"I got ramblin' on my mind"

(Marshall Tucker band reference)

A friend of mine who is an atheist and former agnostic (she is losing intelligence as she ages, I suspect, but that is merely a personal opinion) came into this board to have a look, as she got wind of some of the supposed hullabaloo.

She said she found it all amusing and added that there was no debate at all.

I was moderately offended, to be honest, because I feel that the majority of exchange on this board is certainly not 'amusing' and is, for me, the most enjoyable of exchanges, flame to ignite the muse of thought, as it were, and occasionally the link to other avenues of thought.

Then I realized that she had the same myopic perspective that other 'believers' have (and, yes, she is a believer: she believes there is no deity): her mind is set in concrete.

While I wonder how anyone can expect to learn anything with such a mindset, still, I understand. There is faith in both theism AND atheism. I can see and read the vehemence from both sides, even if I consider that one side of that 'debate' has a more legitimate leg to stand on (there ARE imaginary numbers, irrational numbers, but I am not aware of non-numbers, and I will leave it at that).

I am bemused by the idea of atheists, though, finding theists/deists to be ignorant, in any event. Atheists haven't a leg to stand on, not even the leg of faith, of irrational belief, of signs, of omens, of the notion, simply, that there is something out there that may be beyond our ken. I can understand true believers (while understanding the contempt someone else recently posted about the posers who are just out for money). I cannot understand the smug certainty of those who know there is no god. And I find the smugness, the holier-than-thou attitude (how ironic) to be paradoxical and even moronic. Especially coming from people who allegedly have thought these things through.

That rant aside, she did mention that there was no debate and in that regard she is correct to some degree, largely because those who believe believe fervently and those who believe not believe not just as fervently. There is no room for debate.

I think if you look through this board you will find that most of the so-called debate is among those of us who are unknowing, seeking, not looking for answers necessarily, but looking, nonetheless. Perhaps the tolerant, the curious.

I rarely see evil intent in here, even from those I disagree with. Maybe we have too much time on our hands, and some of us certainly seem to have agendas, but I find this board the most interesting of all of them. Of course: It is not about cancer. It is about living and dying. And I find that intriguing as I always have. It is about belief and doubt, and I find those not amusing subjects but the subjects that should be of greatest concern to all of us.

You believe. I doubt. Let's discuss it.
«13

Comments

  • luz del lago
    luz del lago Member Posts: 449
    Stairway To Heaven
    There's a lady who's sure
    All that glitters is gold
    And she's buying a stairway to heaven.

    When she gets there she knows
    If the stores are all closed
    With a word she can get what she came for.
    And she's buying a stairway to heaven.

    There's a sign on the wall
    But she wants to be sure
    'Cause you know sometimes words have
    Two meanings.

    In a tree by the brook
    There's a songbird who sings
    Sometimes all of our thoughts are
    Misgiven.

    Ooh, it makes me wonder.

    There's a feeling I get
    When I look to the west
    And my spirit is crying for leaving.

    In my thoughts I have seen
    Rings of smoke through the trees
    And the voices of those who stand looking.

    Ooh, it makes me wonder.

    And it's whispered that soon
    If we all call the tune
    Then the piper will lead us to reason.

    And a new day will dawn
    For those who stand long
    And the forest will echo with laughter.

    If there's a bustle in your hedgerow
    Don't be alarmed now
    It's just a spring clean for the May queen.

    Yes, there are two paths you can go by
    But in the long run
    There's still time to change the road you're on.

    And it makes me wonder.

    Your head is humming and it won't go
    In case you don't know
    The piper's calling you to join him.

    Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow?
    And did you know
    Your stairway lies on the whispering wind?

    And as we wind on down the road
    Our shadows taller than our soul
    There walks a lady we all know
    Who shines white light and wants to show
    How everything still turns to gold
    And if you listen very hard
    The truth will come to you at last
    When all are one and one is all
    To be a rock and not to roll.

    And she's buying a stairway to heaven...

    As the lyrics go, "and it makes me wonder". I am often over-joyed at the freedom and ability I have to "wonder". To search and explore all facets of my place in this world. When I was much younger, I loved this song because it sounded great. At some point, I listened very hard, reflected on the words and now I love it because it means something to me!

    Lucy
  • Marcia527
    Marcia527 Member Posts: 2,729
    answers
    I've written three comments and deleted them all. Maybe because I really don't know what to say. How do I explain why I believe? I have to think about it some more.
  • ms.sunshine
    ms.sunshine Member Posts: 707 Member
    Marcia527 said:

    answers
    I've written three comments and deleted them all. Maybe because I really don't know what to say. How do I explain why I believe? I have to think about it some more.

    Joe
    You say you are unknowing, seeking, curious, not sure. I ask you what it would take for you to be convinced there is a God or no there is not? You seem to be adrift.
  • RE
    RE Member Posts: 4,591 Member
    Marcia527 said:

    answers
    I've written three comments and deleted them all. Maybe because I really don't know what to say. How do I explain why I believe? I have to think about it some more.

    Love ya more than my luggage...
    Remember that one, it came to mind (she must be thinking of us up there). Marcia, I too have a hard time telling someone why I believe, for me the truth is that I have always felt God's being around me since I was a child, I have always known and God has always been a part of me. Somethings are difficult to put to words and must be felt to be fully understood. However even when someone feels the spirit of God they can still persist in disbelief because logic has a way of getting in the way. I know with all my being that God is there and when my time comes I will have the honor of meeting him.

    RE
  • soccerfreaks
    soccerfreaks Member Posts: 2,788 Member

    Joe
    You say you are unknowing, seeking, curious, not sure. I ask you what it would take for you to be convinced there is a God or no there is not? You seem to be adrift.

    good question
    That is a good question, ms.sunshine. I suppose, in light of my understanding that religious belief is irrational (and by that I do not mean crazy, but rather, outside of the realm of the rational, outside of the realm of that which can be proven via scientific method or mathematical construct, for example), it would therefore have to be from some irrational source (some divine source, you might say), from something not now comprehensible to me.

    I find Marcia's and RE's responses revealing and thoughtful for this very reason: whatever it is that provides their belief, their faith, it seems it is not something easily explainable in rational terms.

    I have said in the past and say again: this does not mean that belief is wrong, not by any stretch. As I tried to indicate in the original post, I believe that true believers DO have that 'irrational' leg to stand on: not all is known, not all is comprehensible. I accept that.

    But all I have today is what I know, what I comprehend. What is unknown, what is mystery, I have not been given the power to understand or to know.

    Take care,

    Joe
  • luz del lago
    luz del lago Member Posts: 449

    good question
    That is a good question, ms.sunshine. I suppose, in light of my understanding that religious belief is irrational (and by that I do not mean crazy, but rather, outside of the realm of the rational, outside of the realm of that which can be proven via scientific method or mathematical construct, for example), it would therefore have to be from some irrational source (some divine source, you might say), from something not now comprehensible to me.

    I find Marcia's and RE's responses revealing and thoughtful for this very reason: whatever it is that provides their belief, their faith, it seems it is not something easily explainable in rational terms.

    I have said in the past and say again: this does not mean that belief is wrong, not by any stretch. As I tried to indicate in the original post, I believe that true believers DO have that 'irrational' leg to stand on: not all is known, not all is comprehensible. I accept that.

    But all I have today is what I know, what I comprehend. What is unknown, what is mystery, I have not been given the power to understand or to know.

    Take care,

    Joe

    To question
    For most of my adult life I have always believed that knowledge is empowerment, I even taught my children this. If you don't know, ask or better yet find the answer for yourself.

    Throughout Dennis' diagnosis and treatments, I asked, I researched, I wrote and corresponded with educators and researchers at the medical universities. Somewhere inside of me I felt that if I could gain some knowledge and understanding of his disease, of the treatments, of the studies, that perhaps I would have some control as to what the outcome would be.

    Closer to the time of his passing and now, I have come to believe that I never had any control. That besides love him, care for him and be by his side there really wasn't anything that I could have done to affect the outcome of his journey.

    And furthermore, I see that I really don't have control of the outcome of my journey. I can make a difference in my and perhaps others lives. But in the end it will not be up to me as to how and when I go.

    For myself, I believe that it will be the decision of a divine being, my lord. How do I KNOW this? I don't know, I just believe. In losing the man that I loved and built a life with, there is an endless list of questions and unknowns for me. Do I ask my Lord why? You betcha! Have I gotten an answer, nope. Will I? Probably not. Has "believing" been easy the past couple of months? No. But it is what I have to hold on to, as so many things have been pulled out from under me. So I cling to it for fear of falling.

    So far, it (believing) hasn't let me fall, at least not too hard, or where I couldn't get back up again. Also, I no longer feel the need to know everything about everything. Alot of good that did me! I'll just let some mysteries remain mysteries. Learning to accept His will has been a very hard lesson for me, but I have noticed that the more I do, the better I can cope.

    Lucy
  • RE
    RE Member Posts: 4,591 Member

    To question
    For most of my adult life I have always believed that knowledge is empowerment, I even taught my children this. If you don't know, ask or better yet find the answer for yourself.

    Throughout Dennis' diagnosis and treatments, I asked, I researched, I wrote and corresponded with educators and researchers at the medical universities. Somewhere inside of me I felt that if I could gain some knowledge and understanding of his disease, of the treatments, of the studies, that perhaps I would have some control as to what the outcome would be.

    Closer to the time of his passing and now, I have come to believe that I never had any control. That besides love him, care for him and be by his side there really wasn't anything that I could have done to affect the outcome of his journey.

    And furthermore, I see that I really don't have control of the outcome of my journey. I can make a difference in my and perhaps others lives. But in the end it will not be up to me as to how and when I go.

    For myself, I believe that it will be the decision of a divine being, my lord. How do I KNOW this? I don't know, I just believe. In losing the man that I loved and built a life with, there is an endless list of questions and unknowns for me. Do I ask my Lord why? You betcha! Have I gotten an answer, nope. Will I? Probably not. Has "believing" been easy the past couple of months? No. But it is what I have to hold on to, as so many things have been pulled out from under me. So I cling to it for fear of falling.

    So far, it (believing) hasn't let me fall, at least not too hard, or where I couldn't get back up again. Also, I no longer feel the need to know everything about everything. Alot of good that did me! I'll just let some mysteries remain mysteries. Learning to accept His will has been a very hard lesson for me, but I have noticed that the more I do, the better I can cope.

    Lucy

    So very sorry for your loss!
    Hi Lucy, I am truly sorry for you loss. I have lost my Mom and my sister as well as sister in-law and two brother in-laws to this illness, but not my husband it is I who have the cancer. Your words brought back the memory of my speaking with my pastor when his wife was gravely ill from recurring cancer. He was distraught at the knowing that he was going to lose the woman he had been with since he was 14, the woman he had 9 children and a host of grandchildren with. We spoke awhile and during this time he said when he passes the first thing he hopes to do is ask the Lord why she had to go so soon, well she has since passed on and he has remarried and although he misses her greatly he continues to serve our Lord and continues to raise the children he still has at home as well as caring for the new ones in his life. I am not suggesting you are to remarry (sorry if it sounded that way) I am only saying that God will provide for you although I realize I cannot possibly know the depth of your loss. My sister too lost her husband and my dad his wife, they both are people of faith which helped to carry them through the loss of one so dear to them. I am rambling I just felt the need to give you my condolences and my prayers for a brighter days ahead.


    RE
  • soccerfreaks
    soccerfreaks Member Posts: 2,788 Member

    To question
    For most of my adult life I have always believed that knowledge is empowerment, I even taught my children this. If you don't know, ask or better yet find the answer for yourself.

    Throughout Dennis' diagnosis and treatments, I asked, I researched, I wrote and corresponded with educators and researchers at the medical universities. Somewhere inside of me I felt that if I could gain some knowledge and understanding of his disease, of the treatments, of the studies, that perhaps I would have some control as to what the outcome would be.

    Closer to the time of his passing and now, I have come to believe that I never had any control. That besides love him, care for him and be by his side there really wasn't anything that I could have done to affect the outcome of his journey.

    And furthermore, I see that I really don't have control of the outcome of my journey. I can make a difference in my and perhaps others lives. But in the end it will not be up to me as to how and when I go.

    For myself, I believe that it will be the decision of a divine being, my lord. How do I KNOW this? I don't know, I just believe. In losing the man that I loved and built a life with, there is an endless list of questions and unknowns for me. Do I ask my Lord why? You betcha! Have I gotten an answer, nope. Will I? Probably not. Has "believing" been easy the past couple of months? No. But it is what I have to hold on to, as so many things have been pulled out from under me. So I cling to it for fear of falling.

    So far, it (believing) hasn't let me fall, at least not too hard, or where I couldn't get back up again. Also, I no longer feel the need to know everything about everything. Alot of good that did me! I'll just let some mysteries remain mysteries. Learning to accept His will has been a very hard lesson for me, but I have noticed that the more I do, the better I can cope.

    Lucy

    "Stairway to Heaven"
    (Led Zeppelin reference, and I agree, Lucy, while it is considered rather trite among musicians these days, it is an awesome tune and always will be)

    I understand, I think completely, Lucy. I am, of course, first and foremost, sorry for your loss. Secondarily, I am happy that you have your faith to rely upon, and I mean that with absolute conviction. What some people don't seem to get about me is that I am not anti-faith, anti-religion. I respect faith, I envy belief. I am opposed to having it jammed down my throat; I am opposed to having people who clearly have given little thought to what they purportedly believe in trying to tell me what is right and wrong; I resent when people try to quote the bible with obviously little knowledge of the books or their history or even what is really in them nor even with respect for the context within which their quotes were originally framed; but I have nothing but respect and even envy for those who are of true faith.

    Yours is a most cogent argument for faith, Lucy, but also, to be honest, and I think I sense in you the willingness to listen, the very threads of that which I find most disconcerting about faith.

    You certainly do not care to know this, but I will tell you anyway, and let you be the first in these boards to know some or most of this: I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Both of my parents attended catholic schools for the duration of their educations and insisted that their children, while not attending private schools, do the catechism thing, do the rites. I was the oldest of six and took this stuff seriously. At the age of 13 I was given the option of attending mass or not, and I chose not to do so. Still, as odd as it sounds, my intent at that time was to perhaps become a priest (or a jet fighter pilot, I must admit).

    At the age of 16, I spent virtually an entire summer in the local library studying various religions. More accurately, I borrowed books, I brought them home, I read them, I took notes. I compared them.

    I discovered some common themes, some good, some not so good, and was especially dismayed by the not-so-good. It struck me then, as it does now, that religions (organized religions both eastern and western) prey upon those in need. Contradictorally but equally true, they serve as corporate ladders for those aspiring to wealth and power. They ARE wealth and power. I realized that, as has been dragged out here time and again and I am almost ashamed to repeat, they are responsible for more death and destruction over the ages than any disease, any conquering Hun, continuing unto this very day. They mold the culture of their times, the art, the music, the history, and all that is ever left is what they decide can be left.

    I theorized Lucy, over time, that religions were created to perform the above functions and also, perhaps most importantly especially in their gestational periods, to offer man reason for existence, reason for conformity, reason for community, reason for morality and ethics (good things, in the main). Reasons nonetheless, that had nothing to do with the actual existence of a higher power.

    Religion explained solstices and eclipses and falling stars and rainbows; religion gave reason to kindness and also to vengeance; religion offered hope beyond our current existence. What's not to buy into?

    Ultimately, Lucy, and you are bored by now, I am sure, I decided that religion bought us out of our Aloneness. This is the big one. I have since learned that this is really not original to me (:)). Seriously, though, I derived it on my own, not knowing of the purportedly great philosophers who had said the same thing in different terms. Religion allowed and allows us not to be Alone. Alone with a capital A. Man, Alone, would not have survived the evolutionary process, I do not believe. Man needs Man. And Man needs God.

    At the risk of sounding arrogant, and I am most certainly not, Mankind, for the most part, is not wired to be Alone. Some of us accept it because we have science or math or orneriness or courage or some combination of these in our genes (perhaps it is stupidity or inability to comprehend and perhaps it is us who are next to leave the evolving tree?). It is a frightful place, at least for me, Lucy. It is a scary place to be, to be Alone.

    But, for me, it is a place of integrity. I am not making anything up, I am not selling anything, although I could probably be a very good televangilist. It is a place of personal honesty. It is Sartre's existential angst and Camus' despair, to be sure, but it is honest to me.

    Sorry for that Lucy.

    That is where I am coming from.

    To your points: I agree 100% with your first paragraph. As you might gather from the above, I do at least try to empower myself with knowledge, and I do not rely on anything less than fact if I can help myself.

    Your second paragraph, Lucy, is a painful one for you to write, I am sure, and painful for me to read. Control is essential for some of us, you and I both, it appears. I have had to realize loss of control on a number of occasions, the first when I was still a very naive and headstrong 26 year old dad. My second daughter was lost, full term, in the hospital awaiting delivery, to a pinched umbilical cord. Doubt if that would happen today, and if it did, I would probably be a millionaire. Then, we were grieving parents, and I first learned that I was not in control of everything. I know what you are saying.

    To your third point, there is nothing I can say but to applaud you for the recognition and acceptance. At the time I describe previously, I was not yet mature enough to be so accepting of that. At the time of my daughter's death, we were moving, Lucy. All that was left in the apartment was an abandoned kitchen chair of the 1950s variety. I placed it in the middle of the living room of our apartment and drank. And wept. And for the first time in more than 10 years talked to God. It was not a good conversation. It was one-sided, to be sure. However, this is not why I am agnostic. I was agnostic before that and I was agnostic the next day. That night was my last night of faith, you might say. I am not sure that is so. I had to rant at something or someone, as you might imagine. I might just as easily have screamed at Odin, but I wasn't raised that way, you know?

    With respect to your next several sentences about the journey and your belief, I can do nothing less, again, than to envy you that firm belief. I shrug as I write this, but it is so: I do not have it. Some of my 'religious' friends seem to find something in me that tells them I will find it, but I am not so sure. I am rather empirical in my ways, I am rather hard-headed as well. But I am heartened by their hope, I am.

    Your last paragraph is perhaps your best, Lucy, although, again, I applaud your first. In your last, you acknowledge as I do that there are mysteries that you have no answers for. You, you choose to have faith. Me, I choose to wait, I wait to KNOW.

    I truly enjoyed your response, Lucy. I am hopeful that your faith carries you forward with some happiness. I am certain it is hard to lose the love of your life. I am certain that the uncertainty of moving on is difficult to deal with in real terms, in day-to-day terms. I am equally certain, based on your correspondence, that your faith will carry the day.

    Consider me, Lucy, not an enemy or an antagonist, but someone who simply isn't where you are. I rely on rationality and the empirical and will until otherwise directed by that irrational force that compels you otherwise.

    Take care,

    Joe
  • Tricia02
    Tricia02 Member Posts: 129
    To believe or not to believe, this is the question!
    Hello, well here I sit in London having my first morning cuppa - rose late today cos stayed in chat last night till 4.00 am! Blame it on the Kiwi!

    I have read your opening blog with interest Joe and I have decided to "come out" hahahahahaha.

    We have had many many chats on this subject, and on reflection yes I would say I have come across somewhat "smug" without true intention, but this is a facet of my nature ie a character defect that I do at times try to work on or at least hide, obviously unsuccessfully!

    For myself the state of atheism is not by definition as you state "to believe there is no deity" it is actually just a lack of belief in the existence of a deity. For most atheists if proof for them became available regarding the existence of a deity, then they would believe. Atheism is just a world view that says if I see evidence or proof of any kind in anything, then I believe it does exist. Without proof there is no belief in existence.

    One position is to believe in god - this leads a lot of people to believe atheists take the opposite position ie there is no god, this is not quite accurate for most atheists. A common view is they chose not to believe in the existence of a god. This might seem like splitting hairs but it's very important. Atheists chose not to believe in something unless there is evidence or proof that satisfies their judgment. Just not believing something exists is not the same as holding an opinion that it absolutely does not exist, and I think that is where I have been misunderstood.

    There is in fact a subtle and very different position taken by most atheists, which is we just do not believe there is a deity. This is not a dogma, ie there is no deity just a reluctance to believe without proof or evidence.

    I have no belief in a deity, I am not closed minded. If tomorrow there was proof of a god then I would alter my opinion. I am not undecided as to whether to believe or not, which would be an agnostic, I do not believe!

    By stating there was no debate, the writer meant two people just stating opposite opinions is not a debate. But two people with opposite opinions putting forward arguments and reasons for their position and discussing those is a debate.

    Lastly, and I blame this again on the kiwis! I believe more in Jedi - have a look at the Jedi site it is very amusing http://www.jedichurch.org/

    I think for some people atheism seems like some crazy belief structure, which it isn't - it's just as I have stated a world view. I mention this because a few people have actually said to me do I belong to the Church of Scientology and lots have asked, do you believe in the Devil! Which leads the writer to conclude that some people view atheism as some sort of alternative religeon.

    For the record, my belief structure and values are these. The only proof I have is that I exist today. I cannot know what will happen when I die, maybe that is when I will get the final proof of whether there is a deity! So knowing that I am here today nothing else is gauranteed, not assuming god will help me or anybody I come across, leaves me with the responsibility alone to enjoy life and when the opportunity arises, to help others to fulfill their lives because it is all too valuable to waste. Life rocks.

    I am not properly awake so I may have repeated myself, apologies.

    Cheers Tricia
  • mr steve
    mr steve Member Posts: 285

    "Stairway to Heaven"
    (Led Zeppelin reference, and I agree, Lucy, while it is considered rather trite among musicians these days, it is an awesome tune and always will be)

    I understand, I think completely, Lucy. I am, of course, first and foremost, sorry for your loss. Secondarily, I am happy that you have your faith to rely upon, and I mean that with absolute conviction. What some people don't seem to get about me is that I am not anti-faith, anti-religion. I respect faith, I envy belief. I am opposed to having it jammed down my throat; I am opposed to having people who clearly have given little thought to what they purportedly believe in trying to tell me what is right and wrong; I resent when people try to quote the bible with obviously little knowledge of the books or their history or even what is really in them nor even with respect for the context within which their quotes were originally framed; but I have nothing but respect and even envy for those who are of true faith.

    Yours is a most cogent argument for faith, Lucy, but also, to be honest, and I think I sense in you the willingness to listen, the very threads of that which I find most disconcerting about faith.

    You certainly do not care to know this, but I will tell you anyway, and let you be the first in these boards to know some or most of this: I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Both of my parents attended catholic schools for the duration of their educations and insisted that their children, while not attending private schools, do the catechism thing, do the rites. I was the oldest of six and took this stuff seriously. At the age of 13 I was given the option of attending mass or not, and I chose not to do so. Still, as odd as it sounds, my intent at that time was to perhaps become a priest (or a jet fighter pilot, I must admit).

    At the age of 16, I spent virtually an entire summer in the local library studying various religions. More accurately, I borrowed books, I brought them home, I read them, I took notes. I compared them.

    I discovered some common themes, some good, some not so good, and was especially dismayed by the not-so-good. It struck me then, as it does now, that religions (organized religions both eastern and western) prey upon those in need. Contradictorally but equally true, they serve as corporate ladders for those aspiring to wealth and power. They ARE wealth and power. I realized that, as has been dragged out here time and again and I am almost ashamed to repeat, they are responsible for more death and destruction over the ages than any disease, any conquering Hun, continuing unto this very day. They mold the culture of their times, the art, the music, the history, and all that is ever left is what they decide can be left.

    I theorized Lucy, over time, that religions were created to perform the above functions and also, perhaps most importantly especially in their gestational periods, to offer man reason for existence, reason for conformity, reason for community, reason for morality and ethics (good things, in the main). Reasons nonetheless, that had nothing to do with the actual existence of a higher power.

    Religion explained solstices and eclipses and falling stars and rainbows; religion gave reason to kindness and also to vengeance; religion offered hope beyond our current existence. What's not to buy into?

    Ultimately, Lucy, and you are bored by now, I am sure, I decided that religion bought us out of our Aloneness. This is the big one. I have since learned that this is really not original to me (:)). Seriously, though, I derived it on my own, not knowing of the purportedly great philosophers who had said the same thing in different terms. Religion allowed and allows us not to be Alone. Alone with a capital A. Man, Alone, would not have survived the evolutionary process, I do not believe. Man needs Man. And Man needs God.

    At the risk of sounding arrogant, and I am most certainly not, Mankind, for the most part, is not wired to be Alone. Some of us accept it because we have science or math or orneriness or courage or some combination of these in our genes (perhaps it is stupidity or inability to comprehend and perhaps it is us who are next to leave the evolving tree?). It is a frightful place, at least for me, Lucy. It is a scary place to be, to be Alone.

    But, for me, it is a place of integrity. I am not making anything up, I am not selling anything, although I could probably be a very good televangilist. It is a place of personal honesty. It is Sartre's existential angst and Camus' despair, to be sure, but it is honest to me.

    Sorry for that Lucy.

    That is where I am coming from.

    To your points: I agree 100% with your first paragraph. As you might gather from the above, I do at least try to empower myself with knowledge, and I do not rely on anything less than fact if I can help myself.

    Your second paragraph, Lucy, is a painful one for you to write, I am sure, and painful for me to read. Control is essential for some of us, you and I both, it appears. I have had to realize loss of control on a number of occasions, the first when I was still a very naive and headstrong 26 year old dad. My second daughter was lost, full term, in the hospital awaiting delivery, to a pinched umbilical cord. Doubt if that would happen today, and if it did, I would probably be a millionaire. Then, we were grieving parents, and I first learned that I was not in control of everything. I know what you are saying.

    To your third point, there is nothing I can say but to applaud you for the recognition and acceptance. At the time I describe previously, I was not yet mature enough to be so accepting of that. At the time of my daughter's death, we were moving, Lucy. All that was left in the apartment was an abandoned kitchen chair of the 1950s variety. I placed it in the middle of the living room of our apartment and drank. And wept. And for the first time in more than 10 years talked to God. It was not a good conversation. It was one-sided, to be sure. However, this is not why I am agnostic. I was agnostic before that and I was agnostic the next day. That night was my last night of faith, you might say. I am not sure that is so. I had to rant at something or someone, as you might imagine. I might just as easily have screamed at Odin, but I wasn't raised that way, you know?

    With respect to your next several sentences about the journey and your belief, I can do nothing less, again, than to envy you that firm belief. I shrug as I write this, but it is so: I do not have it. Some of my 'religious' friends seem to find something in me that tells them I will find it, but I am not so sure. I am rather empirical in my ways, I am rather hard-headed as well. But I am heartened by their hope, I am.

    Your last paragraph is perhaps your best, Lucy, although, again, I applaud your first. In your last, you acknowledge as I do that there are mysteries that you have no answers for. You, you choose to have faith. Me, I choose to wait, I wait to KNOW.

    I truly enjoyed your response, Lucy. I am hopeful that your faith carries you forward with some happiness. I am certain it is hard to lose the love of your life. I am certain that the uncertainty of moving on is difficult to deal with in real terms, in day-to-day terms. I am equally certain, based on your correspondence, that your faith will carry the day.

    Consider me, Lucy, not an enemy or an antagonist, but someone who simply isn't where you are. I rely on rationality and the empirical and will until otherwise directed by that irrational force that compels you otherwise.

    Take care,

    Joe

    Man needs someting?
    Joe,

    It's always nice when someone gets you to think. There has to be more than this. I wish I had more time but I have to get back to work.

    Steve
  • stayingcalm
    stayingcalm Member Posts: 650 Member
    Tricia02 said:

    To believe or not to believe, this is the question!
    Hello, well here I sit in London having my first morning cuppa - rose late today cos stayed in chat last night till 4.00 am! Blame it on the Kiwi!

    I have read your opening blog with interest Joe and I have decided to "come out" hahahahahaha.

    We have had many many chats on this subject, and on reflection yes I would say I have come across somewhat "smug" without true intention, but this is a facet of my nature ie a character defect that I do at times try to work on or at least hide, obviously unsuccessfully!

    For myself the state of atheism is not by definition as you state "to believe there is no deity" it is actually just a lack of belief in the existence of a deity. For most atheists if proof for them became available regarding the existence of a deity, then they would believe. Atheism is just a world view that says if I see evidence or proof of any kind in anything, then I believe it does exist. Without proof there is no belief in existence.

    One position is to believe in god - this leads a lot of people to believe atheists take the opposite position ie there is no god, this is not quite accurate for most atheists. A common view is they chose not to believe in the existence of a god. This might seem like splitting hairs but it's very important. Atheists chose not to believe in something unless there is evidence or proof that satisfies their judgment. Just not believing something exists is not the same as holding an opinion that it absolutely does not exist, and I think that is where I have been misunderstood.

    There is in fact a subtle and very different position taken by most atheists, which is we just do not believe there is a deity. This is not a dogma, ie there is no deity just a reluctance to believe without proof or evidence.

    I have no belief in a deity, I am not closed minded. If tomorrow there was proof of a god then I would alter my opinion. I am not undecided as to whether to believe or not, which would be an agnostic, I do not believe!

    By stating there was no debate, the writer meant two people just stating opposite opinions is not a debate. But two people with opposite opinions putting forward arguments and reasons for their position and discussing those is a debate.

    Lastly, and I blame this again on the kiwis! I believe more in Jedi - have a look at the Jedi site it is very amusing http://www.jedichurch.org/

    I think for some people atheism seems like some crazy belief structure, which it isn't - it's just as I have stated a world view. I mention this because a few people have actually said to me do I belong to the Church of Scientology and lots have asked, do you believe in the Devil! Which leads the writer to conclude that some people view atheism as some sort of alternative religeon.

    For the record, my belief structure and values are these. The only proof I have is that I exist today. I cannot know what will happen when I die, maybe that is when I will get the final proof of whether there is a deity! So knowing that I am here today nothing else is gauranteed, not assuming god will help me or anybody I come across, leaves me with the responsibility alone to enjoy life and when the opportunity arises, to help others to fulfill their lives because it is all too valuable to waste. Life rocks.

    I am not properly awake so I may have repeated myself, apologies.

    Cheers Tricia

    Okay
    I believe you just neatly summed up my entire worldview!
    stayingcalm
  • luz del lago
    luz del lago Member Posts: 449

    "Stairway to Heaven"
    (Led Zeppelin reference, and I agree, Lucy, while it is considered rather trite among musicians these days, it is an awesome tune and always will be)

    I understand, I think completely, Lucy. I am, of course, first and foremost, sorry for your loss. Secondarily, I am happy that you have your faith to rely upon, and I mean that with absolute conviction. What some people don't seem to get about me is that I am not anti-faith, anti-religion. I respect faith, I envy belief. I am opposed to having it jammed down my throat; I am opposed to having people who clearly have given little thought to what they purportedly believe in trying to tell me what is right and wrong; I resent when people try to quote the bible with obviously little knowledge of the books or their history or even what is really in them nor even with respect for the context within which their quotes were originally framed; but I have nothing but respect and even envy for those who are of true faith.

    Yours is a most cogent argument for faith, Lucy, but also, to be honest, and I think I sense in you the willingness to listen, the very threads of that which I find most disconcerting about faith.

    You certainly do not care to know this, but I will tell you anyway, and let you be the first in these boards to know some or most of this: I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Both of my parents attended catholic schools for the duration of their educations and insisted that their children, while not attending private schools, do the catechism thing, do the rites. I was the oldest of six and took this stuff seriously. At the age of 13 I was given the option of attending mass or not, and I chose not to do so. Still, as odd as it sounds, my intent at that time was to perhaps become a priest (or a jet fighter pilot, I must admit).

    At the age of 16, I spent virtually an entire summer in the local library studying various religions. More accurately, I borrowed books, I brought them home, I read them, I took notes. I compared them.

    I discovered some common themes, some good, some not so good, and was especially dismayed by the not-so-good. It struck me then, as it does now, that religions (organized religions both eastern and western) prey upon those in need. Contradictorally but equally true, they serve as corporate ladders for those aspiring to wealth and power. They ARE wealth and power. I realized that, as has been dragged out here time and again and I am almost ashamed to repeat, they are responsible for more death and destruction over the ages than any disease, any conquering Hun, continuing unto this very day. They mold the culture of their times, the art, the music, the history, and all that is ever left is what they decide can be left.

    I theorized Lucy, over time, that religions were created to perform the above functions and also, perhaps most importantly especially in their gestational periods, to offer man reason for existence, reason for conformity, reason for community, reason for morality and ethics (good things, in the main). Reasons nonetheless, that had nothing to do with the actual existence of a higher power.

    Religion explained solstices and eclipses and falling stars and rainbows; religion gave reason to kindness and also to vengeance; religion offered hope beyond our current existence. What's not to buy into?

    Ultimately, Lucy, and you are bored by now, I am sure, I decided that religion bought us out of our Aloneness. This is the big one. I have since learned that this is really not original to me (:)). Seriously, though, I derived it on my own, not knowing of the purportedly great philosophers who had said the same thing in different terms. Religion allowed and allows us not to be Alone. Alone with a capital A. Man, Alone, would not have survived the evolutionary process, I do not believe. Man needs Man. And Man needs God.

    At the risk of sounding arrogant, and I am most certainly not, Mankind, for the most part, is not wired to be Alone. Some of us accept it because we have science or math or orneriness or courage or some combination of these in our genes (perhaps it is stupidity or inability to comprehend and perhaps it is us who are next to leave the evolving tree?). It is a frightful place, at least for me, Lucy. It is a scary place to be, to be Alone.

    But, for me, it is a place of integrity. I am not making anything up, I am not selling anything, although I could probably be a very good televangilist. It is a place of personal honesty. It is Sartre's existential angst and Camus' despair, to be sure, but it is honest to me.

    Sorry for that Lucy.

    That is where I am coming from.

    To your points: I agree 100% with your first paragraph. As you might gather from the above, I do at least try to empower myself with knowledge, and I do not rely on anything less than fact if I can help myself.

    Your second paragraph, Lucy, is a painful one for you to write, I am sure, and painful for me to read. Control is essential for some of us, you and I both, it appears. I have had to realize loss of control on a number of occasions, the first when I was still a very naive and headstrong 26 year old dad. My second daughter was lost, full term, in the hospital awaiting delivery, to a pinched umbilical cord. Doubt if that would happen today, and if it did, I would probably be a millionaire. Then, we were grieving parents, and I first learned that I was not in control of everything. I know what you are saying.

    To your third point, there is nothing I can say but to applaud you for the recognition and acceptance. At the time I describe previously, I was not yet mature enough to be so accepting of that. At the time of my daughter's death, we were moving, Lucy. All that was left in the apartment was an abandoned kitchen chair of the 1950s variety. I placed it in the middle of the living room of our apartment and drank. And wept. And for the first time in more than 10 years talked to God. It was not a good conversation. It was one-sided, to be sure. However, this is not why I am agnostic. I was agnostic before that and I was agnostic the next day. That night was my last night of faith, you might say. I am not sure that is so. I had to rant at something or someone, as you might imagine. I might just as easily have screamed at Odin, but I wasn't raised that way, you know?

    With respect to your next several sentences about the journey and your belief, I can do nothing less, again, than to envy you that firm belief. I shrug as I write this, but it is so: I do not have it. Some of my 'religious' friends seem to find something in me that tells them I will find it, but I am not so sure. I am rather empirical in my ways, I am rather hard-headed as well. But I am heartened by their hope, I am.

    Your last paragraph is perhaps your best, Lucy, although, again, I applaud your first. In your last, you acknowledge as I do that there are mysteries that you have no answers for. You, you choose to have faith. Me, I choose to wait, I wait to KNOW.

    I truly enjoyed your response, Lucy. I am hopeful that your faith carries you forward with some happiness. I am certain it is hard to lose the love of your life. I am certain that the uncertainty of moving on is difficult to deal with in real terms, in day-to-day terms. I am equally certain, based on your correspondence, that your faith will carry the day.

    Consider me, Lucy, not an enemy or an antagonist, but someone who simply isn't where you are. I rely on rationality and the empirical and will until otherwise directed by that irrational force that compels you otherwise.

    Take care,

    Joe

    Not that different...
    Joe,
    A bit of history. I was baptized Catholic. I attended Catholic daycare and elementary school. With nuns. In 3rd grade, I wanted to be a nun! I thought that's how everyone lived. My dear parents did not attend church. When they placed me in public school, by 6th grade, I asked to go to CCD, as all my friends were attending, so I was taken. On Sundays I was dropped off at Mass, and walked back home. My younger sister was raised about the same way.

    My beloved husband was baptized Catholic, received all the sacraments, and when I met him was a practicing Catholic. I fell in love with this man, and wanted nothing more than to please him. Our children were baptized and attended Catholic school, also. Yes, we married in the church. Through the years, we ran the "Engaged Couples" program. We "trained" Alter servers and were on the Parish Council.

    At some point, life changed, our children moved to public schooling and we didn't attend church every Sunday as in the past. If you were to ask me why, I really don't have an answer. The kids grew older, had activities...

    Fast forward, Dennis is diagnosed with cancer. I begin to pray harder than I have ever prayed before in my life. He is in denial. Three months before his passing, I choose to really explore my spiritual journey. I buy a New Version King William bible. I'm accused of almost being a "heretic" by him! I tell him that I am on this journey. He can remain on this journey or we can "explore" together. I am told that he was raised on the "Baltimore Chatechism" and that's what he knows. I told him that I would respect his opinion, but to respect mine.

    Ok, truth. In my opinion, he was not connecting with our Lord, and should this be the end of his life, I wished for him to be in that place. I wished for him and I to walk hand in hand in this journey. How arrogant of me, to think that I was in a better place than him!

    He struggled with this. He truly believed that Catholic was the only way! It infuriated me! Was I trying to "save" him? Who do I think I am?

    He died on Dec. 20th. On the 18th, I asked Hospice to send a Chaplain to give him Holy Communion. On the 20th, I requested a Chaplain to administer the "Celebration of Life", AKA last rites. On the 23rd a Mass was celebrated in his name. On the 22nd of Feb., he was buried with full military honors and a Priest consecrating the ground. I requested all of this for him, respecting him. I will tell you that I shall not request this for me. I will request the full military honors as I am a Veteran also. Why? I am such a non-conformist, that I do not wish a specific "ritual" at my burial. Whom-so-ever wishes to pray or wish for me or my family at that time, may do so in their way.

    Joe, I shall not consider you an enemy or antagonist. You are a fellow human being, with the right to think and feel as you do. I appreciate your view. We are what we are. Not that similar, but not that different...

    Best Wishes,

    Lucy
  • soccerfreaks
    soccerfreaks Member Posts: 2,788 Member
    Tricia02 said:

    To believe or not to believe, this is the question!
    Hello, well here I sit in London having my first morning cuppa - rose late today cos stayed in chat last night till 4.00 am! Blame it on the Kiwi!

    I have read your opening blog with interest Joe and I have decided to "come out" hahahahahaha.

    We have had many many chats on this subject, and on reflection yes I would say I have come across somewhat "smug" without true intention, but this is a facet of my nature ie a character defect that I do at times try to work on or at least hide, obviously unsuccessfully!

    For myself the state of atheism is not by definition as you state "to believe there is no deity" it is actually just a lack of belief in the existence of a deity. For most atheists if proof for them became available regarding the existence of a deity, then they would believe. Atheism is just a world view that says if I see evidence or proof of any kind in anything, then I believe it does exist. Without proof there is no belief in existence.

    One position is to believe in god - this leads a lot of people to believe atheists take the opposite position ie there is no god, this is not quite accurate for most atheists. A common view is they chose not to believe in the existence of a god. This might seem like splitting hairs but it's very important. Atheists chose not to believe in something unless there is evidence or proof that satisfies their judgment. Just not believing something exists is not the same as holding an opinion that it absolutely does not exist, and I think that is where I have been misunderstood.

    There is in fact a subtle and very different position taken by most atheists, which is we just do not believe there is a deity. This is not a dogma, ie there is no deity just a reluctance to believe without proof or evidence.

    I have no belief in a deity, I am not closed minded. If tomorrow there was proof of a god then I would alter my opinion. I am not undecided as to whether to believe or not, which would be an agnostic, I do not believe!

    By stating there was no debate, the writer meant two people just stating opposite opinions is not a debate. But two people with opposite opinions putting forward arguments and reasons for their position and discussing those is a debate.

    Lastly, and I blame this again on the kiwis! I believe more in Jedi - have a look at the Jedi site it is very amusing http://www.jedichurch.org/

    I think for some people atheism seems like some crazy belief structure, which it isn't - it's just as I have stated a world view. I mention this because a few people have actually said to me do I belong to the Church of Scientology and lots have asked, do you believe in the Devil! Which leads the writer to conclude that some people view atheism as some sort of alternative religeon.

    For the record, my belief structure and values are these. The only proof I have is that I exist today. I cannot know what will happen when I die, maybe that is when I will get the final proof of whether there is a deity! So knowing that I am here today nothing else is gauranteed, not assuming god will help me or anybody I come across, leaves me with the responsibility alone to enjoy life and when the opportunity arises, to help others to fulfill their lives because it is all too valuable to waste. Life rocks.

    I am not properly awake so I may have repeated myself, apologies.

    Cheers Tricia

    Semantics
    It seems a matter of semantics here, Trish. What you describe as atheism in your response, I describe as agnosticism, to a tee, above. Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher, described himself in public as an atheist, but once wrote a brief treatise on religion in which he admitted he was truly an agnostic but called himself an atheist in public because explaining the difference would be too difficult. To quote the man directly:

    "Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

    I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

    On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

    None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

    Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.


    That is where I am coming from Trish, and it seems that you are as well.

    Take care, my friend,

    Joe
  • Tricia02
    Tricia02 Member Posts: 129

    Semantics
    It seems a matter of semantics here, Trish. What you describe as atheism in your response, I describe as agnosticism, to a tee, above. Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher, described himself in public as an atheist, but once wrote a brief treatise on religion in which he admitted he was truly an agnostic but called himself an atheist in public because explaining the difference would be too difficult. To quote the man directly:

    "Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

    I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

    On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

    None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

    Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.


    That is where I am coming from Trish, and it seems that you are as well.

    Take care, my friend,

    Joe

    Hiya m8
    Here I sit once again, teapot full for my next cuppa! I did actually rise early today and get to my favourite charity shop and bought 2 books, one a first edition of Madame Bovary, and the other incredibly Russell's What I Believe! Would you Believe? We have spoken of Russell before and he is one of my favourite philosophers, logician, historian et al. And now my new book and your blog have got my juices flowing! Which is a good thing.
    Yes I do believe we are playing with semantics and all I can say with regard to my position is this, there are those who believe the existence of god, there are those who don't believe there is a god, and there are those who say there is no god and never will be, and that last group are closed minded. I am in the second group, I believe.
    I am no Bertrand Russell however , therefore I do not believe I can be allied to his belief structure.
    I personally think that Russell dared not use his usual cavalier and sarcastic approach with his philisophical audiences, lest he look unintellectual. He openly said many times that before such audiences he would only go as far as to declare himself as agnostic. This admission reveals to the writer where he stood "intellectually" only, as in the writers opinion he was bowing to social pressure in this regard. This is the only conclusion one can draw, as to his philisophical followers he referred to himself as, an atheist.

    I too wonder "how anyone can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in god"!

    I consider myself a "freethinker" and moreso now thanks to my wake up call, as I don't have to work ie I don't have to compromise my beliefs for anyones corporate policy.

    I am a happy individual mostly and I am without god, and I believe for myself that my happiness does lead me to be a healthier human being.

    I cannot resist pasting some Russell quotes for the reader, as they are truly stupendous.

    Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.
    One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.

    The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

    Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.

    That we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked.

    If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.

    MY FAV "Of course not. After all, I may be wrong".

    So my friend we are both in a similar camp so to speak, ie no-one can prove there isn't a god, but the lack of proof of no god cannot be read as proof of a god, or even bolster the assumption that there is a possibility of a god lol.

    Finally and most importantly, what does Russell know - he's in heaven now hahahahahahahaah.

    Take care my friend

    Tricia
  • soccerfreaks
    soccerfreaks Member Posts: 2,788 Member
    Tricia02 said:

    Hiya m8
    Here I sit once again, teapot full for my next cuppa! I did actually rise early today and get to my favourite charity shop and bought 2 books, one a first edition of Madame Bovary, and the other incredibly Russell's What I Believe! Would you Believe? We have spoken of Russell before and he is one of my favourite philosophers, logician, historian et al. And now my new book and your blog have got my juices flowing! Which is a good thing.
    Yes I do believe we are playing with semantics and all I can say with regard to my position is this, there are those who believe the existence of god, there are those who don't believe there is a god, and there are those who say there is no god and never will be, and that last group are closed minded. I am in the second group, I believe.
    I am no Bertrand Russell however , therefore I do not believe I can be allied to his belief structure.
    I personally think that Russell dared not use his usual cavalier and sarcastic approach with his philisophical audiences, lest he look unintellectual. He openly said many times that before such audiences he would only go as far as to declare himself as agnostic. This admission reveals to the writer where he stood "intellectually" only, as in the writers opinion he was bowing to social pressure in this regard. This is the only conclusion one can draw, as to his philisophical followers he referred to himself as, an atheist.

    I too wonder "how anyone can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in god"!

    I consider myself a "freethinker" and moreso now thanks to my wake up call, as I don't have to work ie I don't have to compromise my beliefs for anyones corporate policy.

    I am a happy individual mostly and I am without god, and I believe for myself that my happiness does lead me to be a healthier human being.

    I cannot resist pasting some Russell quotes for the reader, as they are truly stupendous.

    Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.
    One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.

    The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

    Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.

    That we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked.

    If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.

    MY FAV "Of course not. After all, I may be wrong".

    So my friend we are both in a similar camp so to speak, ie no-one can prove there isn't a god, but the lack of proof of no god cannot be read as proof of a god, or even bolster the assumption that there is a possibility of a god lol.

    Finally and most importantly, what does Russell know - he's in heaven now hahahahahahahaah.

    Take care my friend

    Tricia

    From a logical perspective,
    From a logical perspective, my friend, as far as I can fathom, you are amiss.

    You say that there are three subsets:

    1. there are those who believe the existence of god

    2. there are those who don't believe there is a god

    3. there are those who say there is no god and never will be

    I find little to differentiate between two of your three options, options 2 and 3.

    In fact, the middle option, I maintain, should be that there are those who do not know if there is a god. These are the agnostics, by the definition I am familiar with. Black, white, and grey, that sort of thing.

    Many atheists argue that it is whimsical (at best) to suggest that something we do not know may actually exist. I find this curious, indeed. Virtually all that we purport to know now is knowledge we once did not possess, which is to say, again, that atheism is an oxymoron, requiring omniscience of the very one who claims there is no omniscient being.

    That aside, nice to see that you have been moved to buy some Russell. To be honest, I used his quotes to make a point that was easier to make using his words than mine, but find him to be something of an elitist (sign of the times, I suppose) and also a hypocrite, by his own unrealized confession.

    Who can rely on the words of one who changes his definition of himself according to his audience.

    In any event, if you are reading Russell, read him in stead with Piaget (The Epistomology of Knowledge), with Carl Jung (inherent knowledge), B F SKinner (the extrapolation of Pavlov, as it were), Sartre, and Hawking ( a friend here would eagerly suggest Joseph Campbell as well, although I have not yet read him). No need getting into the mix without knowing a bit about the bigger picture.

    Glad to hear from you, as always, and especially glad that I moved you to read :).

    Take care, my friend,

    Joe
  • Tricia02
    Tricia02 Member Posts: 129

    From a logical perspective,
    From a logical perspective, my friend, as far as I can fathom, you are amiss.

    You say that there are three subsets:

    1. there are those who believe the existence of god

    2. there are those who don't believe there is a god

    3. there are those who say there is no god and never will be

    I find little to differentiate between two of your three options, options 2 and 3.

    In fact, the middle option, I maintain, should be that there are those who do not know if there is a god. These are the agnostics, by the definition I am familiar with. Black, white, and grey, that sort of thing.

    Many atheists argue that it is whimsical (at best) to suggest that something we do not know may actually exist. I find this curious, indeed. Virtually all that we purport to know now is knowledge we once did not possess, which is to say, again, that atheism is an oxymoron, requiring omniscience of the very one who claims there is no omniscient being.

    That aside, nice to see that you have been moved to buy some Russell. To be honest, I used his quotes to make a point that was easier to make using his words than mine, but find him to be something of an elitist (sign of the times, I suppose) and also a hypocrite, by his own unrealized confession.

    Who can rely on the words of one who changes his definition of himself according to his audience.

    In any event, if you are reading Russell, read him in stead with Piaget (The Epistomology of Knowledge), with Carl Jung (inherent knowledge), B F SKinner (the extrapolation of Pavlov, as it were), Sartre, and Hawking ( a friend here would eagerly suggest Joseph Campbell as well, although I have not yet read him). No need getting into the mix without knowing a bit about the bigger picture.

    Glad to hear from you, as always, and especially glad that I moved you to read :).

    Take care, my friend,

    Joe

    and from another logical perspective
    I think we're splitting hairs a bit here. But, I will attempt to convey the 3 categories as I interpret them. Obviously those that believe in god are believers, those that do not believe are atheists and those that think there maybe a god, but are not really sure and at the same time think there probably isn't a god would fall into the group of agnostics. The definition I gave before was more a comment on dogma that can lay on the believers side and that of the atheist. The only category that obviously we are both struggling to define is those that do not believe in god, but are prepared to modify that view if the evidence ever became available e.g. I do not believe in god or a deity but, I feel it would therefore be very arrogant and close minded to say I believe there is no god or deity. To be open-minded means to me, acceptance of the possibility however unlikely that evidence could arise that would require me to revise my current position. If someone absolutely refuses to ever consider evidence and continues in a belief they hold i.e. there is no god, it does not make them more of an atheist it just makes them close minded.
    I refer to your fourth para. I acknowledge some atheists may not be as clear thinking as others, some believers lack this clear thinking also. For an atheist to think it is whimsical is probably more related to them possessing arrogance rather than their beliefs. Again, this is a fine point. The decision to not believe in something that one has personally not witnessed and without compelling evidence, is not a denial of the possibility, it is just a refusal to assume something is real because it could be. The normal scientific process in all fields is normally either driven by discovery or theory. At its early stages however well informed, theory is still fantasy. And only gradually becomes reality as evidence is discovered. This can be real observational evidence, or it can be predictive evidence i.e. if this attribute exists, then I predict in a certain situation it will behave in a certain way, then you look for that situation and if your prediction is correct it takes you gradually towards an understanding of the phenomena. Repeated many times by many different people, and you start to approach what you can state as fact.
    Thank you for the further author recommendations. I am of course familiar with the wonderful Hawkings and his universe and Carl Yung. Thanx m8.
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    Tricia02 said:

    and from another logical perspective
    I think we're splitting hairs a bit here. But, I will attempt to convey the 3 categories as I interpret them. Obviously those that believe in god are believers, those that do not believe are atheists and those that think there maybe a god, but are not really sure and at the same time think there probably isn't a god would fall into the group of agnostics. The definition I gave before was more a comment on dogma that can lay on the believers side and that of the atheist. The only category that obviously we are both struggling to define is those that do not believe in god, but are prepared to modify that view if the evidence ever became available e.g. I do not believe in god or a deity but, I feel it would therefore be very arrogant and close minded to say I believe there is no god or deity. To be open-minded means to me, acceptance of the possibility however unlikely that evidence could arise that would require me to revise my current position. If someone absolutely refuses to ever consider evidence and continues in a belief they hold i.e. there is no god, it does not make them more of an atheist it just makes them close minded.
    I refer to your fourth para. I acknowledge some atheists may not be as clear thinking as others, some believers lack this clear thinking also. For an atheist to think it is whimsical is probably more related to them possessing arrogance rather than their beliefs. Again, this is a fine point. The decision to not believe in something that one has personally not witnessed and without compelling evidence, is not a denial of the possibility, it is just a refusal to assume something is real because it could be. The normal scientific process in all fields is normally either driven by discovery or theory. At its early stages however well informed, theory is still fantasy. And only gradually becomes reality as evidence is discovered. This can be real observational evidence, or it can be predictive evidence i.e. if this attribute exists, then I predict in a certain situation it will behave in a certain way, then you look for that situation and if your prediction is correct it takes you gradually towards an understanding of the phenomena. Repeated many times by many different people, and you start to approach what you can state as fact.
    Thank you for the further author recommendations. I am of course familiar with the wonderful Hawkings and his universe and Carl Yung. Thanx m8.

    For What It's Worth
    Why is it that whenever I get involved in one of Joe's post, I always tend to follow suit and through in a song title?
    It is getting confusing for me with the definitions.

    Isn't an atheist someone who does not believe in God?
    Isn't an agnostic someone who is not sure if there is a God?
    Isn't one who believes in God a believer in God?
    It sounds like an atheist is being defined as not believing in God but proof came along they would then believe. Would that happen with a believer in God? If proof came along that there is no God, would they even accept that at all?

    I guess a 4th group would have to be created...
  • Tricia02
    Tricia02 Member Posts: 129
    PhillieG said:

    For What It's Worth
    Why is it that whenever I get involved in one of Joe's post, I always tend to follow suit and through in a song title?
    It is getting confusing for me with the definitions.

    Isn't an atheist someone who does not believe in God?
    Isn't an agnostic someone who is not sure if there is a God?
    Isn't one who believes in God a believer in God?
    It sounds like an atheist is being defined as not believing in God but proof came along they would then believe. Would that happen with a believer in God? If proof came along that there is no God, would they even accept that at all?

    I guess a 4th group would have to be created...

    Good point!

    Good point Phil - the ones who wouldn't accept it would be catholics and the ones that would accept it would be protestants lol. That's according to UK rules!

    There was an agnostic dyslexic insomniac that laid awake all night wondering if there was a dog!
  • wolfen
    wolfen Member Posts: 1,324 Member
    Tricia02 said:

    Good point!

    Good point Phil - the ones who wouldn't accept it would be catholics and the ones that would accept it would be protestants lol. That's according to UK rules!

    There was an agnostic dyslexic insomniac that laid awake all night wondering if there was a dog!

    Say What?
    That one was great Tricia. I told my husband and he is ROFL. He says there's no difference between an agnostic and an atheist. They both drink beer.

    Take care,

    Wolfen
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    Tricia02 said:

    Good point!

    Good point Phil - the ones who wouldn't accept it would be catholics and the ones that would accept it would be protestants lol. That's according to UK rules!

    There was an agnostic dyslexic insomniac that laid awake all night wondering if there was a dog!

    I think it would be Nun of Thee above
    I've heard that one before, it's a good one.
    I do have an epileptic oyster shucker joke but I don't think this is the venue for it
    ;-)