The idea of 'God' is crutch for people too weak to accept the World as it is.
now byrnzie, I know what you are saying, but you know that isn't true. that would mean you are claiming that 98% of the world is weaker than us. that's tough to swallow since you chastise pandora for thinking she is something special for knowing god, don't you think?
I think it's a crutch for SOME people, just like music in dark times can be. I enjoy music in good and bad, it can make a good mood even better, and make a bad mood not so bad, but I wouldn't say that means I'm weaker than those who don't use music to bring themselves up.
everyone has a crutch. but that doesn't make them weak.
some might say that man's need to explain everything with science is no different than man's need to explain everything through god.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i don't care how it's labeled or perceived or... i choose to believe in God because the alternative Sucks. In my opinion, i respect but don't pratice any and all religion, but i like the spirituality idea. This Works for Me.
The idea of 'God' is crutch for people too weak to accept the World as it is.
now byrnzie, I know what you are saying, but you know that isn't true. that would mean you are claiming that 98% of the world is weaker than us. that's tough to swallow since you chastise pandora for thinking she is something special for knowing god, don't you think?
I think it's a crutch for SOME people, just like music in dark times can be. I enjoy music in good and bad, it can make a good mood even better, and make a bad mood not so bad, but I wouldn't say that means I'm weaker than those who don't use music to bring themselves up.
everyone has a crutch. but that doesn't make them weak.
some might say that man's need to explain everything with science is no different than man's need to explain everything through god.
Maybe 98% of humans are weak. Maybe 99%. I don't know. But substituting reality with an anthropomorphic deity doesn't constitute strength.
As for Pandora 'knowing God', I find that to be a stretch considering she's not even capable of explaining to anybody what 'God' is.
If people choose to take refuge behind deities or ideals rather than accepting the fundamental absurdity of the World then they are exhibiting weakness.
As for this notion of 'God' that everyone seems so quick to keep bandying around, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what the word means. All I've gotten from this thread so far is the odd reference to 'Him', and 'He', 'He answered me', 'my relationship with God', e.t.c, which, quite frankly, I find to be completely ridiculous.
Though if people want to talk about some kind of cosmic energy, life-force, or latent aspect of human consciousness/awareness, then I'm all ears. But they can keep their bearded man in the sky to themselves.
'You just don't understand my religion' is not good enough
Too often, faith is mysterious only selectively. When questions get tough, a god can disappear in a puff of ineffability
Julian Baggini
Guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011
Terry Eagleton's quip that reading Richard Dawkins on theology is like listening to someone "holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The British Book of Birds" is a funny and memorable contribution to a debate that is rarely amusing and frequently forgettable. Whether you agree with the charge or not, the complaint is of a kind we have become very familiar with: disputants in the religion debate are talking past each other because they do not have a sufficiently rich understanding of the positions they stand against.
I'm very much in sympathy with this view, and this series is largely an attempt to try to find more constructive points of engagement that can only emerge if we ditch lazy and tired preconceptions about those with whom we disagree. At the same time, however, I'm all too aware that "you just don't understand" is a card that is often played far too swiftly and without justification.
Most obviously, it cannot be the case that the views of someone who is most immersed in or knows most about a religion always trump those of a relatively uninformed outsider. People who live and breathe a faith know more about it than those who do not – but this quantitative advantage does not guarantee better qualitative judgements. If it did, by the same logic, we should take the word of the earnest astrologer of 40 years' standing over the clear evidence that it's all baloney. Indeed, being deeply immersed may be a positive disadvantage, in that it might make it impossible to take a clear-sighted, impartial view. So Dawkins and his ilk are correct when they say that they are not obliged to become experts in theology in order to make criticisms of religion.
Of course, there is a level of ignorance that makes reasonable criticism impossible. But where that is the case, it should always be possible to point out what elementary mistake the critic has made. It is never reasonable to fob someone off on the basis that they do not understand: it is always necessary to explain what they do not understand. But also – and here's the rub – it's also essential to make it understandable. Rule one of intellectual engagement is that all parties must sincerely attempt both to understand others and to make themselves understood.
It has become evident to me, however, that many people, especially the religious, suffer from a kind of conceptual claustrophobia. Their beliefs are of their essence somewhat vague and they are terrified of being pinned down. Although critics often leap on this and claim that this betrays woolly thinking, evasion or obscurantism, I think that there are times when such a refusal to commit is justified.
I remember, for example, an impassioned talk I once heard by the recently sainted Giles Fraser. Recounting the story in Exodus of Moses going up the mountain to meet God to get the Ten Commandments, Fraser said: "The higher he goes up the mountain, the more the mist comes down. The closer he gets to God, the less and less he is able to see." Meanwhile, at Sinai's foot, the idolatrous masses are "running around building a golden calf, making God into a thing".
It is always possible to think there is a fog when really it's just that your glasses have steamed up. But I'm not only prepared to allow that an intelligent religious faith might have a big fat mystery at its heart, I think it must have. Only the most juvenile gods are like super-humans we can truly understand. If there is a God, it must surely passeth all understanding.
But embracing this mystery comes at a price. If, like the archbishop of Canterbury, your faith is a kind of "silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark", then think very carefully before you open your mouth. Too often I find that faith is mysterious only selectively. Believers constantly attribute all sorts of qualities to their gods and have a list of doctrines as long as your arm. It is only when the questions get tough that, suddenly, their God disappears in a puff of mystery. Ineffability becomes a kind of invisibility cloak, only worn when there is a need to get out of a bit of philosophical bother.
Also, maintaining that some aspects of religion are ineffable doesn't mean that all are. Indeed, it entails that some are very clear indeed. Ask Fraser, for example, if he thinks God is a thing and he should answer clearly and unequivocally, no. Likewise, people should be able to give clear answers to straight questions such as "was Christ's resurrection physical, leaving an empty tomb?", even if that answer is "I don't know". Maintaining, for instance, that it is naive to read the gospels as literal history is – or should be – to maintain that the events it describes did not, or need not, have literally happened.
I need to make these issues clear now because over the coming weeks, in the name of trying to uncross some wires and get some real discussion going, I'm going to be trying to get greater clarity about just what different camps in the religion debate are really maintaining. I anticipate all sorts of objections of the kind I've mentioned: that I'm simplifying; that I'm trying to eff the ineffable; that I am being too literal minded. I want to make it clear right now that these kinds of responses won't work as get-out-of-jail-free cards. They need justification.
We also have to be willing to accommodate the fact that belief comes in infinite shades and varieties. No two people believe exactly the same thing, and that presents another opportunity for evasion: plausible denial that you believe what is being attributed to you. We have to accept that, to make progress, we sometimes have to say, "that's not quite what I think, but it may be close enough. Go on." If anything less than perfect understanding counts as misunderstanding, then everything is misunderstood.
Everyone says that they are in favour of greater mutual comprehension, but the failure to achieve it is not just a result of people not making the effort to understand. Often it's just that people refuse to make themselves understood.
I think the bottom line here is that if someone is incapable of explaining what they mean by their use of a particular word, then they should stop using that word.
Simply saying 'I know 'God' and then failing, or deliberately refusing, to qualify that statement, implies one of two things: either that you are simply delusional, or that you are incapable of rational thought.
i choose to believe in God because the alternative Sucks.
I don't understand this kind of frame of mind (alternative sucks/alternative depressing) - believing by default. Why does the alternative suck for you? I believe in myself, I believe in humanity as a whole - that doesn't suck. Sure, there's good and bad but isn't that the same with a 'god'?
i choose to believe in God because the alternative Sucks.
I don't understand this kind of frame of mind (alternative sucks/alternative depressing) - believing by default. Why does the alternative suck for you? I believe in myself, I believe in humanity as a whole - that doesn't suck. Sure, there's good and bad but isn't that the same with a 'god'?
this cant be all there is
why the hell not is what i ask? why does there have to be more? why do we expect more? why is mankind so arrogant to assume s/hes so special that he deserves more??
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i don't care how it's labeled or perceived or... i choose to believe in God because the alternative Sucks. In my opinion, i respect but don't pratice any and all religion, but i like the spirituality idea. This Works for Me.
you respect scientology??
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I was not claiming to enlighten you ... perhaps your many religions have claimed such.
I speak of my beliefs and experience with God.
God enlightened me, I had no choice but to believe from my enlightenment.
Perhaps the same will come to you.
...
Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part...
If someone were to know God. Isn't that enlightenment? The person who knows God is an enlightened one... isn't he/she?
Whether you are one individual that subscribes to one belief, based on personal experience... or a global religion with millions of followers... the basic doctrine of 'Ask, and ye shall recieve' remains the same.
...
And again, this is the point I have been trying to make to you throughout this discussion:
"I speak of my beliefs and experience with God. "
Are we all not enlightened when we learn something new?
Did anyone here think anyone was speaking for someone else or just speaking of their own beliefs and experiences?
We are speaking of our own experiences with God or the lack of which has formed our core belief.
I think the bottom line here is that if someone is incapable of explaining what they mean by their use of a particular word, then they should stop using that word.
Simply saying 'I know 'God' and then failing, or deliberately refusing, to qualify that statement, implies one of two things: either that you are simply delusional, or that you are incapable of rational thought.
I have been pretty clear people must find God themselves and will perhaps one day.
I can see from all your words you are closed to that thought of finding God
because you will not believe there is a possibility ...
you already have concluded just what you said here
You say....God comes from delusion and not of rational thought...
very much like I thought 20 years ago.
A person has new thought when they know God, when they know without a doubt
there is God and afterlife.
I said I know God in response to the ridiculous statement no one can know God,
pages back. And will always respond as such, because the statement is untrue
and based in some people's opinions not one I share.
This just as people believe God is based in my opinion ... not in truth. It is a simple case of different core beliefs and should be left as such
To each their own.
I am not trying to explain nor make anyone believe.
But what are others doing?
Attempting to dismiss others beliefs? Why? Why? Why?
You may find God one day as I have and maybe not,
why does it matter to atheists that others believe?
To stop speaking of God is something I will never do,
it would be like turning my back on my very best friend,
to put that in a way you may or may not understand.
The idea of 'God' is crutch for people too weak to accept the World as it is.
now byrnzie, I know what you are saying, but you know that isn't true. that would mean you are claiming that 98% of the world is weaker than us. that's tough to swallow since you chastise pandora for thinking she is something special for knowing god, don't you think?
I think it's a crutch for SOME people, just like music in dark times can be. I enjoy music in good and bad, it can make a good mood even better, and make a bad mood not so bad, but I wouldn't say that means I'm weaker than those who don't use music to bring themselves up.
everyone has a crutch. but that doesn't make them weak.
some might say that man's need to explain everything with science is no different than man's need to explain everything through god.
Maybe 98% of humans are weak. Maybe 99%. I don't know. But substituting reality with an anthropomorphic deity doesn't constitute strength.
As for Pandora 'knowing God', I find that to be a stretch considering she's not even capable of explaining to anybody what 'God' is.
If people choose to take refuge behind deities or ideals rather than accepting the fundamental absurdity of the World then they are exhibiting weakness.
As for this notion of 'God' that everyone seems so quick to keep bandying around, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what the word means. All I've gotten from this thread so far is the odd reference to 'Him', and 'He', 'He answered me', 'my relationship with God', e.t.c, which, quite frankly, I find to be completely ridiculous.
Though if people want to talk about some kind of cosmic energy, life-force, or latent aspect of human consciousness/awareness, then I'm all ears. But they can keep their bearded man in the sky to themselves.
Don't you just love it when people talk about you like you aren't here
Bearded man :? ... funny but also very belittling to those who follow religions.
Very superior sounding and disrespectful.
It is not possible to explain God to someone who does not want to know God,
they already have their core belief. It is only God who can change their core belief.
I think people get what I am saying, I hope cause I've said it in response to each post.
Go find God for yourself, unless of course you are just driven by actions you are already displaying.
Actions, words that are less than positive, loving or respecting of others beliefs.
You say....God comes from delusion and not of rational thought...
No, that's not what I said.
well yes ..
you said ...because someone knows God and can not or will not explain it to you
that that means the person is irrational and delusional ...
far from the truth.
And again rude, disrespectful and belittling to others beliefs,
to those who know God
Also very superior of you .. I guess we owe you an explanation. :?
If we don't give it we are wrong.
Go ask God who God is or do you not believe in God? If this the case why must you know what others believe so badly ... seems very strange to me
perhaps your words and actions show your intentions.
Page 17 of this thread and still nobody has explained what 'God' is.
I have no clue. I don't know if there is one (or eleven, or any).
But, I like to think God is synonymous with Nature...& maybe Science.
...the things that allowed us/the Earth/the galaxy/space to happen.
But they have no immediate control. God is not omnipotent.
I don't think we all need to know God, believe in God, or have faith though.
Just my humble opinion.
I'd also love to know what heaven and hell are. :?
Go ask God who God is or do you not believe in God?
I have no idea what you mean by this word 'God' that you insist on repeatedly shoving down everyone's throats.
You say I should ask God who God is? I take it from this that you regard 'God' as a person? Maybe you can elaborate...or not?
the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
or
deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
this is what most people when when they refer to god
Go ask God who God is or do you not believe in God?
I have no idea what you mean by this word 'God' that you insist on repeatedly shoving down everyone's throats.
You say I should ask God who God is? I take it from this that you regard 'God' as a person? Maybe you can elaborate...or not?
I will repeat what I have already said that you failed to address ...
Go ask God who God is or do you not believe in God?
If this the case why must you know what others believe so badly ...
seems very strange to me
perhaps your words and actions show your true intentions.
I think you can find your definition of God easier than
I could ever make you understand God.
God is not a definition to me, something you perhaps can not grasp,
well until you experience God, if you do.
Until then, God will remain a word ... just a word for you.
Are we all not enlightened when we learn something new?
Did anyone here think anyone was speaking for someone else or just speaking of their own beliefs and experiences?
We are speaking of our own experiences with God or the lack of which has formed our core belief.
...
Enlightened from all learning? You mean, like when I learned how to wire a switched outlet in my garage and didn't get electrocuted or start a structure fire? I should feel enlightened? That is something I learned. But, no... I was not elightened.
Enlightenment is not some mundane knowledge that comes with everyday life. It comes from knowledge of the great unknowns of life. And YES... knowing God... yeah, I believe that classifies under the category of 'enlightenment'.
And again... you hit the nail right on the head... "We are speaking of our own experiences with God or the lack of which has formed our core belief".
That has been the central point of this discussion... belief versus knowledge.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The term 'god' is so vague and used in many different ways, with many different gods. If one wants to debate 'god', it's existence, it's force, whether it's omniscient or not, an energy or something else, a theist (the 'believer') should be able to explain/define their 'god' is. Just saying 'god is' or 'god exists' or 'god knows' or ' you need to experience god' is just not good enough. I can talk about 'custard fondants' all I want but if I don't define what this is, it's like pissing in the wind. Also, I say the onus is on the theist because the atheist cannot define something that doesn't exist. And agreeing on some kind of definition of god is not just between theists and atheists but also between theists as one theist doesn't automatically see god the same way as the other.
Also, what is 'knowing' god? I know god, I know many gods but I guess I don't 'know' them the same way as some theists. Eg. a man 'knowing' a woman in biblical terms is not the same thing as a man 'knowing' a woman in our days - I know Byrnzie but I don't 'know' him, if you get my drift.
One doesn't need to want to 'know' god in order for someone to explain where they're coming from. If a blind person can 'grasp' the colour red (or whatever other colour), I'm sure an atheist/other theist can 'grasp' god if one is clear about what they are talking about. Unless a lack of relevant vocabulary is the reason one can't explain what they mean by a term they use.
The insecurity of some atheists is very, very apparent in this thread.... just read some of these posts.
Don't see where you see insecurity of 'some' atheists in this thread. I see some theists that are very clear in their beliefs and explanations and some that are very 'wishy washy'. I see some that 'believe' because, without a belief in a superior being, they cannot see their purpose in life and others that believe because it's a 'safer bet'. These I could say they are insecure. I see some atheists that would like to understand a bit more as well. Of course there are those that are on the fence... fair enough.
The term 'god' is so vague and used in many different ways, with many different gods. If one wants to debate 'god', it's existence, it's force, whether it's omniscient or not, an energy or something else, a theist (the 'believer') should be able to explain/define their 'god' is. Just saying 'god is' or 'god exists' or 'god knows' or ' you need to experience god' is just not good enough. I can talk about 'custard fondants' all I want but if I don't define what this is, it's like pissing in the wind. Also, I say the onus is on the theist because the atheist cannot define something that doesn't exist. And agreeing on some kind of definition of god is not just between theists and atheists but also between theists as one theist doesn't automatically see god the same way as the other.
Also, what is 'knowing' god? I know god, I know many gods but I guess I don't 'know' them the same way as some theists. Eg. a man 'knowing' a woman in biblical terms is not the same thing as a man 'knowing' a woman in our days - I know Byrnzie but I don't 'know' him, if you get my drift.
One doesn't need to want to 'know' god in order for someone to explain where they're coming from. If a blind person can 'grasp' the colour red (or whatever other colour), I'm sure an atheist/other theist can 'grasp' god if one is clear about what they are talking about. Unless a lack of relevant vocabulary is the reason one can't explain what they mean by a term they use.
This pretty much sums up the whole thread. Like someone else mentioned that those who believe in God feel pressured when asked in plain terms what God is, and they stumble for the right words. Why is this? Why can't believers provide a "truth" to why they believe God is real? Is it so mysterious that words can't articulate? Why can't believers just acknowledge that they don't have all the answers then?
This pretty much sums up the whole thread. Like someone else mentioned that those who believe in God feel pressured when asked in plain terms what God is, and they stumble for the right words. Why is this? Why can't believers provide a "truth" to why they believe God is real? Is it so mysterious that words can't articulate? Why can't believers just acknowledge that they don't have all the answers then?
...
I don't speak for anyone, but yes... along my way I have asked many people and pretty much hear the same thing, that I need to have faith.
Faith in what? That what they are telling me the truth? If what they are telling me is the truth, it would nullify all those other who do not believe the same as they believe. That is basically what it boils down to.
...
So, i have come to accept this. That the faith in them, works for them. If it makes them feel secure... who am I to tell them otherwise? It doesn't mean i believe them. But, lack of my belief in their faith, should not shake them of their belief.
All I know is that no one knows. Theists don't know of God and Atheists don't know if God truely does not exist. All we can rely on is our beliefs.
To me, the quest to find God is the journey it takes you. In searching for God, we are searching for truth... that sets us on a path of knowledge and enlightenment. In our search for God and truth, we learn more about ourselves, than we do of God. Maybe, that's what God wants us to do.
Who knows?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Are we all not enlightened when we learn something new?
Did anyone here think anyone was speaking for someone else or just speaking of their own beliefs and experiences?
We are speaking of our own experiences with God or the lack of which has formed our core belief.
...
Enlightened from all learning? You mean, like when I learned how to wire a switched outlet in my garage and didn't get electrocuted or start a structure fire? I should feel enlightened? That is something I learned. But, no... I was not elightened.
Enlightenment is not some mundane knowledge that comes with everyday life. It comes from knowledge of the great unknowns of life. And YES... knowing God... yeah, I believe that classifies under the category of 'enlightenment'.
And again... you hit the nail right on the head... "We are speaking of our own experiences with God or the lack of which has formed our core belief".
That has been the central point of this discussion... belief versus knowledge.
You will feel enlightened when you wire it right next time. :?
this not the spiritual definition enlightment... I spoke of learning knowledge.
Definition of ENLIGHTENED
1
: freed from ignorance and misinformation <an enlightened people> <an enlightened time>
2
: based on full comprehension of the problems involved
I have learned knowledge from my interaction with God, by knowing God
and enjoying God in my life.
I too have seen what appears to be insecurity. Some here seem to need to be reassured It also seems along with insecurity some have the need to dismiss others beliefs. A sure sign of insecurity
I don't see this of believers, it appears they are secure in what they feel and know. I am finding the believers to be respectful of those who do not share their belief of God.
I haven't heard a believer ask others to prove there is no God, nor dismiss the atheists beliefs when different than the believers. It is unimportant to the believer. We have our truth.
Perhaps this is why some non believers are appearing insecure.
...
Question: If you know God... then, wouldn't you have a better understanding of other people?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
now byrnzie, I know what you are saying, but you know that isn't true. that would mean you are claiming that 98% of the world is weaker than us. that's tough to swallow since you chastise pandora for thinking she is something special for knowing god, don't you think?
I think it's a crutch for SOME people, just like music in dark times can be. I enjoy music in good and bad, it can make a good mood even better, and make a bad mood not so bad, but I wouldn't say that means I'm weaker than those who don't use music to bring themselves up.
everyone has a crutch. but that doesn't make them weak.
some might say that man's need to explain everything with science is no different than man's need to explain everything through god.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Maybe 98% of humans are weak. Maybe 99%. I don't know. But substituting reality with an anthropomorphic deity doesn't constitute strength.
As for Pandora 'knowing God', I find that to be a stretch considering she's not even capable of explaining to anybody what 'God' is.
If people choose to take refuge behind deities or ideals rather than accepting the fundamental absurdity of the World then they are exhibiting weakness.
As for this notion of 'God' that everyone seems so quick to keep bandying around, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what the word means. All I've gotten from this thread so far is the odd reference to 'Him', and 'He', 'He answered me', 'my relationship with God', e.t.c, which, quite frankly, I find to be completely ridiculous.
Though if people want to talk about some kind of cosmic energy, life-force, or latent aspect of human consciousness/awareness, then I'm all ears. But they can keep their bearded man in the sky to themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NETTXT9038
'You just don't understand my religion' is not good enough
Too often, faith is mysterious only selectively. When questions get tough, a god can disappear in a puff of ineffability
Julian Baggini
Guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011
Terry Eagleton's quip that reading Richard Dawkins on theology is like listening to someone "holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The British Book of Birds" is a funny and memorable contribution to a debate that is rarely amusing and frequently forgettable. Whether you agree with the charge or not, the complaint is of a kind we have become very familiar with: disputants in the religion debate are talking past each other because they do not have a sufficiently rich understanding of the positions they stand against.
I'm very much in sympathy with this view, and this series is largely an attempt to try to find more constructive points of engagement that can only emerge if we ditch lazy and tired preconceptions about those with whom we disagree. At the same time, however, I'm all too aware that "you just don't understand" is a card that is often played far too swiftly and without justification.
Most obviously, it cannot be the case that the views of someone who is most immersed in or knows most about a religion always trump those of a relatively uninformed outsider. People who live and breathe a faith know more about it than those who do not – but this quantitative advantage does not guarantee better qualitative judgements. If it did, by the same logic, we should take the word of the earnest astrologer of 40 years' standing over the clear evidence that it's all baloney. Indeed, being deeply immersed may be a positive disadvantage, in that it might make it impossible to take a clear-sighted, impartial view. So Dawkins and his ilk are correct when they say that they are not obliged to become experts in theology in order to make criticisms of religion.
Of course, there is a level of ignorance that makes reasonable criticism impossible. But where that is the case, it should always be possible to point out what elementary mistake the critic has made. It is never reasonable to fob someone off on the basis that they do not understand: it is always necessary to explain what they do not understand. But also – and here's the rub – it's also essential to make it understandable. Rule one of intellectual engagement is that all parties must sincerely attempt both to understand others and to make themselves understood.
It has become evident to me, however, that many people, especially the religious, suffer from a kind of conceptual claustrophobia. Their beliefs are of their essence somewhat vague and they are terrified of being pinned down. Although critics often leap on this and claim that this betrays woolly thinking, evasion or obscurantism, I think that there are times when such a refusal to commit is justified.
I remember, for example, an impassioned talk I once heard by the recently sainted Giles Fraser. Recounting the story in Exodus of Moses going up the mountain to meet God to get the Ten Commandments, Fraser said: "The higher he goes up the mountain, the more the mist comes down. The closer he gets to God, the less and less he is able to see." Meanwhile, at Sinai's foot, the idolatrous masses are "running around building a golden calf, making God into a thing".
It is always possible to think there is a fog when really it's just that your glasses have steamed up. But I'm not only prepared to allow that an intelligent religious faith might have a big fat mystery at its heart, I think it must have. Only the most juvenile gods are like super-humans we can truly understand. If there is a God, it must surely passeth all understanding.
But embracing this mystery comes at a price. If, like the archbishop of Canterbury, your faith is a kind of "silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark", then think very carefully before you open your mouth. Too often I find that faith is mysterious only selectively. Believers constantly attribute all sorts of qualities to their gods and have a list of doctrines as long as your arm. It is only when the questions get tough that, suddenly, their God disappears in a puff of mystery. Ineffability becomes a kind of invisibility cloak, only worn when there is a need to get out of a bit of philosophical bother.
Also, maintaining that some aspects of religion are ineffable doesn't mean that all are. Indeed, it entails that some are very clear indeed. Ask Fraser, for example, if he thinks God is a thing and he should answer clearly and unequivocally, no. Likewise, people should be able to give clear answers to straight questions such as "was Christ's resurrection physical, leaving an empty tomb?", even if that answer is "I don't know". Maintaining, for instance, that it is naive to read the gospels as literal history is – or should be – to maintain that the events it describes did not, or need not, have literally happened.
I need to make these issues clear now because over the coming weeks, in the name of trying to uncross some wires and get some real discussion going, I'm going to be trying to get greater clarity about just what different camps in the religion debate are really maintaining. I anticipate all sorts of objections of the kind I've mentioned: that I'm simplifying; that I'm trying to eff the ineffable; that I am being too literal minded. I want to make it clear right now that these kinds of responses won't work as get-out-of-jail-free cards. They need justification.
We also have to be willing to accommodate the fact that belief comes in infinite shades and varieties. No two people believe exactly the same thing, and that presents another opportunity for evasion: plausible denial that you believe what is being attributed to you. We have to accept that, to make progress, we sometimes have to say, "that's not quite what I think, but it may be close enough. Go on." If anything less than perfect understanding counts as misunderstanding, then everything is misunderstood.
Everyone says that they are in favour of greater mutual comprehension, but the failure to achieve it is not just a result of people not making the effort to understand. Often it's just that people refuse to make themselves understood.
Simply saying 'I know 'God' and then failing, or deliberately refusing, to qualify that statement, implies one of two things: either that you are simply delusional, or that you are incapable of rational thought.
I don't understand this kind of frame of mind (alternative sucks/alternative depressing) - believing by default. Why does the alternative suck for you? I believe in myself, I believe in humanity as a whole - that doesn't suck. Sure, there's good and bad but isn't that the same with a 'god'?
this cant be all there is
why the hell not is what i ask? why does there have to be more? why do we expect more? why is mankind so arrogant to assume s/hes so special that he deserves more??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you respect scientology??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Did anyone here think anyone was speaking for someone else or just speaking of their own beliefs and experiences?
We are speaking of our own experiences with God or the lack of which has formed our core belief.
I can see from all your words you are closed to that thought of finding God
because you will not believe there is a possibility ...
you already have concluded just what you said here
You say....God comes from delusion and not of rational thought...
very much like I thought 20 years ago.
A person has new thought when they know God, when they know without a doubt
there is God and afterlife.
I said I know God in response to the ridiculous statement no one can know God,
pages back. And will always respond as such, because the statement is untrue
and based in some people's opinions not one I share.
This just as people believe God is based in my opinion ... not in truth.
It is a simple case of different core beliefs and should be left as such
To each their own.
I am not trying to explain nor make anyone believe.
But what are others doing?
Attempting to dismiss others beliefs? Why? Why? Why?
You may find God one day as I have and maybe not,
why does it matter to atheists that others believe?
To stop speaking of God is something I will never do,
it would be like turning my back on my very best friend,
to put that in a way you may or may not understand.
Bearded man :? ... funny but also very belittling to those who follow religions.
Very superior sounding and disrespectful.
It is not possible to explain God to someone who does not want to know God,
they already have their core belief. It is only God who can change their core belief.
I think people get what I am saying, I hope cause I've said it in response to each post.
Go find God for yourself, unless of course you are just driven by actions you are already displaying.
Actions, words that are less than positive, loving or respecting of others beliefs.
Looks like I shouldn't hold my breath.
No, that's not what I said.
you said ...because someone knows God and can not or will not explain it to you
that that means the person is irrational and delusional ...
far from the truth.
And again rude, disrespectful and belittling to others beliefs,
to those who know God
Also very superior of you .. I guess we owe you an explanation. :?
If we don't give it we are wrong.
Go ask God who God is or do you not believe in God?
If this the case why must you know what others believe so badly ... seems very strange to me
perhaps your words and actions show your intentions.
I have no clue. I don't know if there is one (or eleven, or any).
But, I like to think God is synonymous with Nature...& maybe Science.
...the things that allowed us/the Earth/the galaxy/space to happen.
But they have no immediate control. God is not omnipotent.
I don't think we all need to know God, believe in God, or have faith though.
Just my humble opinion.
I'd also love to know what heaven and hell are. :?
I have no idea what you mean by this word 'God' that you insist on repeatedly shoving down everyone's throats.
You say I should ask God who God is? I take it from this that you regard 'God' as a person? Maybe you can elaborate...or not?
the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
or
deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
this is what most people when when they refer to god
i don't think a god like this is possible though
I'll tell you what it is, how about this... God is an intangible object that exists in some people's minds.The key word being "some".
I will repeat what I have already said that you failed to address ...
Go ask God who God is or do you not believe in God?
If this the case why must you know what others believe so badly ...
seems very strange to me
perhaps your words and actions show your true intentions.
I think you can find your definition of God easier than
I could ever make you understand God.
God is not a definition to me, something you perhaps can not grasp,
well until you experience God, if you do.
Until then, God will remain a word ... just a word for you.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Enlightened from all learning? You mean, like when I learned how to wire a switched outlet in my garage and didn't get electrocuted or start a structure fire? I should feel enlightened? That is something I learned. But, no... I was not elightened.
Enlightenment is not some mundane knowledge that comes with everyday life. It comes from knowledge of the great unknowns of life. And YES... knowing God... yeah, I believe that classifies under the category of 'enlightenment'.
And again... you hit the nail right on the head... "We are speaking of our own experiences with God or the lack of which has formed our core belief".
That has been the central point of this discussion... belief versus knowledge.
Hail, Hail!!!
Also, what is 'knowing' god? I know god, I know many gods but I guess I don't 'know' them the same way as some theists. Eg. a man 'knowing' a woman in biblical terms is not the same thing as a man 'knowing' a woman in our days - I know Byrnzie but I don't 'know' him, if you get my drift.
One doesn't need to want to 'know' god in order for someone to explain where they're coming from. If a blind person can 'grasp' the colour red (or whatever other colour), I'm sure an atheist/other theist can 'grasp' god if one is clear about what they are talking about. Unless a lack of relevant vocabulary is the reason one can't explain what they mean by a term they use.
Read other posts and you come away with believers as being irrational and delusional.
What is your point?
Hail, Hail!!!
What do you see as insecurity?
This pretty much sums up the whole thread. Like someone else mentioned that those who believe in God feel pressured when asked in plain terms what God is, and they stumble for the right words. Why is this? Why can't believers provide a "truth" to why they believe God is real? Is it so mysterious that words can't articulate? Why can't believers just acknowledge that they don't have all the answers then?
I don't speak for anyone, but yes... along my way I have asked many people and pretty much hear the same thing, that I need to have faith.
Faith in what? That what they are telling me the truth? If what they are telling me is the truth, it would nullify all those other who do not believe the same as they believe. That is basically what it boils down to.
...
So, i have come to accept this. That the faith in them, works for them. If it makes them feel secure... who am I to tell them otherwise? It doesn't mean i believe them. But, lack of my belief in their faith, should not shake them of their belief.
All I know is that no one knows. Theists don't know of God and Atheists don't know if God truely does not exist. All we can rely on is our beliefs.
To me, the quest to find God is the journey it takes you. In searching for God, we are searching for truth... that sets us on a path of knowledge and enlightenment. In our search for God and truth, we learn more about ourselves, than we do of God. Maybe, that's what God wants us to do.
Who knows?
Hail, Hail!!!
I too have seen what appears to be insecurity.
Some here seem to need to be reassured
It also seems along with insecurity some have the need to dismiss others beliefs.
A sure sign of insecurity
I don't see this of believers, it appears they are secure in what they feel and know.
I am finding the believers to be respectful of those
who do not share their belief of God.
I haven't heard a believer ask others to prove there is no God,
nor dismiss the atheists beliefs when different than the believers.
It is unimportant to the believer. We have our truth.
Perhaps this is why some non believers are appearing insecure.
You will feel enlightened when you wire it right next time. :?
this not the spiritual definition enlightment... I spoke of learning knowledge.
Definition of ENLIGHTENED
1
: freed from ignorance and misinformation <an enlightened people> <an enlightened time>
2
: based on full comprehension of the problems involved
I have learned knowledge from my interaction with God, by knowing God
and enjoying God in my life.
Question: If you know God... then, wouldn't you have a better understanding of other people?
Hail, Hail!!!