Light of my life

[Ayjaydee]

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-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'.
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.

Because you say something doesnt make it true

 

[rational experiences]

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?

Religious debates own the condition, self review, human plus scientific stories about creation and changes to creation.

Males decide I will own a forum so that I can bring together thinking spiritual lives to argue their concepts and detail what we believe is real and true or what we believe is falsified human information, knowing that humans do not tell the truth.

Knowing that humans own the teaching of information.....so in sharing you then decide, what information I detail that I want to inform self about.

As you talk and use concepts of creation and males in science causes, the stories of life/self sacrificed, then of course you should also reason, how those concepts were first applied so you can then see what sort of ancient male lying was involved.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

I was trying to be kind to the believers and get them off our backs as to atheism being an equivalent belief system. Of course I believe they are deluded as much as any other non-believer might think and agree that any light is rather more absent in their lives, or blinding them, but one must be compassionate, understanding, and tolerant.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

As I've often said, what I do in life would not change whether I believed or didn't in some divine nature. I just don't need to set a task in life to come to some conclusion and can live with all the doubts I have.

 

[Mock Turtle]

@ 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.

I find it much easier to blame the human race for many of our woes, but given that we are all a bit stupid at times, or most of the time for many, that soon passes and I put it down to experience. Some have better ones than others but not necessarily all the time. I could never blame any divine creature for what humans do and perhaps is why I'm less inclined to believe in one. We humans are quite capable of messing things up on our own, and looking around, seem almost pleased that we do. So who needs divinity when humans can do it for themselves. But then we are dragging a lot of baggage along with us - as animals, and for most, in being religious.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find it much easier to blame the human race for many of our woes, but given that we are all a bit stupid at times, or most of the time for many, that soon passes and I put it down to experience. Some have better ones than others but not necessarily all the time. I could never blame any divine creature for what humans do

Collectively, I also blame the human race for many of our woes, but when it is something individual and personal, I try not to blame other people but rather myself, or sometimes I blame God, but that soon passes and I put it down to experience....

I 'should' never blame God for what humans do.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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'.

Hm, well I see it a little bit differently I guess. I think I'd put an atheist who focuses on education, as seeing more light than the theist who is fixated with faith. As a theist, perhaps it's an odd thing to say. But to me it makes sense, as I don't see religion as generally giving some shortcut out of understanding this reality. As you can imagine then, I have a great respect for great atheist questioners. However, they stop short of the door to religion, probably because many of them think it opposes science. I say science is a great light, and spirituality is a greater light, though let man hang his coat where will, with either light as they are both good. Perhaps religion is not meant for everyone in a society, but only a select few meant to deal with it - this frees others to explore all the other paths, all other kinds of atheism and theism as they will

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hm, well I see it a little bit differently I guess. I think I'd put an atheist who focuses on education, as seeing more light than the theist who is fixated with faith. As a theist, perhaps it's an odd thing to say. But to me it makes sense, as I don't see religion as generally giving some shortcut out of understanding this reality. As you can imagine then, I have a great respect for great atheist questioners. However, they stop short of the door to religion, probably because many of them think it opposes science. I say science is a great light, and spirituality is a greater light, though let man hang his coat where will, with either light as they are both good. Perhaps religion is not meant for everyone in a society, but only a select few meant to deal with it - this frees others to explore all the other paths, all other kinds of atheism and theism as they will

Well it was more of a metaphor, such as to definitively separate faith from non-faith, light from darkness, particularly as many of the religious are prone to suggesting that we (non-believers) are obviously in error since we haven't seen the light (yet). They can't have it both ways, even though one thread seems to suggest some just will cling on to the notion that our non-belief is just as much a faith as theirs. Science is only at odds with religion when doctrines clash with what science seems to show us, such that I will not use science against religions unless such happens.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Collectively, I also blame the human race for many of our woes, but when it is something individual and personal, I try not to blame other people but rather myself, or sometimes I blame God, but that soon passes and I put it down to experience....

I 'should' never blame God for what humans do.

You probably know all this, but I thought of you when I saw it:

Cats Do Bond Securely to Their Humans - Maybe Even More So Than Dogs

And when I came across this:

 

[PureX]

All powerful, and all good isn't to be found in nature.

So, apparently nature isn't God, or God isn't all powerful or al good.

Someone all powerful can do absolutely anything. Yet I don't see any such actions.

What makes you think you would be able to see such actions if they occurred? For that matter, what makes you think that we humans could know what the greatest good is?

If you were all powerful would you create the universe we live in?

We humans don't even know the universe we're living in. How could I possibly stand in judgment of something that I don't even know? How can you?

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.

Is your idea of what is "good" (pleasant for you) really applicable to God and the whole of the universe? Do you honestly expect that it should be?

 

[PureX]

Because you say something doesnt make it true

That's why I explain why I'm saying it. Try it.

 

[PureX]

As I've often said, what I do in life would not change whether I believed or didn't in some divine nature. I just don't need to set a task in life to come to some conclusion and can live with all the doubts I have.

Humans are interesting in that we have the ability to ask about our own meaning and purpose, but we don't have the ability to find the answer outside ourselves. We have to do so from within. Which is why we humans invent our god-concepts and our religions: to help us sort out that great mystery, from within, and to find meaning and purpose for ourselves, and then to live accordingly. Avoiding the question because one can't find an external answer, or because one can't prove the answer beyond doubt, doesn't make the question go away. The mystery is still defining that person, even by their avoidance of it.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Humans are interesting in that we have the ability to ask about our own meaning and purpose, but we don't have the ability to find the answer outside ourselves. We have to do so from within. Which is why we humans invent our god-concepts and our religions: to help us sort out that great mystery, from within, and to find meaning and purpose for ourselves, and then to live accordingly. Avoiding the question because one can't find an external answer, or because one can't prove the answer beyond doubt, doesn't make the question go away. The mystery is still defining that person, even by their avoidance of it.

Ignoring due to lack of interest is not avoidance

 

[PureX]

Ignoring due to lack of interest is not avoidance

Not wanting to know why one exists is not "lack of interest", it's egotism and cowardice masquerading as "lack of interest". And it defines us even as we pretend to ignore the question.

 

[Ayjaydee]

++1

Not wanting to know why one exists is not "lack of interest", it's egotism and cowardice masquerading as "lack of interest". And it defines us even as we pretend to ignore the question.

Wanting to know the unknowable is mental masturbation

 

[Mock Turtle]

Humans are interesting in that we have the ability to ask about our own meaning and purpose, but we don't have the ability to find the answer outside ourselves. We have to do so from within. Which is why we humans invent our god-concepts and our religions: to help us sort out that great mystery, from within, and to find meaning and purpose for ourselves, and then to live accordingly. Avoiding the question because one can't find an external answer, or because one can't prove the answer beyond doubt, doesn't make the question go away. The mystery is still defining that person, even by their avoidance of it.

I think you presume too much - as in, everyone even asking such questions. It seems to me that the vast majority in fact just accept what they are handed, that is, their religious beliefs, and thus they will not venture further - perhaps by exploring other religious beliefs or that area where none can be seen. I think I'm with those who can accept that answers to any of the questions likely to asked will just not be satisfactory, even if I chose to believe one and it made sense to me. Meaning and purpose - I'm not so bothered about, since again one might just pick what one fancied to satisfy one.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not wanting to know why one exists is not "lack of interest", it's egotism and cowardice masquerading as "lack of interest". And it defines us even as we pretend to ignore the question.

I think the reverse might be the case - in assuming that one might find any 'right' answers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

All beliefs without proof are faith. Proving others false without proving yours does not make it valid.

That's a strange definition of faith.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was trying to be kind to the believers and get them off our backs as to atheism being an equivalent belief system. Of course I believe they are deluded as much as any other non-believer might think and agree that any light is rather more absent in their lives, or blinding them, but one must be compassionate, understanding, and tolerant.

Well, that's Plato's interpretation. I feel they see facts but they try (and atheust try) to put each other's criteria on their counterpart as if to convince each other they are seeing false.

But the thought is interesting nonetheless

 

[PureX]

Wanting to know the unknowable is mental masturbation

Embracing the unknowable is the doorway to wisdom. If you really believe it's just "mental masturbation" then I feel very sad for you.