from science is something that is either in line with a hypothesis or not. The petitionary prayer claims are not scientific ones. All woo claims are meaningless scientifically since they are positing mechanisms which it doesn't investigate.
-
They are well designed experiments if one assumes a naturalistic cause, and you cannot not when doing science. The only results you can get from science is something that is either in line with a hypothesis or not. The petitionary prayer claims are not scientific ones. All woo claims are meaningless scientifically since they are positing mechanisms which it doesn't investigate.
But it doesn't matter if science proves that it doesn't work.
All sorts of things we now understand through science were once the subject of claims of supernatural woo, from earthquakes to reproduction. In these cases science via experimentation has provided an explanation that it robust and does not require supernaturalistic woo explanations.
-
It cannot disprove woo claims as they are unfalsifiable in its terms. Woo claims are not based on cause and effect as science works.
-
Note just to underline, this is not a point about woo being possibly true but rather that phrasing Woo in scientific terms by any Woo merchant is essentially positing a meaningless statement when it comes to science
The challenge to Woo merchants is how could any statement they make be given any validation since it ignores the method of science or in seeking to use its method of cause and effect makes an entirely meaningless statement.
-
It cannot disprove woo claims as they are unfalsifiable in its terms. Woo claims are not based on cause and effect as science works.
But all of the woo claims are based on effects that are naturalistic (faith healing, power of prayer, divining, earthquakes due to gods being angered etc etc), so it is pretty easy to demonstrate no effect, e.g. on prayer without knowledge etc. And if there is no effect then on the naturalistic it is demonstration of falsifiability. So if someone claims that a person with a heart defect can be cured by prayer that is pretty easy to demonstrate to be untrue through scientific falsifiable hypotheses. You pray (without knowledge) nothing happens when compared to a control group. Sure the faithful won't accept or believe it but that doesn't mean that the claim has not been demonstrated to be false.
-
That the woo pushers might phrase their claims in scientific terms of cause and effect does not change that it is incorrectly done. Any naturalistic method necessitates an approach that assumes naturalism. That the other side not only do not provide a method and misunderstand the method on offer does not mean that abusing the method we have makes any sort of philosophical sense.
-
That the woo pushers might phrase their claims in scientific terms of cause and effect does not change that it is incorrectly done. Any naturalistic method necessitates an approach that assumes naturalism. That the other side not only do not provide a method and misunderstand the method on offer does not mean that abusing the method we have makes any sort of philosophical sense.
But most of the claims of supernatural woo involve a naturalistic effect. They are not entirely based within the supernatural sphere. Prayer being a good example - the act of praying is naturalistically physical, the purported effect is also usually naturalistic - e.g. someone experiences relief from illness or symptoms thereof. So in the first place it is possible to prove in a scientific manner whether the initial naturalistic action (prayer) is associated with an alteration in the naturalistic effect. If there is no such link then the notion of whether there is a supernatural link between 'cause and effect' falls at the first hurdle because there is no association between the two.
-
Dear Prof,
Except to the possibility that there is a God, but then atheists only dismiss man's interpretation of God, our feeble attempts to try and imagine the unimaginable.
Gonnagle.
But if there was a God other than man's interpretation then where is It?
The only other option to man's interpretation of God is a personal experience of the deity but by that very nature we could not find any common ground to share that experience unless God presents Itself to us all at the same time. And as we die and another generation comes into being God would have to essential live with us constantly. I don't see this, so God doesn't exist.
-
No, I get the whole natural effect claim. That is why it is atrocious philosophy and why science which follows a methodology that assumes a natural cause won't work here. The issue is that the claim of a natural effect from a supernatural cause is incoherent.
-
You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.
For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?
Yes, this pretty much sums up my position as well. If the definitions we get given of god are either in my view logically contradictory or meaningless then the concept of possibility cannot be appllied any more than the possibility of jupremangandi existing.
A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.
But if you don't know what a God 'looks like' how will you collect that evidence?
-
Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.
I'm not sure I agree. Science is very good at debunking woo - either by proving that it doesn't work or through carefully designed experiments proving that is doesn't work via supernatural mechanisms.
The experiments on prayer are pretty good in this respect - typically showing that prayer only works of the person being prayed for is aware, therefore disproving the notion of intervention by a supernatural power where the notion of whether the prayed for person knows or doesn't know is irrelevant.
So in a way this demonstrates that there is an effect but it is a placebo effect via psychological triggers.
This is almost laughable because all you have shown is that the placebo effect is a phenomenon. It has not touched the prayer issue at all, and it can't because science has no inkling about what prayer is, as a healing mechanism. If you don't have an hypothesis about prayer i.e. some idea of what could be going on, then what is there to work with?
-
Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.
I'm not sure I agree. Science is very good at debunking woo - either by proving that it doesn't work or through carefully designed experiments proving that is doesn't work via supernatural mechanisms.
The experiments on prayer are pretty good in this respect - typically showing that prayer only works of the person being prayed for is aware, therefore disproving the notion of intervention by a supernatural power where the notion of whether the prayed for person knows or doesn't know is irrelevant.
So in a way this demonstrates that there is an effect but it is a placebo effect via psychological triggers.
This is almost laughable because all you have shown is that the placebo effect is a phenomenon. It has not touched the prayer issue at all, and it can't because science has no inkling about what prayer is, as a healing mechanism. If you don't have an hypothesis about prayer i.e. some idea of what could be going on, then what is there to work with?
But if the notion of prayer only works under placebo effect conditions (i.e. only when the prayed for person knows) then that demonstrates it cannot be via the mechanism claimed by believers as they think that the prayed for person only needs the intervention of god, not the knowledge of that intervention.
-
Except to the possibility that there is a God, but then atheists only dismiss man's interpretation of God, our feeble attempts to try and imagine the unimaginable.
My mind is open to the possibility that there is a god. The problem is only that the evidence is lacking.
-
Dear Rose,
I like Judaism because i see it as ethical and fairly pragmatical.
Then you would like Karen Armstrongs writings, the golden rule, central to her Charter for Compassion.
Gonnagle.
-
However, I don't think I am ever going to be an atheist. It just isn't me.
You might not identify as an atheist but if lack belief in a god then you will become one.
-
Dear Rose,
If I might suggest " A Short History of Myth " to be a good starting point.
Small book, and if that wets your appetite, then " A Case for God " and " History of God " where she goes into greater depth.
Her books are totally unbiased and very well researched.
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners
Her books are totally unbiased and very well researched.
Well researched - yes. Totally unbiased - Less so.
But then I would imagine it is very difficult to write a totally unbiased book about anything.
She writes from her perspective without becoming polemical I would agree. But bias is there. As with every writer that has lived.
-
Dear Trent,
Fair point, maybe what I was trying to say is she is not sympathetic to any one chosen religion.
Although I did read that she quite likes Judaism.
Oh and she has no time for the likes of Dawkin or Hitchen. :P
Gonnagle.
-
I agree with Maeght, I don't think there's much choice in it. That said, I find atheists more tolerant than Christians, at least on the net.
I don't like it when atheists want me to 'see sense ' or 'come round'; very occasionally I've been offered atheist book lists. It's still less offensive than being told I'm led astray by Satan though.
I get Jeremy - I found no longer being a Christian both liberating and less stressful.
Well I don't think you are led astray by Satan.
I think you are a bit overly sensitive sometimes and have a bad habit of taking things personally.
Sweetpea I think was talking generally, not personally.
Everyone has been led astray by Satan, according to someone somewhere, look at how Catholics and the Pope are regarded by some other areas of Christianity.
The Jews have had even more problems with Christians in the past, probably at least as much as Pagans.
There are so many groups who's beliefs in religion has a negative view of those outside it, that it doesn't pay to take it all personally and get upset.
Life is too short.
Thank you, Rose.... you're absolutely right.
Anyway, I'm done with this place.
That's a shame, SweetPea. But...it isn't that I've taken what you said personally I haven't - but that the beliefs that link New Age to 'being led astray by lucifer' aren't just intolerant and inaccurate, they are dangerous. That you tried a path and found it wrong for you is completely understandable but that doesn't make it evil. The persecutions that happen to pagans and followers of other alternative spiritualities aren't made up; they affect lives, including families. Matt nearly lost both his kids and his liberty because of them. I know you didn't mean a direct comparison of your path to mine - although they were not dissimilar until recently - but giving credence to the idea that leaving conventional Christianity is in any way satanic or satan-led leaves pagans and others unsafe and open to persecution.
Well, those are your thoughts, but I cannot be held to ransom because my beliefs differ from yours, Rhiannon. Personally, I would never criticize you or anyone else.... atheist or pagan alike.... it's none of my business what you believe. As I mentioned previously, it is only extremists that are going to persecute people for their beliefs.
Yes, I was drawn to pantheism and the 'pull' was tremendous.... I really thought for a time, this is the answer. I agree that God is in creation (but not THE creation) of course, creation comes from God; but the vital piece missing from pantheism is the Creator of the creation. The Bible is all we have on the Word of God, and as someone once said: " The Bible is like a person. If you torture it enough, you can get it to say anything. God did not intend for people to torture the Bible. He meant for us to accept it. It is His words for us.
The gift of discernment is so important and a wonderful blessing. Without discernment, there is a danger of being deceived and therefore, opening doors to more and more deception.
-
SP, I fail to see how I'm 'holding you to ransom'. There's nothing wrong with you rejecting pantheism, or wanting to accept the Bible more fully. That you feel you had wandered along a path that is wrong for you is perfectly understandable and I get that you will have a sense of relief and homecoming.
But this idea that a being - Lucifer, Satan - is responsible for leading Christians towards pagan or New Age beliefs is dangerous, SP. It isn't only extremists who persecute pagans. There is so much misinformation out there - not just from Christians but also the media and entertainment industries - that it's not uncommon for pagan children to be ostracised in school, and police get involved when no crime has been committed. One of the latest cases that the Pagan Fed have been involved with was a woman who called the police because of her abusive partner;on arrival he told them that she was 'demented' because she was into 'all that witchcraft shit' and she was the one to end up in the cells.
-
Nice post, Rose. I feel nothing but happiness for SweetPea that she's found what is for her such a true path.
-
It's a huge difference: followers of Christian ethics don't necessarily believe that Jesus walked on water or that God is real, but they do (probably) believe that you should 'love thy neighbour'.
That's a massive difference.
O.
I think you are trivialising and twisting what Christians are saying.
I'm sorry you've chosen to take it that way.
To love one's neighbour properly one has to deal or more to the point get the mote in one's eye dealt with.
First you'd have to establish that there was a mote, and secondly you'd have to establish that only perfect people were capable of caring for their neighbour - I'm not sure you can do either of those, and I'm damned sure you can't do both.
O.
-
The problem is petitionary prayer is not a hypothesis in any scientific sense. The claim is nonsensical and using science on meaningless.
In and of itself it isn't a scientific hypothesis, but it is a claim about the physical world, and that claim can be used to formulate an hypothesis.
We have a history of hypotheses about many things based purely on the effects they elicit, without any explanatory mechanism. Only once we've demonstrated that there's an effect to be explored do we get to the mechanics.
O.
-
That the woo pushers might phrase their claims in scientific terms of cause and effect does not change that it is incorrectly done. Any naturalistic method necessitates an approach that assumes naturalism. That the other side not only do not provide a method and misunderstand the method on offer does not mean that abusing the method we have makes any sort of philosophical sense.
To invalidate the claim, though, you do not need to demonstrate the falsity of each and every step, only that the entirety is not demonstrably true. They make a claim, you demonstrate that the entirety of the claim is not true, they are forced to revise the claim - you don't need to disprove god/angels/intercessionary supernatural beings, just that no-one's feeling any better
O.
-
That the woo pushers might phrase their claims in scientific terms of cause and effect does not change that it is incorrectly done. Any naturalistic method necessitates an approach that assumes naturalism. That the other side not only do not provide a method and misunderstand the method on offer does not mean that abusing the method we have makes any sort of philosophical sense.
To invalidate the claim, though, you do not need to demonstrate the falsity of each and every step, only that the entirety is not demonstrably true. They make a claim, you demonstrate that the entirety of the claim is not true, they are forced to revise the claim - you don't need to disprove god/angels/intercessionary supernatural beings, just that no-one's feeling any better
O.
That's right.
There are often two stages to claims. First the cause/effect or association, phenomenon claim. In other words I do something and something happens. Only once this association is demonstrated are claims of causality (i.e. the thing you did causes the effect) or mechanism (they are linked because of this mechanism) valid.
So take divining - the first claim is that diviners using a skill can find water. There are then further claims as to the mechanism. But if under controlled test conditions diviners are unable to find water any more often than would be suggested by random chance then the basic claim fails. No further study is necessary.
So with prayer if the basic claim - that if people pray for something to happen (e.g. a person getting better when ill) then the person prayed for is more likely to get better - must be demonstrated as an association, before any mechanistic claim (god intervenes) can be considered. So if there is no evidence that prayer is associated with an effect then the claim fails.
If there is an association then some further study can be considered, most notably in this example studies to investigate the placebo effect. So in this case whether improvement (or deterioration) only occurs if the person prayed for knows they are being prayed for.
-
Sweetpea
If I might make a suggestion.
I think you can be a Christian and avoid elements of what is perceived as " the occult" without upsetting anyone.
Presumably you are supposed to live by the example Jesus set and make your decisions from those things, a sort of Christian ethics, based on Jesus and his teachings.
It's up to you to discern what that is. This then is your path.
All you need to really say is you prefer to work things out for yourself, using Jesus as your guide.
No one needs to bring up Satan, or being deceived or anything else like that.
You are allowed to have your own path, and others to have theirs.
I have had Romanies offer to tell me my future and I just say " no thanks , I prefer to work it out for myself"
I think most Pagans can accept your path is not theirs.
:)
To make your life decisions based on the ethical teachings of Jesus is a valid path.
I don't think you need the other "more superstitious " reasons. They just alienate people ;)
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
-
Sweetpea
If I might make a suggestion.
I think you can be a Christian and avoid elements of what is perceived as " the occult" without upsetting anyone.
Presumably you are supposed to live by the example Jesus set and make your decisions from those things, a sort of Christian ethics, based on Jesus and his teachings.
It's up to you to discern what that is. This then is your path.
All you need to really say is you prefer to work things out for yourself, using Jesus as your guide.
No one needs to bring up Satan, or being deceived or anything else like that.
You are allowed to have your own path, and others to have theirs.
I have had Romanies offer to tell me my future and I just say " no thanks , I prefer to work it out for myself"
I think most Pagans can accept your path is not theirs.
:)
To make your life decisions based on the ethical teachings of Jesus is a valid path.
I don't think you need the other "more superstitious " reasons. They just alienate people ;)
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
You have not the slightest shred of verifiable evidence to support your statement, you are a liar if you say your have! Making threats as to what will happen to people who don't see it your way is abusive and WRONG, as I know only too well! >:(
-
The frightening thing is the credence given to the notion that the devil exists to deceive. It's medieval.
-
And again given an omni god the devil will act in line with the nature of that omni god. This is the only reality that can exist if you position an omni god.
-
Both of whom seem to have too much time on their hands if their greatest concern is whether or not people get into meditation or tarot or Dawkins.
-
Both of whom seem to have too much time on their hands if their greatest concern is whether or not people get into meditation or tarot or Dawkins.
Every Friday they meet up at the Deitys'r'us for a cigar, a snifter and a snigger.
-
2Corrie says that the whole world is under the power of the evil one. Why doesn't God stop it then? He could, couldn't he?
-
Something something something free will.
-
Something something something free will.
Except the argument here makes free will irrelevant. The world/universe whatever can only be this way. If god could have done anything better,it would have to have done so by its nature.
-
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
Your thinking is self-contradictory it seems to me. You are of the position, I thought, that we can only be saved by Grace, therefore it matters not one jot whether we go searching for God or live a Christ-like life or whether or not we succeed in getting to a correct understanding, it's all in God's hands.
-
I'm afraid it's posts like 2corrie's that makes me know I'm not a Christian.
It requires a level of superstition I just don't have.
I like the old hymn
The Lord’s my Shepherd, I’ll not want;
He makes me down to lie
In pastures green; He leadeth me
The quiet waters by.
My soul He doth restore again,
And me to walk doth make
Within the paths of righteousness,
E’en for His own name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk in death’s dark vale,
Yet will I fear no ill;
For Thou art with me, and Thy rod
And staff my comfort still.
My table Thou hast furnished me
In presence of my foes;
My head Thou dost with oil anoint,
And my cup overflows.
Goodness and mercy all my life
Shall surely follow me;
And in God’s house forevermore,
My dwelling place shall be.
No room for fear there or thinking the world is under the power of the evil one, IMO. *
But then it's a Psalm which was pre Jesus and Christian theology.
* This is the hymn of a believer - they are not under his power.
-
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
Your thinking is self-contradictory it seems to me. You are of the position, I thought, that we can only be saved by *Grace, therefore it matters not one jot whether we go searching for God or live a Christ-like life or whether or not we succeed in getting to a correct understanding, it's all in God's hands.
By Grace through faith
-
Sweetpea
If I might make a suggestion.
I think you can be a Christian and avoid elements of what is perceived as " the occult" without upsetting anyone.
Presumably you are supposed to live by the example Jesus set and make your decisions from those things, a sort of Christian ethics, based on Jesus and his teachings.
It's up to you to discern what that is. This then is your path.
All you need to really say is you prefer to work things out for yourself, using Jesus as your guide.
No one needs to bring up Satan, or being deceived or anything else like that.
You are allowed to have your own path, and others to have theirs.
I have had Romanies offer to tell me my future and I just say " no thanks , I prefer to work it out for myself"
I think most Pagans can accept your path is not theirs.
:)
To make your life decisions based on the ethical teachings of Jesus is a valid path.
I don't think you need the other "more superstitious " reasons. They just alienate people ;)
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
You have not the slightest shred of verifiable evidence to support your statement, you are a liar if you say your have! Making threats as to what will happen to people who don't see it your way is abusive and WRONG, as I know only too well! >:(
If you read 2Corrie's post again she has not made any threats.
Well, I didn't want to post about the event I experienced when I gave up my new age belief but feel I must, now, as you say there is no evidence to support 2Corrie's words.
In the very moment that I renounced my new age beliefs I was spiritually attacked, and it was very, very frightening. Only by praying and calling on Jesus Christ did the attack cease.
Many ex-new agers have had a similar experience - you only have to 'google'.
Randall N. Baer, an ex-new age leader details what happened to him when he gave up the philosophy in his book, 'Living in the New Age Nightmare'. Johanna Michaelsen's account of her experience on leaving the occult behind is well worth a read.
Many ex-new agers are now trying to help those leaving NA behind.
-
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
Your thinking is self-contradictory it seems to me. You are of the position, I thought, that we can only be saved by *Grace, therefore it matters not one jot whether we go searching for God or live a Christ-like life or whether or not we succeed in getting to a correct understanding, it's all in God's hands.
By Grace through faith
But isn't faith imputed by God?
-
Sweetpea
If I might make a suggestion.
I think you can be a Christian and avoid elements of what is perceived as " the occult" without upsetting anyone.
Presumably you are supposed to live by the example Jesus set and make your decisions from those things, a sort of Christian ethics, based on Jesus and his teachings.
It's up to you to discern what that is. This then is your path.
All you need to really say is you prefer to work things out for yourself, using Jesus as your guide.
No one needs to bring up Satan, or being deceived or anything else like that.
You are allowed to have your own path, and others to have theirs.
I have had Romanies offer to tell me my future and I just say " no thanks , I prefer to work it out for myself"
I think most Pagans can accept your path is not theirs.
:)
To make your life decisions based on the ethical teachings of Jesus is a valid path.
I don't think you need the other "more superstitious " reasons. They just alienate people ;)
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
You have not the slightest shred of verifiable evidence to support your statement, you are a liar if you say your have! Making threats as to what will happen to people who don't see it your way is abusive and WRONG, as I know only too well! >:(
If you read 2Corrie's post again she has not made any threats.
Well, I didn't want to post about the event I experienced when I gave up my new age belief but feel I must, now, as you say there is no evidence to support 2Corrie's words.
In the very moment that I renounced my new age beliefs I was spiritually attacked, and it was very, very frightening. Only by praying and calling on Jesus Christ did the attack cease.
Many ex-new agers have had a similar experience - you only have to 'google'.
Randall N. Baer, an ex-new age leader details what happened to him when he gave up the philosophy in his book, 'Living in the New Age Nightmare'. Johanna Michaelsen's account of her experience on leaving the occult behind is well worth a read.
Many ex-new agers are now trying to help those leaving NA behind.
Sweet Pea,
My own view is if you stick to the ethical and lovely teachings of Jesus about loving your neighbour, and ignore the rest ( manipulations of people) you won't have an issue.
The truth is meant to set you free, not scare you to death.
You just have to believe if all this stuff about Jesus is true, he is above manipulative stuff created by other people.
Some people put more value in the opinions of people.
Trouble is, if you listen to people it leaves you vunerable.
If you follow the ethics as stated by Jesus,you are not as open to individual interpretation and manipulation.
Kindness, compassion and love exceed boundaries.
Explore for yourself.
Yes, there is much truth in your words, Rose. But what happened to me in that moment was the seducing spirit turned on me; and yes, I was set free when I called on Jesus. I was not at all influenced by the authors I've mentioned, I didn't read their accounts until sometime later.
I also agree to discount a lot of the dogma attached to Christianity.... I'd call myself a scriptually 'born again'.
-
Something similar happened to me, SweetPea, I know how frightening it feels and I too sought someone to pray with me. But the experience - very real and scary - originated in my own fear and superstition as taught to me by those who had been taken in by the hysteria against 'the occult' and, very often, the egos of those who liked to make portentous pronouncements about 'the dark one' and 'the deceiver'.
I can't go into details but one such person persuaded me to make very poor choices purely on the basis that another person who was trying to help me was into tarot.
I don't regard myself as a survivor of NA, I regard myself as someone who survived Christian spiritual abuse that is solely human in origin. I feel a lot safer well out of it, believe me.
-
Just did a google of New Age and Christianity and it's seriously depressing. New Age is being called everything from satanic to anti-Semitic, and its adherents can apparently be spotted doing yoga, meditating and watching Oprah. Even contemplative prayer and mysticism comes in for it.
-
The worst experiences I have had have come from people of a variety of differing beliefs or theologies ,who have attempted to reduce the size of my world, poison my veiw of other people who are even remotely different, declare the whole world is evil and pretty much cut off any experience that conflicts with what they say and discourages exploration of alternatives in any way by spreading fear.
It's very " cultic" and hurts people because it reduces their world into black and white and manipulates people by making their world smaller.
It's usually also very strong on the "one true way ism" and is very judgmental.
I can see it coming a mile off. ( the attitude).
I won't have it.
Avoid it like the plague IMO.
I agree with you, Rose. :(
-
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
Your thinking is self-contradictory it seems to me. You are of the position, I thought, that we can only be saved by *Grace, therefore it matters not one jot whether we go searching for God or live a Christ-like life or whether or not we succeed in getting to a correct understanding, it's all in God's hands.
By Grace through faith
You are avoiding the point; you think that God will save through Grace those who persist in the correct faith, but for all those who unwittingly are worshipping through the wrong faith, they are all toast. In this view god is either evil, consigning the majority of people to death for innocently getting it wrong, or he is feeble, unable to overcome the apparently superior power of the Evil One who bears the real responsibility for misleading us in the first place. Which is it, evil or feeble ?
-
So Christians should 'live and let die'? I know there are many who would like to believe that there are 'many paths' or 'many ways up the mountain', however, sincerely that is not the case. The Lord Jesus is 'The way, the truth and the life', it is the Christian's job to warn and to pray so that people can be rescued from the deception. Let me add that it's not just those who are into the occult that are deceived, this is not some vendetta against them, the whole world sways under the power of the evil one; there are many deceptions; but there is only one Truth. I pray that all would find it.
Your thinking is self-contradictory it seems to me. You are of the position, I thought, that we can only be saved by *Grace, therefore it matters not one jot whether we go searching for God or live a Christ-like life or whether or not we succeed in getting to a correct understanding, it's all in God's hands.
By Grace through faith
But isn't faith imputed by God?
righteousness is imputed, but faith is commanded 'repent and believe the gospel'.
-
The worst experiences I have had have come from people of a variety of differing beliefs or theologies ,who have attempted to reduce the size of my world, poison my veiw of other people who are even remotely different, declare the whole world is evil and pretty much cut off any experience that conflicts with what they say and discourages exploration of alternatives in any way by spreading fear.
It's very " cultic" and hurts people because it reduces their world into black and white and manipulates people by making their world smaller.
It's usually also very strong on the "one true way ism" and is very judgmental.
I can see it coming a mile off. ( the attitude).
I won't have it.
Avoid it like the plague IMO.
I agree with you, Rose. :(
I had a hunch you might ((((((hugs))))))
One of the biggest problems is that these people can seem so good, so spirit-filled, and can make a person feel very special. And I think some of them are quite sincere, because they've become victims too in the past.
-
Absolutely. But if you are a Christian, they can make you feel very special indeed, even as they show you the ways in which you've been the wrong type.
And yes, it is often a power thing.