Theism (believers in God) members ONLY

[Godobeyer]

Hello everyone

I watched a video describe the difference between believers and atheists concerning the imagination about creation . so imagination of theists are more than atheists in subject of creation.

1- Please watch first

2- My question , do you feel that you have imagination about creation more than atheists ?

 

[Windwalker]

I think a lack of imagination plagues both atheists and theists. It's why you have so darned much literalism these days. No one apprehends what a metaphor is anymore. It's all "factual", be that scientific views, or religious ones. They're arguing flip sides of the same coin. Don't assume "theists" have an imagination because they don't believe the same things an atheist does. They are both believing different things the same way, with a lack of imagination.

Now, as far as what he says here, "The Believer exceeds this limit, transcends the dazzle of scientific data", I call a foul. Most of these "believers" he cites do not transcend science. The reason being they have not yet ascended to it! They are pre-rational, not trans-rational. You have to first become scientific/rational in order to transcend it! You cannot bypass it. So the mistake is assuming that because they criticize science that they are "above" science. They are not in fact. They don't comprehend it yet. To transcend a rung on the ladder you have to first put your foot on it. When it's still over your head, you have not reached it yet. So saying you're not standing on the science rung only means you are either above it, or below it still.

So your question to me, do I feel I have more imagination about creation than atheists? It depends on the atheist of course, but I can say that I have far more imagination at play than most "true believer's" ideas about creation which are far more about pre-rational magic than anything transcending science. Transcending science means you have to first inhabit scientific thought and understanding! The denial of science is not transcending it. It's refusing to accept what truths it has to illuminate our minds with and allow it to inform and grow all aspects of our lives, including our religious beliefs. Ignorance of and the denial of the legitimacy of science is not a badge of honor.

This whole video is him trying to deny science in favor of pre-scientific beliefs. It's definitely NOT transcending it. In order to do that, you have to first accept the legitimacy of science, not make excuses why you shouldn't trust it. "Who needs it anyway! I have God telling me facts!". That's not transcending science at all. Not at all.

 

[Godobeyer]

I think a lack of imagination plagues both atheists and theists. It's why you have so darned much literalism these days. No one apprehends what a metaphor is anymore. It's all "factual", be that scientific views, or religious ones. They're arguing flip sides of the same coin. Don't assume "theists" have an imagination because they don't believe the same things an atheist does. They are both believing different things the same way, with a lack of imagination.

Now, as far as what he says here, "The Believer exceeds this limit, transcends the dazzle of scientific data", I call a foul. Most of these "believers" he cites do not transcend science. The reason being they have not yet ascended to it! They are pre-rational, not trans-rational. You have to first become scientific/rational in order to transcend it! You cannot bypass it. So the mistake is assuming that because they criticize science that they are "above" science. They are not in fact. They don't comprehend it yet. To transcend a rung on the ladder you have to first put your foot on it. When it's still over your head, you have not reached it yet. So saying you're not standing on the science rung only means you are either above it, or below it still.

So your question to me, do I feel I have more imagination about creation than atheists? It depends on the atheist of course, but I can say that I have far more imagination at play than most "true believer's" ideas about creation which are far more about pre-rational magic than anything transcending science. Transcending science means you have to first inhabit scientific thought and understanding! The denial of science is not transcending it. It's refusing to accept what truths it has to illuminate our minds with and allow it to inform and grow all aspects of our lives, including our religious beliefs. Ignorance of and the denial of the legitimacy of science is not a badge of honor.

This whole video is him trying to deny science in favor of pre-scientific beliefs. It's definitely NOT transcending it. In order to do that, you have to first accept the legitimacy of science, not make excuses why you shouldn't trust it. "Who needs it anyway! I have God telling me facts!". That's not transcending science at all. Not at all.

The notion of video is about difference of imagination (not intelligence) between theists and atheists in point of creation.

No the video did not try to deny science ,it's talk about how was theories updates.
so atheists stop just at scientific evidences,but the theists take the scientific evidences but they exceed that limits,and transcends the dazzle of scientific data.

as Dr Adnan said :

 

[Thief]

Hello everyone

I watched a video describe the difference between believers and atheists concerning the imagination about creation . so imagination of theists are more than atheists in subject of creation.

1- Please watch first

2- My question , do you feel that you have imagination about creation more than atheists ?

imagination is the problem solving part of the mind and heart

non-belief may be no more than stopping short of working out the problem of belief.

 

[Windwalker]

The notion of video is about difference of imagination (not intelligence) between theists and atheists in point of creation.

I didn't question that, nor object to it. Why make this point?

No the video did not try to deny science ,it's talk about how was theories updates.

No, it tried to misuse Koestler's points to try to say that you cannot "trust" science the way you can "trust" God. That is in fact denying science in favor of prerational religious beliefs. He misakes that as "imagination". You have to first accept the legitimacy of science in order to use your imagination to go beyond it!

so atheists stop just at scientific evidences,but the theists take the scientific evidences but they exceed that limits,and transcends the dazzle of scientific data.

Do they now? Do YOU accept the legitimacy of evolution? Do you accept that the universe is 14.5 billion years old? Do you accept a long, long list of Modern scientific truths and use them to help inform your religious faith? I sincerely doubt that.

 

[Godobeyer]

@Windwalker may I ask you a question , Are you theist or atheist ?

 

[Windwalker]

@Windwalker may I ask you a question , Are you theist or atheist ?

I believe God exists.

 

[Quintessence]

There are a lot of things to nitpick in that video, but as that isn't the subject the OP wishes to focus on, I'll table that except for saying it drives me nuts that this guy conflates the sciences with atheism.

While it should be pretty self-evident that theism inherently lends itself to creative storytelling (and one could spin that as being "imaginative" I guess), so too does non-theism. Non-theism is a story told just as much as theism is. The stories are different, but they are still stories - still mythological narratives being spun to make sense and meaning of things around us. I have no idea how you assess if someone's story is "more imaginative" than someone else's story. "Imaginative" is a qualitative, not a qualitative descriptor; a subjective metric, not an objective one. That, coupled with the fact that one's pontifications upon theology are hardly the be-all and end-all of a person's creative endeavors means I am very hard-pressed to say something like "yes, I am more imaginative than non-theists because I am a theist." That's rubbish. I was as creative and imaginative when I considered myself non-theist as I am considering myself theist. The designation looks irrelevant to me. Creative people will be creative people regardless of religion or theology.

 

[Windwalker]

There are a lot of things to nitpick in that video, but as that isn't the subject the OP wishes to focus on, I'll table that except for saying it drives me nuts that this guy conflates the sciences with atheism.

The video actually does equate atheism with a lack of imagination and theism as having one. So to analyzing what and why he's saying it does seem to directly pertain to the topic of the thread. As I pointed out, theism can have just as much a lack of imagination as atheism. It has nothing to do with how one believes or does not believe in God. That lack of imagination applied to either results in very "factual" ways of looking at the world, either trusting God to tell you "the truth", or science to tell you "the truth".

While it should be pretty self-evident that theism inherently lends itself to creative storytelling (and one could spin that as being "imaginative" I guess), so too does non-theism. Non-theism is a story told just as much as theism is. The stories are different, but they are still stories

This is of course incredibly insightful! I very much agree with this, and it is a point unimaginative literalists on either side of the theism question miss. Rather, can't see due to a lack of thinking outside their own boxes. That lack of thinking outside their own boxes is exactly, precisely what defines this lack of imagination!

still mythological narratives being spun to make sense and meaning of things around us.

Mythology is a type of metaphor. Science is also a metaphor. The unimaginative take metaphors and makes them "descriptors of reality", and thus create dead-metaphors. The unimaginative literalize metaphors, be they mythological or rational in nature. They live in a world of dead-metaphors, which cannot function any longer to inspire the imagination. A world of dead metaphors creates a world of the unimaginative, in either science or religion.

I have no idea how you assess if someone's story is "more imaginative" than someone else's story.

I would say the point is not about the story, but rather they way one holds the story in their minds that assess the existence or lack of existence of imagination. It's not the stories themselves, but the way one interfaces with them. That's how you can discern the other's access to their own imaginative sense.

"Imaginative" is a qualitative, not a qualitative descriptor; a subjective metric, not an objective one.

Yeah, and not so much. It can be viewed objectively. You can discern its existence or lack of it based on what you hear how the person utilizes them, how literal they are. That's an observation thing, and that makes it "objective". How one goes about ranking or evaluating such a thing is another matter, but I'd say that is possible to do depending.

That, coupled with the fact that one's pontifications upon theology are hardly the be-all and end-all of a person's creative endeavors means I am very hard-pressed to say something like "yes, I am more imaginative than non-theists because I am a theist." That's rubbish. I was as creative and imaginative when I considered myself non-theist as I am considering myself theist. The designation looks irrelevant to me. Creative people will be creative people regardless of religion or theology.

I very much agree with this. I think what the problem is here is that this person has heard the legitimate criticism of a lot of modern atheism having a lack of imagination, and there is validity to that, but then he mistakenly concludes that theism is more imaginative. That is false. The modern religious fundamentalist is equally lacking imagination as the neo-atheist they criticize. They are literally, simply flip sides of the same coin. Believing in magic as the literal way things happened, is not actually imagination working. It's reducing that way of picturing things to a factual reality.

 

[leibowde84]

Hello everyone

I watched a video describe the difference between believers and atheists concerning the imagination about creation . so imagination of theists are more than atheists in subject of creation.

1- Please watch first

2- My question , do you feel that you have imagination about creation more than atheists ?

I would say that imagination in this context is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Godobeyer]

I would say that imagination in this context is not necessarily a good thing.

So it's bad thing ?

I doubt that you understood the point of Dr Adnan about imagination, do you ?

Do you think imagination is not facture in belief ?
explain to me,So how you believe in God ?

 

[Godobeyer]

The video actually does equate atheism with a lack of imagination and theism as having one. So to analyzing what and why he's saying it does seem to directly pertain to the topic of the thread. As I pointed out, theism can have just as much a lack of imagination as atheism. It has nothing to do with how one believes or does not believe in God. That lack of imagination applied to either results in very "factual" ways of looking at the world, either trusting God to tell you "the truth", or science to tell you "the truth".


This is of course incredibly insightful! I very much agree with this, and it is a point unimaginative literalists on either side of the theism question miss. Rather, can't see due to a lack of thinking outside their own boxes. That lack of thinking outside their own boxes is exactly, precisely what defines this lack of imagination!


Mythology is a type of metaphor. Science is also a metaphor. The unimaginative take metaphors and makes them "descriptors of reality", and thus create dead-metaphors. The unimaginative literalize metaphors, be they mythological or rational in nature. They live in a world of dead-metaphors, which cannot function any longer to inspire the imagination. A world of dead metaphors creates a world of the unimaginative, in either science or religion.


I would say the point is not about the story, but rather they way one holds the story in their minds that assess the existence or lack of existence of imagination. It's not the stories themselves, but the way one interfaces with them. That's how you can discern the other's access to their own imaginative sense.


Yeah, and not so much. It can be viewed objectively. You can discern its existence or lack of it based on what you hear how the person utilizes them, how literal they are. That's an observation thing, and that makes it "objective". How one goes about ranking or evaluating such a thing is another matter, but I'd say that is possible to do depending.


I very much agree with this. I think what the problem is here is that this person has heard the legitimate criticism of a lot of modern atheism having a lack of imagination, and there is validity to that, but then he mistakenly concludes that theism is more imaginative. That is false. The modern religious fundamentalist is equally lacking imagination as the neo-atheist they criticize. They are literally, simply flip sides of the same coin. Believing in magic as the literal way things happened, is not actually imagination working. It's reducing that way of picturing things to a factual reality.

To brief.
He spoke about two points :
1- he tries to say that theories in past was consider as facts,now it's consider false , the actual theories would consider as false in future ,so go on.

2- Dr Adnan said Atheist did not belief in God ,because they stopped at point of theory "randomness, by chance" , so they their imagination of creation is limited/stopped on that point, on contrary the theists got over that point by imagination.

 

[Windwalker]

To brief.
He spoke about two points :
1- he tries to say that theories in past was consider as facts,now it's consider false , the actual theories would consider as false in future ,so go on.

False. He is misquoting Koestler. No scientist ever calls science "facts". That betrays a lack of knowledge about what science is and teaches. Do you, or rather does HE understand actually what a scientific theory is? I highly doubt it.

2- Dr Adnan said Atheist did not belief in God ,because they stopped at point of theory "randomness, by chance" , so they their imagination of creation is limited/stopped on that point, on contrary the theists got over that point by imagination.

And he is wrong in what he is saying. I can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution! I do! What's more, to bypass science and call that, "The believer exceeds this limit, transcends the dazzle of scientific data," is misleading. These "believers" are not "transcending" science. They are ignoring it. Do you consider ignoring science to be an indication of a healthy imagination? I do not. I consider being in denial the exact opposite of a healthy imagination. If you do, please explain.

Here's a transcript of what he said exactly for reference sake:

"His imagination can move within the limits of scientific data. At this limit he stops and says, 'chance', that's it! Something "X" called chance. 'Randomness did everything in a long time"! What is this? Not the believer! The believer exceeds this limit, transcends the dazzle of scientific data. On the contrary, he stands by the consequences and requisites of these scientific facts and data that there is a greater intelligence, precision, and wisdom, greater than all the wonders of existence that we talk about. He is the one that founded them and set their laws since the first moment before their creation, drafted their laws, then created them according to those laws that would be used to set them in motion according to his ordinance. This is the marvelous imagination of the believer!"​

Do you stand by the science? Do you accept Evolution? Yes, or no? If you do, than this will be a very different discussion, indeed.