Searching for GOD...

[OH MY WORLD!]

Floo,
Could you stop chasing Sass around today? We have read your nasty comments about her and to her, over and over and over and over and over.................................!

[ekim]

Of course human imagination is not a route to the truth.  I quoted imagination as an example of the human soul's capability of interacting with our physical brain.  To discover the truth we need to look beyond our fickle human imagination to find the  true source of wisdom.

In the comments which I replied to you did say " I do not feel that my imagination is defined by either natural inclinations or religious teaching." and you have here used the Christian term 'soul' which implies that your mind and its imagery is conditioned by religious teaching, just as an Indian mind might be conditioned differently by the term 'jiva'.  If you use such terms without clarity they will simply stimulate the imagination of others to move in an inappropriate direction just as the words ghost and spook does.

[Enki]

Response to post 6963 by Sass,

Why do you feel love and compassion? If nature why doesn't everyone feel it?
Hitler... would you say his nature was to have love and compassion?
So tell me why he murdered so many innocent people?  Your feelings of love and compassion are not part of mans nature.

I suggest that my feelings of love and compassion are part of my nature. I quite accept that there are other feelings which are also part of my nature too, not all of which would be regarded as positive towards others. I suggest my feeling of compassion, for instance, is an amalgum of empathy and altruism, fashioned by my culture, my nurture. my rationality and my experience. There are plenty of people who act in response to feelings of love and compassion towards others, I would suggest, and there is no evidence whatever that such people are limited to the religious.

You mention Hitler. I would suggest that any feelings of love and compassion that he may have had were subsumed by other more negative feelings which could well have been a result of his pernicious ideology amongst other influences.

I was referring to the general nature of mankind rather than the singular person.
We may have consciences and those conscience make you feel guilty that causes your compassion- having whilst others have not. But it is not of mans fallen nature to have genuine compassion and love for others.

Even believers do not of their own nature without God have love and compassion in it's true nature.

If you were referring to 'the general nature of mankind' then you should have made that clear..and you didn't. You separated mankind into believers and non believers, giving the unselfish motive only to the believer(Christian). In this, as I have already suggested, I think you are wrong. For me, whatever lies behind any unselfish motive in any individual is there regardless of religion. Furthermore you intimated that non believers necessarily do not act with a sincere wish to help others. Such an inference, I suggest, is entirely without foundation. As regards conscience, as you call it, I see this as a direct result of empathy and altruistic tendencies. Hence, I may well feel guilty towards another individual if I feel I have wronged that person, but such feelings for me are part of my nature, and, as I see it, a result of evolutionary traits that help us to cohere as a highly sophisticated social animal. So, no, the idea that man has a fallen nature which does not allow 'genuine compassion and love for others', I reject entirely. I see no evidence for this at all.

Quote
King James Bible
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

We feel guilt too when we realise the truth about Christ.
The truth is every good work we do is by the grace of God.

Quote
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I hope it makes it a little clearer to you that as believers we are doing that which God has set for us to do.
That of mans nature no one is generally good or truly loving of themselves. That out of conscience we often produce good works whether believer or unbeliever. But it is because of how or conscience allows us to feel.
It is not because we are good of ourselves. Hitler and many like him, show how man can ignore and lose conscience to their own ends..

It was clear enough without the quotations, Sass. I am fully aware that you think that. My point is that a person does not necessarily need any religion in order to show sincere love and compassion, because it is within oneself. Furthermore, an argument can be made that belonging to any religion or ideology runs the risk of following precepts that are divisive and selectively compassionate, encouraging, perhaps, other parts of our nature which are not conducive to the general good.

As, stated many times and this time no different. There is no way without the knowledge of God you can question our love and compassion. For they are simply Gods own love and compassion as I hope the information above explains.

Which I did not do. That is why I said the following:

"I would not presume to question your motives when acting out of love and compassion because I do not know you,"

So that point is redundant. You believe you are following what you call God's own love and compassion. That's your belief. No problem. I simply don't share it.

We are only doing that which our new nature in God has been prepared for. What we know is that the works were already prepared for us by God. It is simply us doing the will of God rather than living by our own nature.

Again, your belief. No problem. I simply don't share it. I prefer to see the individual and make my own judgement as to whether he/she is being loving and compassionate(and that includes myself, of course). I don't really care whether they are religious or non religious, unless their religion/non religion/ideology gets in the way of that person being a caring and compassionate person.

[ippy]

nagle link=topic=10333.msg579313#msg579313 date=1451227393]
Dear ippy,

You are reading a book please remember that the forum is here for any long words you may struggle with

In Defence of Atheism, does atheism need defending

Gonnagle.r
[/quote]

Thanks for the offer Gonners and of course anything you don't understand you don't have let it worry you too much because you can switch off the brain and hang on to your good old godidit philosophy.

That's the title of the book, who knows you might learn something if you read it.

Ippy

[ippy]

I guess Enki, you misconstrue what I am saying...

Why do you feel love and compassion? If nature why doesn't everyone feel it?
Hitler... would you say his nature was to have love and compassion?
So tell me why he murdered so many innocent people?  Your feelings of love and compassion are not part of mans nature.
I was referring to the general nature of mankind rather than the singular person.
We may have consciences and those conscience make you feel guilty that causes your compassion- having whilst others have not. But it is not of mans fallen nature to have genuine compassion and love for others.

Even believers do not of their own nature without God have love and compassion in it's true nature.

We feel guilt too when we realise the truth about Christ.
The truth is every good work we do is by the grace of God.

I hope it makes it a little clearer to you that as believers we are doing that which God has set for us to do.
That of mans nature no one is generally good or truly loving of themselves. That out of conscience we often produce good works whether believer or unbeliever. But it is because of how or conscience allows us to feel.
It is not because we are good of ourselves. Hitler and many like him, show how man can ignore and lose conscience to their own ends..

As, stated many times and this time no different. There is no way without the knowledge of God you can question our love and compassion. For they are simply Gods own love and compassion as I hope the information above explains.
We are only doing that which our new nature in God has been prepared for. What we know is that the works were already prepared for us by God. It is simply us doing the will of God rather than living by our own nature.

11

ippy

[ippy]

Here Enki, is the perfect example of mans own nature and how it lacks, love, empathy and compassion because it has no knowledge of the truth of God regarding true love and good works... Sometimes it is better to be wronged through jealousy and lack of knowledge as Rhiannon has done toward myself. Than to be the author of such works as Rhiannon has showed herself capable of doing.

Life is not a competition Rhi, and as you have already showed you are too much after yourself to be after doing the will of God.
You can make all types of displays of what the world wants to see you as. But in the end it will come out as this post of yours shows. I personally, hide nothing and I care enough to tell the truth. It is in your court to apologise.

2

ippy

[Leonard James]

In Defence of Atheism, does atheism need defending

Gonnagle.

Not in itself, Gonners, the lack of evidence for any "god" is manifest; but many people are undecided about which of the miriad of "gods" that mankind has invented over the years suits them.

It must be pointed out to them that the only evidence for ANY of them is anecdotal ... and that they are just ideas dreamed up by humans.

Furthermore, they must also be told that belief in any of these "true" gods has caused many people to treat their fellow humans cruelly and viciously throughout history.

Lastly and most importantly, they must understand that we are all perfectly able live in peace and love for our fellow man if we choose to do so,  without believing in any of them.

[torridon]

It sees resolutions, disputes and explanations as mental processes which probably lead to more disputes, explanations and resolutions and as you say active engagement requires hard work.  The state of the world today shows how hard it is and how bitterly it can be fought.  It sometimes ends in a compromise and a so called peaceful settlement until the next time.  The way (let's call it) of inner stillness promotes a centre of inner peace beyond the mental chattering, and a state of ease within the body as opposed to disease.  This 'way' sometimes also appears as a struggle (an inner jihad) and I suppose many are called, few make it.

Disputes do sometimes lead to greater collective understanding, this is the way we make progress, by arguing things out. Words are clumsy, and limited in their scope, but they are better than the alternatives, which can be war, on one extreme, or disengagement on the other.

[torridon]

If you ask ten philosophers to define the truth, you will get ten different answers, but there is only one truth, and mankind's intellect alone is not capable of finding it.

Muddled thinking.  There is no single 'thing' that we could call 'Truth'.  Truth is a concept, not a thing; a proposition can be described as being 'true' or 'false', so more correctly, truth is a descriptive property of a proposition.  Describing truth as if it were a thing makes no more sense than talking about 'very', or 'purple', as if they were things

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Muddled thinking.  There is no single 'thing' that we could call 'Truth'.  Truth is a concept, not a thing; a proposition can be described as being 'true' or 'false', so more correctly, truth is a descriptive property of a proposition.  Describing truth as if it were a thing makes no more sense than talking about 'very', or 'purple', as if they were things

Ah the world of contingent things eh,
But non philosophical naturalists tend to blend the boundaries.
But the you guys are a bit that way too.
Lend us a non contingent thing and contingent things will explain the rest.

[ekim]

Disputes do sometimes lead to greater collective understanding, this is the way we make progress, by arguing things out. Words are clumsy, and limited in their scope, but they are better than the alternatives, which can be war, on one extreme, or disengagement on the other.

Unfortunately, words can also be used to stir up passions which can lead to disputes and wars and invective. You only have to look at some of the postings on this site to see examples. I suspect that what lies behind the teachings of the initiators of religious practices is a methodic attempt to transform or evolve the human being into a being that is not a slave to instincts and passions so that inner qualities like peace, love, joy, unity are expressed and naturally exported.  However, it is not long before the power obsessed lesser evolved create an organised religion from the words and use them to control and manipulate others.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

I had a quick look to find out about the said book, sorry but from the little blog below it sounds like another Dawkish tirade, if you can convince me otherwise I would be genuinely interested, the blog talks about authentic atheism, what is authentic atheism ( another A word ).

I am fascinated by a mind that says there is no God but trying to have a conversation about this is like pulling teeth, I don't need a book to tell me about the failings of religion to anyone with an IQ above ten they are abundantly clear.

Anyway I have put in bold where the blog is wrong, well according to theological historians.

In the twenty-first century, religion is making a comeback, bringing in its wake extremism of all kinds. From Christian anti-abortion campaigns to suicide bombers claiming the righteousness of Islam, we are witnessing a resurgence of fundamentalism. Michel Onfray?s response to the threat of a post-modern theocracy is to lay down the principles of an authentic atheism: exposing the fiction that is God, he proposes instead a new philosophy of reason that celebrates life and humanity. In Defence of Atheism demonstrates that organised religion is motivated by worldly, historical and political power; that the three dominant monotheisms ? Christianity, Islam and Judaism ? exhibit the same hatred of women, reason, the body, the passions; that religion denies life and glorifies death. Onfray exposes some uncomfortable truths: Judaism invented the extermination of a people; Jesus never existed historically; Christianity was enforced with extreme violence by Constantine; Islam is anti-Semitic, misogynist, warlike and incompatible with the values of a modern democracy. ?In this era of warring religions, with Almighty God being invoked as the key ally by all sides, it was with gratitude and relief that I read Michel Onfray?s In Defence of Atheism. It is both a passionate and coolly reasoned advocacy of atheism, setting the positive values of secularity squarely against the three great monotheisms and their multitude of hates... Free of all pretentious obfuscation and written with great verve, wit, scholarship and all the devastating logic of the French intellectual tradition, it deserves an English translation, at the very least. A wonderful, invigorating blast of sanity delivered against the fog of high-toned mumbo-jumbo we have to endure everywhere today? William Boyd, TLS Books of the Year

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Gonners,

You are fascinated by a mind that cannot believe in God. I've spent a lot of time trying to make sense of why I once did, when now I simply can't, at least not in the personal sense. And the only even vague answer that I can come up with is that I have a good imagination. It's like waking up from a dream.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Never mind Onfray trying to say Jesus never existed historically, It looks as if  he is trying to airbrush Stalin out of history as well and Pol Pot.

[wigginhall]

Gonners,

You are fascinated by a mind that cannot believe in God. I've spent a lot of time trying to make sense of why I once did, when now I simply can't, at least not in the personal sense. And the only even vague answer that I can come up with is that I have a good imagination. It's like waking up from a dream.

It's interesting that you use the word dream, as I think religious symbols are a bit dream-like.   They have always fascinated me, but I find it peculiar that some people take them literally.   That seems to produce lots of trouble, as then you have to prove them correct, which of course, you can't.   (Not you, one). 

[Rhiannon]

Sometimes if I have a dream that provokes extreme feelings - good or bad - they stay with me long after I've woken and realised that whatever events I'd dreamed of aren't real. I think religion must work in the same way on some level, making the unreal seem real as a dream does.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

You are a excellent example of why this no God stance fascinates me, you turned your back on the Christian God but you replaced it with another form of religion.

This to me is a very human thing to do, science tells us that we are mean seeking creatures ( trying to find the words to explain myself properly, got a bloody cold that refuses to go away ) you know ( I think ) that we are more, that there is more, you see a connection with nature, the atheist stance  ( I think ) is that we are just a product of evolution but for me there is something missing in that kind of thinking.

I am not arguing against evolution just that it is not the be all and end all, we have missed a step, lost a part of what we really are, for me the evidence for God is all around us ( what ever God is ) and just to head off the usual suspects, my evidence is things like, we look at birds and say, oh you bloody well think so!! although we haven't grown wings yet, we can fly in a very limited way.

The atheist refuses to acknowledge the God like qualities we all possess, we are more than just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, we are made in Gods image.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Sometimes if I have a dream that provokes extreme feelings - good or bad - they stay with me long after I've woken and realised that whatever events I'd dreamed of aren't real. I think religion must work in the same way on some level, making the unreal seem real as a dream does.

Well, I'm not sure what real means.  Religion is real to people, but some Christians want to make it scientifically respectable, or something like that, which is disastrous really, and you end up with these interminable arguments, which go nowhere.   I watched the King's College carols and found it very uplifting, and yes, real. 

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

You are a excellent example of why this no God stance fascinates me, you turned your back on the Christian God but you replaced it with another form of religion.

This to me is a very human thing to do, science tells us that we are mean seeking creatures ( trying to find the words to explain myself properly, got a bloody cold that refuses to go away ) you know ( I think ) that we are more, that there is more, you see a connection with nature, the atheist stance  ( I think ) is that we are just a product of evolution but for me there is something missing in that kind of thinking.

I am not arguing against evolution just that it is not the be all and end all, we have missed a step, lost a part of what we really are, for me the evidence for God is all around us ( what ever God is ) and just to head off the usual suspects, my evidence is things like, we look at birds and say, oh you bloody well think so!! although we haven't grown wings yet, we can fly in a very limited way.

The atheist refuses to acknowledge the God like qualities we all possess, we are more than just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, we are made in Gods image.

Gonnagle.

I turned my back on nothing, Gonners. It stopped being real and I tried asking God to make it real again but it didn't happen. That either made God a bastard or God not real. I decided on the latter.

I don't know if there is 'more' to us than this life. I like to believe in the hope of an afterlife but if the only way I continue is as the molecules that make up something else then that's ok. But I certainly don't believe that we are in any way superior or special compared to the rest of creation. Rather we are a part of the whole of it. As a pantheist I can't set myself apart from tree or cat or whale or rock. The most dangerous part of monotheism came in right at the start - that there's something special about Homo sapiens.

(Sorry about the cold. Onion soup with garlic, sage and brandy might help.)

[Shaker]

U am not arguing against evolution just that it is not the be all and end all, we have missed a step, lost a part of what we really are, for me the evidence for God is all around us ( what ever God is )

But Gonners, if you can't say what God is, how do you know that there's evidence for such a thing and that it's all around us?

[Rhiannon]

Well, I'm not sure what real means.  Religion is real to people, but some Christians want to make it scientifically respectable, or something like that, which is disastrous really, and you end up with these interminable arguments, which go nowhere.   I watched the King's College carols and found it very uplifting, and yes, real.

Yes, I know what you mean. Whether by accident or design religion excels at giving us real experiences. I think with dreams we can distinguish 'real' simply because we wake up and realise we aren't driving a bus that's about to crash or whatever.

It's sad when people with religious belief try to demonstrate its authenticity. It's not necessary, and seems to result in nothing more than ill-feeling and unhappiness.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

Turned your back, walked away, use which ever metaphor you like, as for an afterlife, I am just like you, it is an unknown, I prefer the here and now, if there is an afterlife, I like the pagan Summerland.

Dear Shaker,

But Gonners, if you can't say what God is, how do you know that there's evidence for such a thing and that it's all around us?

Good question and probably where I fall down, what I can say is that Our Lord walks with me everyday, it works for me, call it my confirmation bias.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

I like the idea of the Summerlands too, Gonners. Just an idea though...

As for turning my back, no, that wasn't how it happened. But I've noticed that Christians find it better to think of it that way.

[Shaker]

I like the idea of the Summerlands too, Gonners. Just an idea though...

As for turning my back, no, that wasn't how it happened. But I've noticed that Christians find it better to think of it that way.

You do see in some theists - Alan Burns is a prime example - tremendous and obvious psychological/emotional resistance to the mere idea that god-belief can simply evaporate, since once the idea is admitted it opens up the possibility that it could happen to them too. There's a vested interest in wanting to deny that such a thing occurs. Despite the mountains of evidence that it has/can/does - personal testimonies, I mean - the phenomenon has to be rationalised (as 'twere) and explained away by other factors which leave their own theistic worldview intact.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

As for turning my back, no, that wasn't how it happened. But I've noticed that Christians find it better to think of it that way.

I suppose you are right, we Christians enjoy a prodigal son story, someone who walks away but then after much soul searching returns to God, we thrive on it, we point the finger at that story and say, look we are right, it boosts our Christian ego.

But that says nothing about why I started this conversation, ippy's book talks of authentic atheism, what is that, why does someone cease searching for God, I can like the countless posts on this forum and others point out the failings with religion but that says nothing about why we do what we do.

An example of what I am trying to say, Wigs spoke of listening to Carols and being uplifted, it was very real for him, I think you would have to be made of stone to not be moved by this kind of praising God.

Which brings me back to my main point, we are more, we have god like qualities although these can manifest themselves in very destructive qualities, we can like Floo's idea of a Biblical deity result in some horrendous acts.

Gonnagle.