The Harm Done By Religion

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Guess I'm at an odd position. Fully agnostic towards the non/existence of an actual God type thing. Atheistic towards the man-made culturally fabricated god/s.

that makes sense to me.

[GoldenWolf]

41 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I just thought I would post what another source of information says Jesus actually said in this instance. Instead of what is recorded in Matthew.

 

 

“I came to bring peace on earth, but when men reject my gift, division and turmoil result. When all of a family receive the gospel of the kingdom, truly peace abides in that house; but when some of the family enter the kingdom and others reject the gospel, such division can produce only sorrow and sadness. Labor earnestly to save the whole family lest a man’s foes become those of his own household. 

Source

 

 

The big blue book is not the N.T.   There are millions of bibles compared to the big blue book.

Edited November 9, 2021 by GoldenWolf

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Your experience of "that" is probably a form of self induced psychosis. With you labeling your experiences as "God" further fueling imaginary associations. 

You just made his point for him.

You might as well argue that his experience of rain is also a self induced psychosis.  Just because you haven't experienced a certain reality doesn't mean it doesn't exist 

You can accept rain because you have experienced it. Imagine if you never had and someone was telling you what it was like 

I suspect that some people dont really get or understand  true human love, for example, because they have never experienced it.

   The y argue it is simply a chemical experience yet it is not . When you(generic)  experience it you will know and understand it's nature. 

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Why are you trying to belittle me?

"Condemnation before investigation is the highest form of ignorance" Albert Einstein.

No, it wasn't a trace state but the exact opposite.

 I cant speak for an individual, but  ridicule helps overcome fear  

Some people are terrified that there might be more to life than the material.

They find that  challenging,  complex, and daunting itself, without having to worry about (and take responsibility for)   the spiritual side of their  existence . 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Atheists (mostly) do not claim to be able to prove no god(s) exist.

It is the lack of belief in god(s).

Full stop.

Whether you don't believe in a god or you claim there are no gods, both are atheists.

I know it's semantics and there are different usages, but simply put you are wrong in thinking that atheists or atheism claim to be able to prove gods don't exist.

Not looking for confrontation, but it seems a lot of people believe similarly that atheists proclaim there is no god or even so claim to be able to prove there is no god.

The way I see it, it would go like this :

"Do you believe there is a god?"

"Yes." = Theist.

"Do you believe there is a god?"

"No." = Atheist.

To tie it into the OP, I see this mode of thinking as harmful because some people strawman atheists into being an enemy.

They can feel it's a direct attack on them and their god if you say you're an atheist.

There could be the greatest politician in the world. They could have all the best ideas, flawless track record and beloved by all.

How many people would change their opinion on that person if they found out they were an atheist?

Sadly a large amount. 

As an atheist, I don't believe any gods, as I've had defined to me, exist.

I don't claim to know there are no gods. I don't even see how it would be possible to hold that position. 

Sure there can be self contradictory definitions that can be dismissed, but in my experience it's very, very rare for anyone to claim they can prove no gods exist.

Hope all is well.

To clarify, I was the type of Atheist that had grandiose ideas of proving no god, not that every Atheist is like that. I stand corrected. Great post. Thank you for your thoughts. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Nuclear Wessel]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

You can't prove a negative,

Not wholly true, but context is important. You're right in that you can't prove that Gods don't exist (much like you can't prove leprechauns don't exist), but you could certainly prove that you are objectively not purple (unless you are? :P), and you could prove that a purple, full-sized elephant does not exist within your dining room.

Quote

 

The Burden of Proof (cuny.edu)

Proof of a Negative Claim

So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim. 

"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier  at  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits.  If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven.  For example, if one claims that there is no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its contents.  Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer. 

In this regard Irving Marmer Copi writes:

“

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - Introduction to Logic, Copi, 1953, Page 95

You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk.  You make the negative claim that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist.  There is no need to look in the drawer.   

 

 

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

"Do you believe there is a god?"

"Yes." = Theist.

"Do you believe there is a god?"

"No." = Atheist.

And if I say that I believe that it is seriously possible that some god exists and also that it is seriously possible that no god exists, then I am what?

Hint. There's a a word for that combination of beliefs in Englsih. And it ain't semantics, but rather accuracy.

[XenoFish]

31 minutes ago, eight bits said:

And if I say that I believe that it is seriously possible that some god exists and also that it is seriously possible that no god exists, then I am what?

Hint. There's a a word for that combination of beliefs in Englsih. And it ain't semantics, but rather accuracy.

Agnostic? 

[XenoFish]

I could say ignostic. Considering how ill defined and vague the word god is. So to question the existence or non-existence of deity is meaningless. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

And if I say that I believe that it is seriously possible that some god exists and also that it is seriously possible that no god exists, then I am what?

Hint. There's a a word for that combination of beliefs in Englsih. And it ain't semantics, but rather accuracy.

I don't understand what the qualifier "seriously" for possible means. 

Something is either possible or it is not.

I also think it is a different question altogether.

"Do you believe in god?" Is not the same as "Do you believe it's possible for a god to, or to not, exist."

If one holds the position :

It's possible god(s) exist and it's possible god(s) do not exist,

I would have to think their answer to the "Do you believe god exists?" question would have to be no. 

They can't believe both in a god and at the same time believe in the possibility of there being no gods.

Are you hinting at agnostic?

A few of the definitions I have read regarding "agnostic" include something to the extent of "asserting that it is not possible to know anything about god(s)."

I don't hold that position because I believe that if any god does exist there could be possible ways it could make it self known and understood.

If we go with Huxley's explanation :

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

Then I would say I agree that I am an agnostic in that sense.

One issue I have with the situation is the difference between unknown and unknowable.

And I know we have been over this before, that "gnostic" is a term in it's own right and does not have the opposite meaning to agnostic as in the theism/atheism in these discussions.

An atheist can be an agnostic, but to me all agnostics are atheists in the sense that they don't actively have a belief that any god exists.

One could believe in the possibility of a god existing yet not hold a belief that one does. That to me would be an atheist.

So I do understand that agnosticism is the term that can be used when one does not believe that a god exists, but also doesn't necessarily believe a god doesn't exist.

The label doesn't matter as much to me as long as I understand the position being presented.

The issue arose when I mistakenly took Sheri's statement to be an attestation of what atheism is rather than her own personal idea at the time.

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by onlookerofmayhem
Clarity. Hopefully.

[+Sherapy]

36 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I don't understand what the qualifier "seriously" for possible means. 

Something is either possible or it is not.

I also think it is a different question altogether.

"Do you believe in god?" Is not the same as "Do you believe it's possible for a god to, or to not, exist."

If one holds the position :

It's possible god(s) exist and it's possible god(s) do not exist,

I would have to think their answer to the "Do you believe god exists?" question would have to be no. 

They can't believe both in a god and at the same time believe in the possibility of there being no gods.

Are you hinting at agnostic?

A few of the definitions I have read regarding "agnostic" include something to the extent of "asserting that it is not possible to know anything about god(s)."

I don't hold that position because I believe that if any god does exist there could be possible ways it could make it self known and understood.

If we go with Huxley's explanation :

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

Then I would say I agree that I am an agnostic in that sense.

One issue I have with the situation is the difference between unknown and unknowable.

And I know we have been over this before, that "gnostic" is a term in it's own right and does not have the opposite meaning to agnostic as in the theism/atheism in these discussions.

An atheist can be an agnostic, but to me all agnostics are atheists in the sense that they don't actively have a belief that any god exists.

One could believe in the possibility of a god existing yet not hold a belief that one does. That to me would be an atheist.

So I do understand that agnosticism is the term that can be used when one does not believe that a god exists, but also doesn't necessarily believe a god doesn't exist.

The label doesn't matter as much to me as long as I understand the position being presented.

The issue arose when I mistakenly took Sheri's statement to be an attestation of what atheism is rather than her own personal idea at the time.

 

Excellent post. I enjoyed reading this. 

[larryp]

On 11/5/2021 at 11:49 AM, Desertrat56 said:

And that is why your message is so unpopular. Is your belief about being the best you can be or is it about converting as many people as you can?

My belief is about the imminent destruction of this system of things and the peace and security that will follow.

[jmccr8]

22 minutes ago, larryp said:

My belief is about the imminent destruction of this system of things and the peace and security that will follow.

 

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I don't understand what the qualifier "seriously" for possible means. 

Something is either possible or it is not.

I also think it is a different question altogether.

"Do you believe in god?" Is not the same as "Do you believe it's possible for a god to, or to not, exist."

If one holds the position :

It's possible god(s) exist and it's possible god(s) do not exist,

I would have to think their answer to the "Do you believe god exists?" question would have to be no. 

They can't believe both in a god and at the same time believe in the possibility of there being no gods.

Are you hinting at agnostic?

A few of the definitions I have read regarding "agnostic" include something to the extent of "asserting that it is not possible to know anything about god(s)."

I don't hold that position because I believe that if any god does exist there could be possible ways it could make it self known and understood.

If we go with Huxley's explanation :

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

Then I would say I agree that I am an agnostic in that sense.

One issue I have with the situation is the difference between unknown and unknowable.

And I know we have been over this before, that "gnostic" is a term in it's own right and does not have the opposite meaning to agnostic as in the theism/atheism in these discussions.

An atheist can be an agnostic, but to me all agnostics are atheists in the sense that they don't actively have a belief that any god exists.

One could believe in the possibility of a god existing yet not hold a belief that one does. That to me would be an atheist.

So I do understand that agnosticism is the term that can be used when one does not believe that a god exists, but also doesn't necessarily believe a god doesn't exist.

The label doesn't matter as much to me as long as I understand the position being presented.

The issue arose when I mistakenly took Sheri's statement to be an attestation of what atheism is rather than her own personal idea at the time.

 

good post.  Saved me saying much the same thing 

its possible for us to accept that  many things possibly  exist 

but what we choose to believe exists is a more specific and different  question

eg I believe it is possible life exists on Mars 

I believe it is possible no  life exists on Mars (although it may have in the past ) 

I am actually agnostic on the question, "DOES life exist on Mars ?"and will wait until  I can know. 

 

[jmccr8]

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

An atheist can be an agnostic, but to me all agnostics are atheists in the sense that they don't actively have a belief that any god exists.

One could believe in the possibility of a god existing yet not hold a belief that one does. That to me would be an atheist.

Hi Onlooker

I really liked the way you expressed your thoughts on the last couple of posts in this thread and as you know not the only time that I have given recognition of your positions in past. Many years ago it became noticeable to me that I would walk a line in life and many ways and religious constructs is just one of them. I don't judge people for having a belief and that said do take into account what their faith brings them ( all interpretations inclusive). In my youth I felt that for some reason I would never be good enough for some people and their god constructs, mine is simple and not clouded by race, color, creed,, etal as long as you have the ability to think and exercise that ability with some regularity that is what god is our ability to create/change both ourselves and or environment.

Does god need to exist? Well when I was young I thought a god needed to exist but then none of the things I saw as doctrine taught were evident in the world I lived in in the same sense it did for others, I was judged for more than the first half of my life because of where I came from or who people thought I was and learned that if I felt regret for any action then I should look at why and adapt. That happened because of thinking about the world I live in with other like or not so like but humans like me I dealt with and still do in terms they understand that I am not looking for a god because nor do I think I need to look for one because the one that I was taught about was not reflected in gods people. 

There are good people of all religions and really no one gets in my face about god and generally doesn't take long for them to get that I don't care nor does it matter in the long run because most see me as a saved soul of some sort ( likely for their own conscious ) because they know I am good to them and all others.

 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

eg I believe it is possible life exists on Mars 

I believe it is possible no  life exists on Mars (although it may have in the past ) 

I am actually agnostic on the question, "DOES life exist on Mars ?"and will wait until  I can know. 

Hi Walker

EG one can not claim to believe that something exists and also claim that something does not exist, all one can claim is they have or do not have evidence (in the non-Walkerian dictionary)  and cannot affirm if a god exists or not. That does not mean we can not give a claim a satisfactory critic that any responsible claimant would be willing to substantiate with credible sources. You are not agnostic if you promote any religious-non-religious position and you consistently support Christian perspectives of which none of us are confused by your card shuffling skills but do encourage you not to give up on comedy maybe you can get a gig at Yuk-Yuks.

Edited November 10, 2021 by jmccr8
missed a not

[+Nuclear Wessel]

19 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

you not to give up on comedy maybe you can get a gig at Yuk-Yuks.

Comedy is not his thing.

[jmccr8]

It should be noted that it takes milliseconds to think of an answer but it takes me 15 minutes to edit/censor/type a 4 sentence response and still muck up at expressing my thoughts,

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Comedy is not his thing.

Hi Nuke

Every STAR( clown) has an audience and here we are at the Unexplained Religious Mysteries Forum, what's up with that/

[larryp]

11 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Fully agnostic towards the non/existence of an actual God type thing. 

But yet your breathing.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

28 minutes ago, larryp said:

But yet your breathing.

So are you. What’s your point? 

[Crazy Horse]

23 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Just giving back to you what you give others. 

Well that's not true.

I listen and try to agree where possible, and then try to add a few words of encouragement if anything springs to mind.

You are free to believe in what you want. (How is that belittling others?)

[XenoFish]

57 minutes ago, larryp said:

But yet your breathing.

[Crazy Horse]

22 hours ago, eight bits said:

 

Like everybody else who shares their unsupported personal opinions in the public forum, you need to accept that some readers' judgments will go against you. May you and your THAT find happiness together.

Yes.

Acceptance of everything that happens, good, bad, or ugly, is of vital importance for anyone who is interested, desirous, to harmonise and know GOD.

 

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well that's not true.

I listen and try to agree where possible, and then try to add a few words of encouragement if anything springs to mind.

You are free to believe in what you want. (How is that belittling others?)

No, you hammer on and on about how others are inferior to you. Just like a Bible thumper does. How unenlightened they are. You express a form of toxic spirituality. 

Of course we're free to believe whatever we wish. So long as it agree with the likes of others such as yourself.