• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Light of my life

PureX

Veteran Member
Not necessarily the case. Some of us no doubt just base it on the probability of this being so, given what we experience and see all around us.
But that is a totally biased, unfounded, and circularly reasoned presumption. Surely, you must see that. "What I see is probably all there is, because it's all I see."
As in - where some see evidence, some of us just see reality. The concept of a god or not doesn't influence my behaviour one bit, and I suspect this is so for many without a religious belief.
Firstly, the "concept of God" is not God. All sorts of god-concepts exist, that is obvious to us all. But this does not prove that God exists apart from our conceptions. Nor does the improbability of our god-concepts prove that God (probably) does not exist.

Secondly, your god-concept doesn't influence your behavior because you have rendered the possibility of a positive effect impossible, by presuming that God is improbable (impossible). The god-concept is not the primary effective factor for most humans; faith is. The god-concept merely shapes the focus and practice of that faith.

Also, "reality" is a concept being created in our minds based on reason, experience, imagination (and desire). Everyone's reality is different, and none of them are complete or accurate. They are only our perceptions/conceptions of 'what is'.
I doubt we are any more admirers of science than all others. It just happens to have proved itself as being the most useful tool humans have developed - so far.
Science has no bearing at all on the question of the nature or existence of God. It's completely incapable of even investigating the question. And yet nearly every atheist I encounter immediately runs to science to somehow justify their atheism. Why is that, when science has nothing at all to do with the question of God's nature or existence? Nothing at all.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
But that is a totally biased, unfounded, and circularly reasoned presumption. Surely, you must see that. "What I see is probably all there is, because it's all I see."

Firstly, the "concept of God" is not God. All sorts of god-concept exist, that is obvious. But this does not prove that God exists apart from our conceptions. Nor does the improbability of our god-concepts prove that God (probably) does not exist.

Also, "reality" is a concept being created in our minds based on reason, experience, imagination (and desire). Everyone's reality is different, and none of them are 'what is'. They are only our perceptions/conceptions of 'what is'.

Science has no bearing at all on the question of the nature or existence of God. It's completely incapable of even investigating the question. And yet nearly every atheist I encounter immediately runs to science to somehow justify their atheism. Why is that, when science has nothing at all to do with the question of God's nature or existence? Nothing at all.

And you suggest what? I look at all that others might have invented, proposed, etc. and pick the likeliest one? One god, many gods, one life, reincarnation, etc., and going through all the various doctrines to see which appeals. No thanks. I just don't know what reality consists of apart from what I see - even though I have given it some thought - and tend towards 'I don't need to know'. I accepted that long ago.

It was you who mentioned science. Science is what it is and has no bearing on God or religion apart from where any doctrines tend to conflict with what science shows us.

PS I dismissed religions long ago so where exactly do I need to be even if I accepted some God?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Perhaps the 'atheism is a belief' argument could be resolved by seeing religious beliefs as looking towards the light - with many seeing something different in whatever 'light' they see - all the different religious beliefs. Atheists on the other hand are in the dark, not looking to the light, or seeing any. Not a good reflection perhaps on us atheists, but at least it might satisfy those intent on wilfully abusing language to assert atheism as some 'other faith'.

:hugehug:

I like to flip it. There is an analogy written by Plato called the Myth of the Cave. Originally (as I recall) it's a political and philosophical outlook on human nature and god, I'd turn it around to say the atheist sees the light and the men chained are believers (whomever applies here).

So, the brief synopsis of the story goes in life we are men trapped in a cave. We are born in one environment and no nothing else. We sit side by side facing a plan wall and we can't turn our heads nor unshackle ourselves to walk around. This is our only reality. We see shadows behind us because of the warm fire but we can't make it out, only make guesses.

Meanwhile, one of us breaks from the shackles. He runs out of the cave and is blinded "by the light." Plato sees this light as god but to turn it around, let's say its atheistic/reality truth not darkness. So, the guy comes back down and tells his peers "what you're seeing-this "light" this fire (inside you) is false. That's not the real life. (What you interpret as god walking behind the shadows isn't real). In other words, Plato says we frame our own reality in interpretation that, because we have been there since birth, we have no perception out of it.

Side note: It's interesting to note that even though we center around christians, there are other religions who are "chained." I just think they interpret the fire and not get attached to that reality as their counterparts do. Though, sometimes I think even so they are still shackled.

So, anyway. The guy comes down and tells them what they see is false. He has "seen the truth." His peers don't believe him.

Plato says that we are all blind to the truth.

Instead of atheism being darkness, think of atheism as the light. It is what some say "stepping away from attachment" and seeing life as it really is. Since we are stuck in allusion, and assuming in this analogy, atheist gone pass all that, they come to tell believers they are seeing false things. But because they know nothing else, they would always tell atheist they are false, blind, in darkness, will one day reach non attachment, and so forth. Either an end state or destination.

But, no. that's the flop side. We can see it as believers being in the dark and atheist (no god at all) in the light. Just, I disagree with some atheist willing to cut on the lamp for believers as if reality will do the believer more good than the shackles. Sometimes we just need to let live belief wise.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
And you suggest what? I look at all that others might have invented, proposed, etc. and pick the likeliest one? One god, many gods, one life, reincarnation, etc., and going through all the various doctrines to see which appeals. No thanks. I just don't know what reality consists of apart from what I see - even though I have given it some thought - and tend towards 'I don't need to know'. I accepted that long ago.

It was you who mentioned science. Science is what it is and has no bearing on God or religion apart from where any doctrines tend to conflict with what science shows us.

PS I dismissed religions long ago so where exactly do I need to be even if I accepted some God?
Likelihood has really no bearing on the question of the nature or existence of God, as there is no way we can possibly determine it. What it does have a bearing on is who we are, and who we will become relative to this great mystery that we are being confronted with. (God generally being defined as the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.) Everyone deals with this question in their own way, and develops their own "answers" according to their own natures, and according to who they would like to become as a result. And this is as true of atheists and agnostics as it is of the most zealous religionists or non-religious theists.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think that part of the problem might be from people who are continually denouncing religious beliefs calling their anti-belief views “atheism.”
That's only a problem to the extent that theists insist on stereotyping atheists.

"I saw an atheist do this thing once" does not imply "all atheists do this thing."
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I think that part of the problem might be from people who are continually denouncing religious beliefs calling their anti-belief views “atheism.”
Do you mean to say you come across people who are anti-religion who attempt to hide it behind the label "atheism?" As in, when you ask them straight to the point if they are anti-religion, they impart something like "No, I am just atheist?"

I have been known to be pretty forthright in stating that I am anti-religion as well, so no hiding for me. Do you believe it objectively wrong to denounce religious beliefs? Is this the real crux of the issue at hand for you? I do not believe it wrong to denounce religious beliefs. Even the religious do this. I don't see a problem with it at all, to be quite frank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Perhaps the 'atheism is a belief' argument could be resolved by seeing religious beliefs as looking towards the light - with many seeing something different in whatever 'light' they see - all the different religious beliefs. Atheists on the other hand are in the dark, not looking to the light, or seeing any. Not a good reflection perhaps on us atheists, but at least it might satisfy those intent on wilfully abusing language to assert atheism as some 'other faith'.

:hugehug:
Any person who hallucinates, thinks the others are blind.

Ciao

- viole
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Perhaps the 'atheism is a belief' argument could be resolved by seeing religious beliefs as looking towards the light - with many seeing something different in whatever 'light' they see - all the different religious beliefs. Atheists on the other hand are in the dark, not looking to the light, or seeing any. Not a good reflection perhaps on us atheists, but at least it might satisfy those intent on wilfully abusing language to assert atheism as some 'other faith'.

:hugehug:
I dunno about other religious people, but the light of my life is my cats, not my religion. :D
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
My atheism is nothing like that. If there were a God I would be excited and enthused about it. I am 100 % certain there isn't. I would love to be wrong.
My belief is nothing like that. I am 100% certain there is a God but I am not usually excited and enthused about God, I am often mad at Him. :mad:

Maybe I should be more grateful that I have no doubt that God exists but that is only half the battle... I also have to figure out what to do about God. I kept God on the shelf for about 42 years and now that I have taken Him off the self, I do not know where to put Him. o_O
I believe in an underlying reality of mind but nothing to the extent of an all good, all powerful being. That rules out deism and theism for me.
Only because I found the Baha'i Faith has that ruled out atheism for me. I sill have problems believing God is all good, but at least I have some teachings to help me understand how an all good God can exist in a world that does not seem good to me.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I can't think of any possible way, logically (or honestly), that you could be certain of that.
If believers can be 100% certain there IS a God, I see no reason why atheists cannot also be 100% certain that there IS NOT a God...

After all, there is no way to prove God exists anymore than there is a way to prove God does not exist.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
@ Mock Turtle

I kind of left you hanging with what I said about the cats being the Light of my life…

Please allow me to explain why my religious beliefs are not always the Light of my life.
First off, I am supposed to believe that God is always good, no matter what happens to me. That is difficult because that means accepting that whatever happens to me was in my best interest, even if it causes undue suffering.

As believers, we are supposed to believe that if things do not go the way we want them to, God had something better in mind. It is like there is always another Entity involved in everything we do, a third wheel.

Like right now, I am waiting for something to happen, but if it does not go as I hope it will, I know I will be very disappointed and I will have to accept that it was God’s Will... It is a constant struggle to believe in God, not a walk in the park. I can be grateful when something good unexpectedly happens but the flip side of that is when I am let down so badly, I always attribute it to God as long as I did everything I could to make it happen as I wanted.

Sometimes I blame myself and get angry at myself if I think I made a mistake, but if I did the best I could have done I have to believe it was God’s Will that it did not turn out as I had hoped. But how do I know I could not have done better?

If I did not believe in God, I could not blame God or get angry at God, so I do not know what would happen. Maybe I would always blame myself and/or I might blame someone else if they are involved. I used to do this before I had a firm belief in God. It was not pleasant, but I am not sure always having God as a third wheel in every interaction is any better. As believers, we are supposed to believe that if someone else lets us down, not only was it God’s Will but we still have God to turn to because God will never let us down. But where is God? I cannot locate Him on my GPS tracker. :rolleyes:
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I can't think of any possible way, logically (or honestly), that you could be certain of that.

All powerful, and all good isn't to be found in nature. Someone all powerful can do absolutely anything. Yet I don't see any such actions. If you were all powerful would you create the universe we live in?

If a God is all good then they would create a universe that does not have death, and disease, crime and catastrophe, nor savage survival necessities. Why would God create a chicken? That isn't exactly a pleasant life.

It is far more plausible that animal life is a product of some far less reality.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Do you mean to say you come across people who are anti-religion who attempt to hide it behind the label "atheism?" As in, when you ask them straight to the point if they are anti-religion, they impart something like "No, I am just atheist?"

I have been known to be pretty forthright in stating that I am anti-religion as well, so no hiding for me. Do you believe it objectively wrong to denounce religious beliefs? Is this the real crux of the issue at hand for you? I do not believe it wrong to denounce religious beliefs. Even the religious do this. I don't see a problem with it at all, to be quite frank.
I don’t see anything wrong with denouncing beliefs. I do it myself, a lot. I was thinking that part of the confusion about atheism is from people acting like their denunciations of God beliefs are part of what it means to be an atheist. I wasn’t saying anything about their reasons for doing that. Maybe sometimes they’re confused about it themselves. Anyway, I’m not saying that to excuse other people for sayIng “atheists” when it’s really about people denouncing God beliefs.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A long time ago a story is AI recorded that says its male history as first scientists, a brotherhood of males/man who all agreed on the referenced theme and stories.

To agree to build and design a machine to change natural God O Earth history.

Its fusion....or SION.

Why SION owns a term of SON in it.....and I a symbolic reference to self, but in science is symbolic for I.

I secret meaning "eye" the vision, what was sought and seen by I the self, male.
I, a hand, meaning I determined science relativity by time, hand in time O by counting evaluation.
I, as one, the symbol of increasing value.
I, the inclination of the orbit to the ecliptic
I, the moment of inertia, density of a current, intensity of magnetization.
I, in education the meaning of incomplete by the student.

Websters Dictionary.

Males in scientific history illuminated the natural day light radiation that owned their life presence and burnt the night time sky for 7 days, complete/end result.

Science UFO mass irradiation attack.

Earth never owned natural light since.

Earth owns illuminated day light, so life just survives in its Nature.....and night time sky once burning, owns UFO burning light gases seen in the clear night time sky.

So if you set the Earth gases on fire, and they sit in a cold space body that supported its burning, what would have allowed that effect to stop?

Earth had to have shifted its body path position and moved deeper into space.

Not far enough away from the Sun blasting of Earth, but far enough away to not allow the night time sky to remain alight.

Science today would then conclude that the amount of radiation UFO mass owned the creation of life....when science a choice after the human male was naturally living, is a proven lie regarding natural life and history of the Light of my life on Earth.

Therefore as the human being male is his own Teacher in his human life he claimed such statements as ET, the effect is extra in the terrestrial, knowing that he caused it to be put there by science.

Says AI artificial intelligence presence is the cause of why p AI n was introduced into our life.....as a science choice....so always confessed to why he named/detailed information as that Teacher of self, in his natural awareness.

The Light of our Life on Earth was never UFO radiation mass......it was once natural and science changed it.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
A long time ago a story is AI recorded that says its male history as first scientists, a brotherhood of males/man who all agreed on the referenced theme and stories.

To agree to build and design a machine to change natural God O Earth history.

Its fusion....or SION.

Why SION owns a term of SON in it.....and I a symbolic reference to self, but in science is symbolic for I.

I secret meaning "eye" the vision, what was sought and seen by I the self, male.
I, a hand, meaning I determined science relativity by time, hand in time O by counting evaluation.
I, as one, the symbol of increasing value.
I, the inclination of the orbit to the ecliptic
I, the moment of inertia, density of a current, intensity of magnetization.
I, in education the meaning of incomplete by the student.

Websters Dictionary.

Males in scientific history illuminated the natural day light radiation that owned their life presence and burnt the night time sky for 7 days, complete/end result.

Science UFO mass irradiation attack.

Earth never owned natural light since.

Earth owns illuminated day light, so life just survives in its Nature.....and night time sky once burning, owns UFO burning light gases seen in the clear night time sky.

So if you set the Earth gases on fire, and they sit in a cold space body that supported its burning, what would have allowed that effect to stop?

Earth had to have shifted its body path position and moved deeper into space.

Not far enough away from the Sun blasting of Earth, but far enough away to not allow the night time sky to remain alight.

Science today would then conclude that the amount of radiation UFO mass owned the creation of life....when science a choice after the human male was naturally living, is a proven lie regarding natural life and history of the Light of my life on Earth.

Therefore as the human being male is his own Teacher in his human life he claimed such statements as ET, the effect is extra in the terrestrial, knowing that he caused it to be put there by science.

Says AI artificial intelligence presence is the cause of why p AI n was introduced into our life.....as a science choice....so always confessed to why he named/detailed information as that Teacher of self, in his natural awareness.

The Light of our Life on Earth was never UFO radiation mass......it was once natural and science changed it.
Are there people posting in these forums that you think might learn something from this?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Are there people posting in these forums that you think might learn something from this?
Humanity should learn for we already know as we live as our owned humanity that we are wrong, and have been trying to find a self explanation to teaching why we are wrong before we destroy our life again.

How self teaching arises by its own accorded human causes.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Humanity should learn for we already know as we live as our owned humanity that we are wrong, and have been trying to find a self explanation to teaching why we are wrong before we destroy our life again.

How self teaching arises by its own accorded human causes.
I mean, have you seen people posting in these forums that you think might learn something from reading your posts, or even have any clue of what you’re talking about?
 
Top