Nicole commented on “Why I Don’t Believe in God,” saying:
I feel bad for you athiest. Very sad to hear how you think. I just want you to know scientist have discovered God is real and Jesus Christ is a known fact he is real he died for our sins ans rose again.
So I guess that settles it, huh? I know you’re wondering which scientist discovered “God is real” and “Jesus Christ is a known fact,” but really you should just take it on faith because that’s what God wants.
If you want to be encouraged in the One True Faith, you can read the rest:
He will be back, infact, soon.
You mightve studied the Bible but you didn’t understand bc you never really believed. God knows our heart, for he knew us even before the womb, he knew you didn’t believe. Most nonbelievers don’t believe bec they can’t understand the Bible and the Bible even states that!
I feel so bad for you nonbelievers, so bad. For you know not true joy from God, Love, wisdom, and blessings.
Please repent and accept the Lord as your savior. You don’t want to end up in eternal hell filled with sorror pain and misery.
Some of you lost your faith bc “why did God do this to me” situations, you’re selfish, and Satan does things to yu as well, his goal is to take Gods people and do whatever he can to persuade them to thinking God is fake.
Repent!
Please seek the Lord
Please accept the Lord
That is, I believe, an Epic Evangelism FAIL.
John C: Anti-no, “I” dont have any credibility either but the difference is that “I”m not... 
Custador: “Matt and Mark record “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?”; John, “It is finished”; and Luke,... 
Daniel Florien: When you have indigestion when you’re reading it, you know it’s true! 
Mary Lynne: Hmm – I wonder what a “true fairy tale” would be. Is that like jumbo... 
Antiutopia: John C — Christ himself doesn’t have any credibility with these ignorant morons — do you... 
Uzza: Cool story. It reminds me of Confucius, meeting the mad hermit of Chu, who told him it was... 
Sunny Day: Custador if you’re waiting for hope, you might want to pack a few extra lunches and update your will.... 
103 Comments
What is it with believers that makes them think that if they shout a scientist has decided that is true then it must be true. Don’t they realise that it’s not like when the Pope makes a deceleration and you have to believe it’s true.
More to the point, why is it that they never link to the paper in Nature, or whatever, so that we can evaluate the evidence for ourselves? Or at least name the scientist who did the work so we can track it down for ourselves?
I mean, “some guy said so” is less than convincing.
@wintermute
Well if you think that a book written many, many years ago with loads of made up stories in it is convincing then surely because some guy said so is also going to be convincing.
On a more serious note it never ceases to amaze me how many people manage to convince themselves of extraordinary ‘facts’ by being self selective over the information that is on offer and always having an additional reasons why something really is true even when everything suggest that it’s not. Religions, conspiracy theories and alternative medicine all rely on our ability to delude ourself when we really want to believe in something.
@Jabster: If they understood science wouldn’t it be far less likely that they’d make such bizarre comments?
And you put a great image in my head of Cardinal Rapsinger slamming on the brakes – “deceleration”!
@wintermute: “some guy said so” is the basis of all religions, isn’t it?
I wonder when they’ll realize that scientists have found evidence for evolution a long time ago (and are still finding more today), but they have yet to find ANY evidence for God. Yet they believe in God and disbelieve in evolution.
I think the lesson to learn from that is many don’t care about science at all, unless it is twisted into their faith.
The only way I can read people like Nicole is if I imagine them talking in a stupid sounding voice. If I consider that they probably consider themselves rational and open minded, and probably vote, people like Nicole scare me.
I met The Scientist once. He discovered the truth by talking to a donkey and a snake. To verify what he found out, he rocketed off through the stratospere to heaven. He isn’t sure how but he did make it back. Upon arriving he watched Jesus fling some demons into a herd of pigs who almost trampled him on their way over a cliff.
After taking some Pepto-Bismol he went back to bed.
“Epic” isn’t a strong enough word.
Completely ignoring the horrible spelling, it baffles me that a person that thinks like this can be a functioning member of society.
Now, I am not saying this just because of her unwaivering faith in God, but because the reasoning is just so utterly ridiculous, I don’t see how a mind that thinks like this can function. It’s fascinating.
The fact that this woman undoubtedly canceled out my vote last November really gets on my nerves.
Wait, what, the reason that I don’t believe is that I *can’t* understand the bible?
But, but, if I am as god made me, then it is god who made me unable to understand the bible. Right?
How then could god find fault in my doing exactly what god wanted me to do, and made me to do???
In this case I expect to be sent to heaven, and get god’s blessing, not despite my lack of belief, but because of it, since I’m being a good servant of god and doing as god willed me.
Why is that woman angry at me, instead of being happy for me? Does she object do god’s will? Does she want me to go against what god wanted me to, and defy his will? She should be ashamed of herself.
Fundies often use phrases like “the joy of the Lord”, “I know in my heart”, “the wisdon of the Lord”, “the peace that passes understanding”, and of course, “faith is the evidence of things not seen”. What’s really going on is a basic misunderstanding of the certainty bias.
Certainty bias is a feeling which arises from a different sector of the brain than our reasoning skills and produces a feeling of correctness. An example would be the aha moment. Everyone experiences this pleasurable brain function at the time we come to ‘certainty’ whether or not the decision being made is correct. It is actually a range of emotions and sometimes can be quite strong. For instance, religious litergy that is smartly run can produce very strong feelings of certainty. I was a victim of this in my earlier days.
The fundie who is the subject of this thread is a very good example of someone who’s reasoning circuits are shorted out by her emotional spectrum.
One of the great things about the scientific method is the way it checks certainty bias. Public spectacles and preaching in general rely heavily on emotive “arguments”.
@McBloggenstein:
Actually, I think EPIC is too strong a word.
This isn’t a particularly clever or new argument, and on the intellectual wrasslin’ scale measures about one brain spasm on a scale of a hundred.
Eric Kemp, for example, could at least get the needle to forty.
If Nicole is still out there, I’d second wintermute and ask her to link to the peer-approved journal in which the research proving the reality of a god was published.
In fact, the research that has been conducted seems to nibble away at God.
Prayer not only doesn’t help, it may be actvely harmful to the sick.
All those “near-death experiences“? Turns out they’re nothing more than an indication your brain is starving for oxygen.
And religious faith itself may have evolutionary roots–giving large groups of people something more in common than simply attenuated family ties and thereby enabling group action in larger groups.
As I recollect, archaeologists have suggested that Neanderthal Man, or early Cro-Magnons invented both religion and war. Which makes sense: If you look at the red states you can see that the trend clearly continues to the present day (I suspect that, as the old song says “You can’t have one without the other”).
However, the discovery Nicole alludes to is going to wipe all of that away, no doubt.
Akismet’s gonna hate this comment …
Well, that settles it.
When I was a Christian, I was always taught that people aren’t Christian usually because they don’t know about Jesus. If only they KNEW what Jesus did for them! If only they KNEW the path to salvation! You so often hear of Christians talk about how they can best share the “Good News” with atheists and nonbelievers. “Maybe nobody has ever shared with them the story of Jesus.”
I think one of the hardest things for Christians to get their head around is that some atheists know the Bible, and the teachings of their particular sect, probably even better than they do.
There was a youth group downtown handing out tracts and witnessing to people. One teenager asked me something to the effect of “do you know how to get to heaven?” “Why, yes!” I responded. I explained how a person has to admit they are a sinner in need of a savior, how Jesus paid the price for our sin, how through our faith in Jesus our sins are washed clean, and how once we’ve repented of our sins we commit our lives to Jesus, and how we have an assurance of salvation. I went over the “Roman road” with him quoting it pretty much verse for verse. I told him how I prayed the sinner’s prayer as a young boy, had a personal relationship with Jesus and spoke with him through prayer, and how I had served in my church for almost 20 years in music ministry, foreign missions, and pubic speaking – much to the young man’s excitement.
“But,” I said, “I came to realize that unfortunately it is all a delusion. I love the idea of Jesus, and I desperately wanted him to be real, but I had to be honest with myself and accept the truth that there is no god.”
I had to step back because I thought his head was going to explode as he tried to process the idea that somebody KNEW almost everything there is about Jesus, and yet came to believe he wasn’t real.
Aw, Christian apocalypticists … if they weren’t so annoying and silly, they’d be cute.
*facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm*
If only they KNEW what Jesus did for them!
That’s actually something I have to chuckle about. What, exactly, did Jesus do that was so brilliant? He got hung up on a cross in excruciating agony for a day or so, yeah … not pleasant by any means but that bit usually plays second fiddle to his big supposed sacrifice.
He died.
Then he got better.
When you boil the situation down, he’s loved because he took a three day nap and then headed back to eternal paradise.
Not really a big sacrifice in my book. If I took a three day nap, all that would happen would be my girlfriend would poke me and go mow the grass. Heh.
Don’t you know? God gave up a three-day weekend for your sins!
I read her whole rant the other day. It was like watching a train wreck, for awhile. You watch the train fall apart, but then you have to finally look away because you don’t really want to witness the carnage, it’s just too sickening.
I know they don’t have the intellect to understand how ridiculous they sound, and how truly stupid they make themselves look by doing stuff like that with a 5th grade education, but it still boggles my mind. I’m guessing she is very young, or not a native English speaker.
Good for you! You showed us an ignorant person with good intentions. What a great job you’ve done in you war against faith. Just know that there are just as many ignorant atheists.
Your blogs are always typical. There is no attempt at respect, or mutual understanding, only childish mudslinging. I can tell you right now, you’ve proven evolution to me. How? Because monkeys throw their poop too.
In reading your blog I’ve realized how narrowminded you are for an “open minded” person.
P.S. http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2009/01/whose-name-is-on-cup.html
Tim,
I never attacked Nicole personally. I said this was an “epic evangelism fail.” Do you think this was a good way to evangelize to atheists? If not, then we agree. And I’m sure there are many ignorant atheists as well — thankfully, though, they’ve kept their distance from my site.
@Tim Kurek:
> “You showed us an ignorant person with good intentions.”
No, we were shown an ignorant person demonstrating arrogance and unjustified assumptions while passing judgement on us. That deserves to be slapped down.
Any atheist who says something of equal stupidity and arrogance deserves to be slapped down verbally as well. Feel free to do so. It would be an improvement from your current generalizations.
But don’t expect people to be automatically respectful of a Christian belittling them with her faith.
Sorry, Tim Kurek, but what exactly do you expect? The name of this blog is “Unreasonable Faith” and the comment of this lady is a perfect example of how unreasonable faith can be. (And, I would add, it shows how desperate some believers must be, literally every excuse, true or not, is put forward: “A scientist has discovered God is real so it must be true!”)
But maybe this blog is not really your cup of Jesus…. Eh, tea, I mean!
Tim, often accusations of narrowmindedness fall of deaf ears when they come from someone who hasn’t shown the slightest indication of being open minded.
If you have specific issues, please describe them. If all you have is the feeling that you need to lash out because your closest beliefs have been called into question, then don’t expect to be pleased with the results.
Unless of course your true purpose was to generate traffic on your blog, right Tim? You know.. stray comment, raise a few feathers, get some attention… profit!
LOL@Aor–now I’ve got the Underpants Gnomes stuck in my head.
And Tim…TROLLING FAIL.
Hmmm, I read the link about “African Christians” and I’m not sure what they are smoking but I want some.
Christianity is one of the largest problems in Africa. You have tens of thousands of Africans dying every year from AIDS and other STDs because of the crusade against condoms. Also, Christians in Africa support laws against gays and support their imprisonment (or worse).
When Western Christians start backing African Christians who do more harm then good, we have a problem. For example, Rick Warren has close ties to a pastor in Uganda whose “stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa/full/
Sarah Palin was prayed over by an African (it’s a continent not a country) whose claim to fame is hunting down and exposing women as witches. http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html
Africa is still suffering under the choke of imperialism – only the masters have changed from governmental to economic and religious. While it is hard to deny that some good has been done in Africa by Christians, looking at the scores who die every year and the many more who are imprisoned or persecuted by Christians, it is a hard to argue that the religion does more good than harm.
Yes it was a failure to evangelize properly… But mocking her is not getting you anywhere. I personally wouldn’t remotely talk to you about my faith as she did, because it doesn’t remotelyanswer any questions that you might have. It is a poor salespitch made by someone who has no clue how to write the English language.
Also to whoever said I was trying to promote my blog, you need only to look at the link I posted to know it’s not mine. Rather it’s an article I happened upon that I thought was interesting.
Do you see how defensive you guys are? The only way to communicate is to drop our defenses and speak with respect towards each other. I totally respect your beliefs and your beliefs. I have no desire to change those beliefs, only to stop the one sided and close minded drivel that I’ve grown so accustomed to seeing from those claiming to be open minded.
If you to talk, let me know, but I’m not here to argue. I would rather learn from you and do my best to share things with you that might teach you more about the faith I’ve given my life to.
tim kurek
And if you actually do check out my blog you will see that I get hated on more by Christians than I do by atheists…
http://TheEvolutionofGod.wordpress.com
@Tim -
“Yes it was a failure to evangelize properly… But mocking her is not getting you anywhere. ”
If you’ve hung around the atheist blogosphere for any length of time, you should recognize a drive-by preaching when you see one. This person oozes with superior condescension – “I feel so bad for you nonbelievers, so bad.” It does not seem that she has bothered to read Daniel’s bio, or lurked about the site to see what the regulars are like.
So what’s the point of this? She’s obviously not considering her audience, nor crafting her pitch to make it well received. She’s not bothering to grant us that respect. She fires off this broadside, then sails on. We’re never likely to hear from her again.
Mocking her is amusing, which allows to to squeeze some value out of an otherwise useless missive.
@Tim:
Excuse me?
Is this an example of dropping one’s defenses or being respectful? She acts as if she knows the former Christians here better than they know themselves, and I certainly get the impression that she does so because she just can’t deal with the idea that someone’s heard all the Good News and just isn’t buying it. THAT is being defensive as well as disrespectful.
Here, she is threatening us. Not that she’s really in a position to do so. I doubt this young lady actually makes the decisions about who goes to heaven and hell. Nonetheless, she’s threatening us with eternal damnation for not believing the same things she does. Respectful?
Now we’re selfish. Right. Respectful.
If you’re going to accuse the posters here of being “close minded,” how about you specifically quote some instance of someone being so and explain why it struck you that way? Otherwise, I’m going to have to assume that you are merely being defensive and disrespectful. This is a two-way street, and for someone who claims to respect our beliefs, you sure aren’t showing it. Of course, you’re in good company. You want to talk about defensive? I’ve seen plenty of believers offended by the very NOTION that there are people who don’t believe in the same magic bearded man as they do, and interpret the suggestion that maybe God might not be real is a personal attack on them.
As far as I can tell, you’re just another concern troll. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
“Also to whoever said I was trying to promote my blog, you need only to look at the link I posted to know it’s not mine. ”
Yes, but you link to your myspace page through your login name. The joke still stands.
And it was a joke. Aor was making a Southpark reference.
Okay, first I will concede a few things.
1. I understand that her “having the answer” sounds condescending. As I said prior to this response, I think her’s is an ignorant way to evangelize. You can tell that by how she speaks and how she writes.
2. About 99% of all Christians I have met have LITTLE or NO understanding of atheism at all, or other religions for that matter. I am personally very anti religion as religion is defined in modern times. The Bible, whether you adhere to it or not, says that pure religion is about A. personal morality and B. helping those who can’t help themselves. James 1:27. It also says in I Peter 3:15 that we are to be able to make a defense for the hope that is in us, WITH ALL GENTLENESS AND RESPECT. Christians don’t seem to get this, and for the most part are sheep, regurgitating what their pastors say without any personal exploration on the said topics.
3. The most vocal Christians are the minority. The ones that treat you with ignorant hate or judgment are those that don’t know their Bibles. The girl above had very positive intentions, unfortunately she was not intelligent enough to speak what she considered to be the truth with gentleness or respect.
I fully adhere to my beliefs in man’s depravity, the belief in a personal loving God, etc… but for me to force those beliefs on others is the very essence of ignorance. I interpret the gospel as a chance for freedom, and I have faith in it. If you do not, I still respect you and hope that we can come together, faith aside and tackle the issues that we can’t do as a divided society.
But here is my one question for you… If I truly believe that there is a hell, and that you as atheists are going there if you don’t “confess your sins to God” and “accept Jesus as your Savior”, then how much do I have to hate you to not tell you what I believe in? If a bus was about to hit you and I didn’t do my best to either alert you verbally or push you out of the way, I would be a pretty heartless person right? Well this girl was just trying to share it, but out of ignorance shared it poorly.
If you don’t agree with me, I encourage you to click the below link and watch the video by one of your fellow, well known, atheists…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM&eurl=http://theevolutionofgod.wordpress.com/
I hope that you guys read my comments with the understanding that I am trying to have a conversation, not preach at you! I look forward to your thoughts.
Timothy Kurek
p.s. Please don’t call me names like Troll… Honestly I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with Christians that are for the most part, idiots, but I am not one of them and would appreciate the respect that I deserve, and recognize all of you freely deserve.
“If I truly believe that there is a hell, … then how much do I have to hate you to not tell you what I believe in?”
[Damn, Penn is lookin' seedy.]
I would say that if you truly have faith that your God is just and merciful, then you shouldn’t worry.
But further, I think you should realize that most atheists in the US are ex-Christians. We know. We’ve heard lectures on TULIP. We’ve heard the fire and brimstone sermons. What can you hope to tell us that we haven’t already heard?
Many of us, frankly, know more about the history, theology and scriptures of Christianity than we did when we were practicing Christians. We’re no longer worried that reading the non-canonical gospels or studying postmodern theology might somehow jeopardize our souls. So we read, and listen, and understand far more than we did before.
And we still don’t believe. Understand, walking up to us and warning us about hell now seems absurd. How would you feel if someone you know said to you, “Buddy, I care about you. Why don’t you come with me to the Temple of Zeus? I’ll even pay for the sacrifice. I don’t want to see you get hit with a thunder bolt.” Maybe you’d appreciate the sentiment, but …
So my advice to you is not to proselytize to the de-converted. As Fred Clarke over at Slactivist put it, to proselytize is to have one poor man telling another poor man where he last found some bread. Perhaps we are poor in your eyes, but in our own we are rich. Leave us be.
Timothy Kurek said:
“But here is my one question for you… If I truly believe that there is a hell, and that you as atheists are going there if you don’t “confess your sins to God” and “accept Jesus as your Savior”, then how much do I have to hate you to not tell you what I believe in?”
Ok, let’s play a game for a minute, shall we? Let’s pretend we were over at say, McBloggenstein’s blog, talking about obesity and eating right, and taking care of oneself and one’s health. How much would we have to hate someone who came by not to try to tell them that being morbidly obese is bad for them, will likely shorten their lifespan, and degrade the quality of life while they’re here? Or, should we assume, since we’re on a blog that’s talking about health the people there are already aware of this information, and if they’re obese anyway they probably a) don’t care, or b) don’t believe in health risks associated with obesity?
The moral of the story is, we can figure it out for ourselves whether we believe it or not, and we already have all the information.
Vorjak,
Hyper calvanists believe in TULIP… that is a great minority within Christendom.
Yes, most of you have heard, and that is why 99% of the time I wait until someone asks me before sharing what I even believe. I figure if someone wants to know, they can ask.
I understand where you guys are coming from, but why not try to bridge the gap with Christians and reach out to them with at least the bond we have in humanity. Christians need to do the same. Arguing gets people nowhere!
And that is where I get frustrated at this blog… Because all it does is sit back and throw stones at others’ beliefs. Why not try to find some common ground and build an understanding? And before you answer, I do understand the name of the blog, and no you don’t have to do or take anything I say because I know I am a visitor here. I’m just saying, you would do more good to reach out than to criticize… Christians need to learn the same thing! Believe me, I am as anti Christian as you guys are, just for different reasons. Lol can’t we all just get a long?
@James-
You can be a “christian” and yet never penetrate into the spirit realm. Its analogous to having a passport and never traveling. There are various aspects of man’s being and thus he may go in an out in varying degrees tied to his or her spiritual maturity.
There are many Christians today content to live in the soulish (human) realm. There are few who go on to become mature, spiritual men & women. The difference is as night & day.
Hence, the verse from Proverbs 4:18:
The path of the just is like the shining sun which shines ever brighter unto that perfect day.
These things are not taught & understood in traditional christendom today particularly in American churches.
With respect to your Africa reference, I have friends personally involved in numerous mercy type ministries tied to resources, ie water, food, orphanages, etc and can personally share there is much good coming from these efforts to those who sit in peril, abject poverty, disease and hopelessness.
John
@Tim:
This is a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be if you BELIEVED that a bus was about to hit me even though there was no bus visible or audible and no smell of diesel exhaust. And so you roughly push me to save me from this thing that no one can see or hear or smell. But this still isn’t a good analogy, because I ride a bus every day. I know what a bus is and if I ask 100 people to describe a bus, their descriptions will be pretty much the same.
No one has seen hell and come back to tell us about it; at least not anyone credible. And if I ask 100 people to describe hell to me, I will probably get accounts that vary wildly in terms of the details.
If you go around shoving people just because you have an inkling that they might get hit by a bus despite a complete lack of evidence for that bus, I think I might be forgiven for thinking you an unpleasant person rather than a helpful but misguided one, don’t you think?
I disagree. If someone is stubbornly clinging to a belief that is demonstrably wrong, or at least not the most reasonable explanation, arguing will, if that person is open-minded enough, get that person somewhere. There is no gap to bridge, here. We are both human and we both know this already. But you believe that humans are one thing and I believe they are another, and we will not be able to “bridge the gap” as long as you believe that the human mind is powered by magic.
The only reason atheists blog about their disbelief is because there IS no common ground. You seem to think that what is missing here is understanding. Incorrect. If we did a survey here, I think we would find that most of the readers understand religion just fine. I am not one of them, but I don’t really care to understand religion from the inside out as many readers here already do. That’s not to say I am unwilling to hear arguments for theism; I’m not axiomatically opposed to the notion of God, I just find it lacking any evidence or explanatory power.
I am sorry you perceive our defenses of our disbelief as “throwing stones.” That may be this “Christian persecution complex” I hear so much about. Ultimately, there simply isn’t much you can talk to an atheist about if you’re unwilling to listen to them criticize religion. That’s kind of our deal, ya know?
I have a question for you though: I would argue that science is, in essence, systematic doubt about the nature of the universe, that technology is a product of science, and that technology has done more to raise the standard of living worldwide in the last 300 years than faith has in the last 3000. Given this, how is faith better than doubt? In what way is faith a virtue?
You keep claiming that a “soul” is what makes us human, which is mildly insulting to me as I do not believe in souls and yet maintain that I am, in fact, human.
Also, please provide evidence or argument for the existence of things before you talk about them as if we all agreed they were real.
Tim Kurek,
Concerning Hell:
If you knew before hand that a child of yours was going to end up in hell, would you conceive? If you would not, is your care and concern greater that God’s?
Dan L.,
I think you might be as bad as the fundamentalist christians I know…
I understand your points and will therefore respect them and leave you guys alone. It was a pleasure speaking with ya’ll.
tim
@Tim Kurek:
Calling Dan L. “as bad as the fundamentalist christians” is a cowardly cop-out. He defeated you with sound arguments and you resort to name-calling. tactics like those don’t help your case here.
@Tim:
I agree with Adamus. It’s pretty cowardly to say something like that, not explain or justify it, and then run away. Unlike the fundamentalist christians you know, I am willing to examine and re-examine my beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments; I already told you I am willing to consider the notion that God exists — in fact, I have done so many times and found all arguments and evidence with which I am familiar lacking. I readily admit that there may be a better case to be made out there.
If I seem sure in my convictions, it is only because I’ve probably spent more of my life thinking about this nonsense than is actually healthy and have constructed a pretty coherent (so far as I can tell anyway) view of the world and how it works without having to fall back on some sort of deity. Skepticism is central to my perspective and faith is antithetical to skepticism; can you see where I may be a little zealous about arguing against faith and for skepticism?
Speaking of the conflict between faith and doubt, I also notice you skipped out on my question after I had answered yours. I am sorry if you think I am not being sincere in discussing this with you. I thought this was a discussion in good faith where each of has a position and by expressing those positions (and by answering each others’ questions) we could get a better idea of what each of us believes, even if neither of us changes our opinions about anything. I am sorry you’re unwilling to be part of such a discussion.
Medical science acknowledges the conscious, subconscious and unconscious realm of *mind*.
If God is thus, to be known, He must manifest Himself in a way that unites all that we are. In other words, God ceases to be merely transcendent or immanent. There is a depth to this that no theory of human existence can adequately explain.
“Who should I say you are”, Moses asks of God? Tell them that “I am” God replies.
To those of you know this God, but have decided that seeking Him is simply too much trouble, all I can suggest is that you keep to the narrow path of the ten commandments.
[“Who should I say you are”, Moses asks of God? Tell them that “I am” God replies.]
All Hail Popeye!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TRoMSG-5I
What I said was sound. Why are you as close-minded as a fundamentalist?
1. Because you treat your faith as knowledge. Ultimately everything we believe is based off of faith, the proof of things being circumstantial.
2. Because you would rather argue then have a conversation. You speak at me, not to me. Comparing you to a fundamentalist was not me calling you a name, it was me merely referencing the fact that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I see nothing inside you that is able to humbly admit that maybe you could be wrong, even if you wholeheartedly believe you are right. Christians think they because they believe in the “true God” or “true faith” they have the right to trample the rights and the choice of others. You do the same but from the opposite standpoint. To say that you don’t desire unity is to show your true colors. Unity would allow us to take care of larger issues like poverty, genocide, the environment, etc… The world would be a much better place if we could agree to disagree. But no. You don’t want unity with someone that believes differently. That is the essence of ignorance my friend. No, I am not calling you a name out of spite, I am merely saying that you sit back proclaiming the “problems” with Christianity, yet you are guilty of the same hate as them.
I withdrew from the conversation out of respect, not because I am a “coward”. Discretion is the better part of valor. I trust I will hear back from a few of you, and that no one will have seen what I am saying. I will see ad hominem attacks, and no desire to understand each other better. You say most atheists are former Christians. That may be true. I would just question whether they were raised Christians are lived, and understood the true principles of Christianity. If you truly did understand you would know they are universally desired and accepted ways to live. My faith teaches me to love my enemy, to be angry but not to react out of that anger, to serve those who can’t serve themselves, to live for others, and to live thankfully. Who can not profit from these principles, even if you disagree with the theology of the religion? They are lessons of peace and unity.
Even if I die and that is the end of my existence, I will die happily knowing that I followed these principles and helped people while I had the chance. I’ve lived my life with honor and respect, and that is something that I would never concede to a man centered worldview.
I hope to find civil answers in response to this comment next time i check.
I apologize for my typos… It is 4am and I am beyond tired!
@Tim
You’ve talked about building bridges and respecting non-believer’s views yet when Dan. L. expressed his views you quickly turned to insulting him. You may not like the views he expressed but how do you hope to build bridges with others when you aren’t even prepared to enter a discussion unless, as it seems to me, that discussion is on your terms. I for example tend to agree with most of the points that Dan. L. raised about religion but you seemed to have failed to understand that atheists only have a single belief in common and the views held from that belief are as varied as views held by Christians. Does this mean I should also be excluded from this build bridges exercise?
Unfortunately you’ve come across as yet another Christian who thinks that respecting religious beliefs means that atheists have to not only respect a person’s right to hold a point of view but also respect that point of view regardless of what it’s based on and this includes not criticizing it as this is regarding as a personal attack.
@wintermute:
“God gave up a three-day weekend …”
~Coffee-out-my-nose funny!
Shorter Tim Kurek:
“I got pwned, so I’m takin’ my ball and my bat and going home!”
Seriously–out of sheer “respect” you left the conversation? Why didn’t I use that excuse when I stomped out of the room after arguments with my little sister?
Oh sod–the old “atheism is a faith” argument? That statement’s certainly true for you. Atheism is simpler than faith. All you need to do is follow the chain of evidence. Not believing in a god is not a faith.
…and that is usually why I don’t deal with godbots with kid gloves. It’s interesting to see how some of these godbots operate:
First, they come into a discussion claiming to be “open-minded.” They claim that they aren’t like *other* Christians–they’ve read C.S. Lewis! Other Christians have persecuted them, too! Nevertheless, they assert the same old arguments for the existence of their imaginary sky friend.
Then, as more people refute their theistic assertions for the umpteen billionth time, they huff and puff that there are ad hominem attacks. Oh, noes! The mean atheists are beating up on the Well-Meaning Christian!
Finally, as people bat away at their thin, illogical assertions, they finally decloak as the fundie godbots they always were, shift the goalposts faster than a Republican presidential candidate, claim that none of the reasoned, long posts that systematically dismantled their faulty logic were “respectful,” and then, like a sullen child who’s been told he can’t get his way, stomps out of the room.
Well done, Tim, well done! Don’t let the cyber door hit you on the cyber ass!
Tim: Why don’t you respect people’s right to base what they believe on what they can actually experience and demonstrate? Seems pretty closed-minded to me.
Why do atheists have to totally respect that you just know that God is real and loves you, but you don’t have to respect that there’s just no reason to believe that you’re right?
Tim:
I read the comments to some of your most recent blog posts at http://uriahministries.wordpress.com/ – all three comments on your last ten or twelve posts there, plus the 22 comments on http://uriahministries.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/confessions-of-a-ragamuffin/ (because it’s linked to from YourSpace, and thus easy to find), and at http://theevolutionofgod.wordpress.com/; and I can’t find any examples of a) Christians “hating on” you; or b) atheists commenting in any way whatsoever.
The closest I can find to any kind of disagreement is:
<blockquote.Tim, I was thinking about what you said.,..about being balanced.
I do not see how being balanced is an issue? Nor do I see that as being biblical.
If that is what you mean by Christians “hating on” you, no wonder you see us as being horribly closed-minded and disrespectful simply because we don’t automatically agree with your precise interpretation of scripture.
I’m sorry that you feel you only have to respect people who agree with you. It’s going to make it very hard for you to have any kind of meaningful discussion that isn’t either an echo chamber or a fist-fight. Please try and find the middle way; it’s a lot more satisfying.
@Tim
You clearly aren’t making any attempt at bridging any gaps or understanding my position. I made it clear that doubt, not faith is central to how I approach knowledge. And this is the very reason why I think argument is the correct approach. (Incidentally, argument is a type of conversation; a conversation in which the participants each have a distinct position and try to support that position through reason and argument. Arguments are adversarial but they don’t have to be ad hominem.) When I argue with someone with different beliefs than myself, my beliefs are challenged and I am forced to assess the quality of my rationale for those beliefs. In many cases, this has led to me throwing out those rationales as unsound and finding new beliefs. This is why doubt is superior to faith; by doubting what I already “know,” I improve myself incrementally.
Please try to understand: just about everything I believe is contingent. I do not believe in big-T Truth except as a sort of Platonic ideal. Like any valid scientific hypothesis, my beliefs are subject to change should knew information come to light. But in discussing (if you prefer that to arguing — they mean the same thing in this context as far as I’m concerned) the world and the nature of knowledge, I can only present things as I currently see them. Of course it will sound like certitude; why should I have to qualify everything with a “maybe” or “”in my opinion”? That should be understood at the outset. You are imputing me with more certainty in my beliefs than I actually have.
So here I am, acknowledging that I know nothing at all for sure and that I am willing to knock down my whole house of cards should a reason to do so arise. That seems to me a little humbler than claiming that I have a little magic book that contains all the secrets of the universe. Humility is also a virtue, is it not? So please explain to me how I, with a philosophy that all knowledge is or should be contingent, am demonstrating any sort of faith.
You see nothing inside me at all. You are reading words on a computer screen (actually, it almost seems to me that you haven’t read a single word I’ve written). I’ve already explained that I don’t wholeheartedly believe I am right. However, I will always advocate what I believe is the most reasonable explanation, and I won’t add “in my opinion” to the beginning every time because it is a waste of time to do so. It should be understood. As far as talking to brick walls, all you have said so far is that we should be less mean, that we shouldn’t talk about stuff that we don’t agree on, etc. I disagree and explained why. You have yet to make a case for your side of this argument, so as far as I can tell, you’ve only been staring at the brick wall and not saying much at all.
Excuse me, but how does stating my opinions trample on the rights and choice of others? It seems to me that you’re the one advocating that we atheists stop expressing ourselves because we’re so gosh-darned mean. Still, I wouldn’t accuse you of trampling on my rights or choices because you don’t actually have any power over me or my actions whatsoever. And I don’t have any power over you or yours. Please drop the Christian-to-the-lions act.
Another question: if you don’t want to challenge your beliefs or argue about them, what are you doing at an atheist blog? As I’ve said before, I relish having my beliefs challenged which is why I appreciate that Daniel presents a forum in which theists can make the case for faith. But this is, again, a two-way street. When you challenge my beliefs, I challenge yours. There’s no victimization. The best case is that we each learn something; the worst is that we become slightly better writers through practice.
Poverty, genocide, etc. are non sequitirs. I think we would probably agree on those issues, but this is not a current events blog or a social activism blog, and I did not come here to discuss those issues. I came here to discuss religion; if you did not, I again have to question what you’re doing here. And on the subject of religion, we clearly have little common ground. The fact that I disagree with you on this subject does not, at least in my opinion, make me ignorant or hateful.
This post is getting long, so I am going to skip the next few paragraphs. Suffice to say that I am not saying that you aren’t a moral person or that there is anything wrong with being one. But I don’t believe one must be religious to be moral, and I would appreciate if you didn’t try to conflate the two without presenting a good reason why that should be done. I would add that characterizing me as a “brick wall” without actually knowing the first thing about does not qualify as “respect” by any definition I use.
If you’re going to imply that I’m not being civil, I would request that you quote such an instance. And I’m not counting calling you a concern troll, because your first post accused us of being big meanies, which is the definition of a concern troll.
I think I’ve already demonstrated that I’m perfectly willing to have a serious discussion with you; the problem seems to me that you’re making the case that we shouldn’t have discussions about religion at all. If this is not a correct characterization, please correct me. If it is correct, what are you doing on this blog?
@Tim:
For the record, this is not true. Calvinists are people who believe in TULIP. Hyper-calvinists are Calvinists who are on the extreme edge and do not believe in “individual responsibility” or preaching to unbelievers. Hyper-calvinism is indeed rare, but regular Calvinism is not. Just FYI.
See this for more info or if you don’t believe me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism
Indeed, I don’t think that most people outside of the evangelical subculture are aware of how pervasive an influence Calvinism is, even upon those who wouldn’t necessarily identify as Calvinists.
I just came up with TULIP off the top of my head. I was speaking broadly. You could pick any articulation of Christian thought (”Pick a creed … any creed …”) and insert it into the argument.
But I agree with Daniel and Jeff. I’m seeing references to TULIP on a number of blogs which I take to be moderate Reform Christian or Neo-orthodox.
I haven’t read all of the comments so I may be repeating this point.
Why are Christians even arguing about proof? Faith is not about logic. Faith is about believing in the absence of logic.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)”
To a person of faith, it should be perfectly acceptable for all of your family to burn in hell. Or taking money from the poor for a baseball stadium sized church. Or send a child as a suicide bomber into a crowded market place, killing infidel and faithful alike. Faith can be like that.
Coupled with God’s approval for your gruesome death or eternal torture, that’s a powerful combo. Remember. It’s only because He loves you.
I didn’t insult, Dan L. and the reason I’m not arguing back is because I would be arguing, which I don’t want to do.
What is the point? If we don’t agree on the Bible or many other things, why should I even respond? Especially when people are commenting and are being rude about everything I say…
There is no point.
Tim:
Everyone seems to be being perfectly civil towards you. Of course, they’re saying that you’re wrong, but that’s hardly the same as being rude, is it?
@Dan L-
I appreciate the chasm we are attempting, not so much to bridge but a least to peruse….together.
That man has a soul (mind, will & emotions) is a common theme throughout the history of mankind in both “religious” and unbelieving cultures. We may respectfully disagree as to whether it is of an eternal nature or not.
Being new to the atheist language, please accept my sincere apologies for any offense…I did not intend to offend.
I left the notion many years ago that my body was…me, the sum totality of the self. So please forgive my presumptions.
JC
I would have to agree with wintermute. Why do the religious not use references. A single link would be sufficient. And a name would not be that difficult.
I appreciate Metro use of links to the scientific studies that attempt to prove how religion is unable to influence “hard fact”.
Tim Kurek, you are in a tight situation. Arguing logically about faith is not possible. Faith requires a “closed-mind”. God must be at the center of any data, interpretation, or statement. Being “open-minded” means not having a pre-conceived idea eclipse an interpretation of data. Unfortunately, all humans have bias. Minimizing the human bias is the only way to have a conversation that does not end in an argument. The “God” bias cannot be minimized. As a result, all conversations between Christians and Atheist will end in disagreement.
OT, Daniel,
When will you be posting more “An Evil God?”. It is a great idea. I am looking forward to more!
@dc-agape: The next post should be tomorrow, God — er, me — willing.
@John C.
I’m not sure I’m aware of any “unbelieving cultures.” Care to give an example?
I can deal with “soul” as a metaphor, but I really don’t think that such a thing exists, and what it would represent as a metaphor is very poorly defined. When talking to someone (like me) who’s an out-and-out materialist I think the term could only muddy the water unless you want to get down and dirty trying to define it.
I don’t think I would say that the body is the totality of the self, though, but then, I have mathematics degree and work in software. I tend to think in terms of systems, and in the case of self-awareness or consciousness or mind or whatever you want to call it, I think it’s misleading to say “the mind is the brain” just as it would be misleading to say “Microsoft Windows is the bit pattern on such-and-such sectors of the hard drive.” So I think we may have some common ground there, although I think it’s clear that we disagree on the nature of the mind at a more fundamental level.
Regardless, I appreciate your sincere apology. I have argued before with theists that claim that atheists are subhuman or soulless and all other kinds of nasty things, and I apologize to you for mistaking you for such a person.
@Tim:
Christianity depends on the gap, as do you:
Never concede = unbridgeable gap
@Dan. L
Can you clarify what you mean by this: “I tend to think in terms of systems, and in the case of self-awareness or consciousness or mind or whatever you want to call it, I think it’s misleading to say “the mind is the brain””
Are you saying that the mind is an emergent property of the functioning of the brain and body?
@Dan L-
My wording of “unbelieving cultures” was a poor choice I agree. If the term soul is commonly held to mean man’s mind, will & emotions…or “systems” as you tend to see things…perhaps that is as good a launching point and common ground as we may find? And as such…we will take it.
No, none of us are subhuman (de-valued) in any way due to our current mindset, beliefs, etc….quite the opposite.
While your colleagues may call me crazy, delusional, etc. (and they may be right lol) I dont think unkind or demeaning would be included….at least I hope not.
The basic valuing of humanity (life) is a key tenent.
JC
I’ve run into “Tim” on another apologetic blog. His approach there was basically the same as it is here: When someone of the Christian faith’s views are being challenged(and said person is clearly losing, or is demonstrably wrong), defend them by proceding with ad hominem attacks. After all, WWJD?
; )
In Reason, boomSLANG.
“…eternal hell filled with sorror pain and misery…”
Did she mean “sorror[ities]“? If so, I’ll be converting immediately. Eternity and a day with the Phi Mu’s? No thanks! I’ll believe whatever you want.
On the other hand… what if she means the kind of “sorror[ities]” you see on the TV and B-movies? Great news for shallow lesbians & straight men with uncontrollable libidos.
Boy, this religion stuff sure is hard to figure out. Thank Gawd those scientists can show us the proof.
“What is the point? If we don’t agree on the Bible or many other things, why should I even respond? Especially when people are commenting and are being rude about everything I say…
There is no point.”
Why did you come here again? Oh, yeah you were Trolling.
Tim
Seriously? By that way of thinking, why should anything be discussed? Isn’t debate between differing viewpoints the best way to arrive at helpful conclusions?
If anything, take this as a chance to strengthen your views at least.
It’s amazing that even though people believe in the unbelievable so blindly, that you’d think that since they are so sure that their view is correct that they would not take offence when that view is challenged, because that is the first thing someone does who is not confident in their position.
@Vorjack:
Well, that is my tentative belief pending further evidence, though I’m not sure I would use the word “property.” The mind is one of those areas where the jury really is still out science-wise.
I actually think of the mind as a feedback loop that modulates and transforms sensory input into motor output, but I think even that is a severe oversimplification assuming it’s anywhere near correct in the first place.
@John C.
Well, you’ve stuck it out on the comments here despite a barrage of criticism. That suggests to me that you’re sincere in trying to learn a little about atheistic points of view. Personally, I like having a little diversity of opinion here — it keeps us all a little more honest.
Anyway, I’ll refrain from concluding that you’re crazy or delusional since I’m pretty sure that just about everyone has at least a few beliefs that aren’t built on reason and evidence. And I know how uppity we heathens can get when our unbeliefs are challenged, so I appreciate the patience and respect that you’ve displayed.
Guys-
Here’s the issue…from everything I can gather. There is little appreciation for any other possible means other than the beloved reason by which belief or faith may actually be concluded to be a credible/logical conclusion.
So maybe its not really about reason vs faith so much, but rather the means by which one determines such things. The man with the pick ax is content to hoe the back forty acres until the man with the tractor shows up on the scene.
Perhaps then…this old quote may come into play…please give it some serious thought…as always I look fowd to your responses:
Upon the plane of the mystical, reason no longer possesses that strength and power, which it has within philosophy, for then it is upon a trans-rational plane. A man, caught up into the mystical plane, into a mystic contemplation, then “becomes bereft of the reliance upon reason”, he surmounts reason.
Does reason become altered or otherwise enlightened by revelation in what has been received upon the mystical plane?
In many ways…this is our real dilemma and the better question we should be exploring.
JC
@John C:
If you haven’t read it, try Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. I’m not sure that the dichotomy it explores is exactly what you’re talking about, but it’s similar and I think you would be able to relate it to this question. I always thought of it as a novel but I saw it on a philosophy shelf at Borders today.
It is largely about those parts of human experience that don’t admit to scientific or logical analysis, such as beauty and quality. It’s a little disturbing in some ways, but I think it’s ultimately a very positive book if you read the ending the right way.
You’re also reminding me of a passage from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
“Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or parcel of God.”
Is this the sort of experience you are describing? If so, I think I can relate. RWE was once a favorite of mine and helped to get me through a rather unhappy time in my life. Here is the passage that I think appealed to me the most:
“Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?”
Notice he says “original relation to the universe” and not “original relation to God.” For some, the two might be interchangeable; I suppose for myself if one defined “God” as “natural law”, then I wouldn’t object to the latter either. It doesn’t really matter as long as I follow Emerson’s advice because he is urging me to define my own place in the universe without being beholden to tradition or history. Both passages are from “Nature.”
Do we have any evidence or reason to believe that this “mystical realm” even exists? I mean, do you really expect people to abandon reason and thought just because you say so?
Because one particular bronze age cultic god says so.
@john c
Here’s the issue…from everything I can gather. There is little appreciation for any other possible means other than the beloved reason by which belief or faith may actually be concluded to be a credible/logical conclusion.
Reason. Logical conclusion. Go look up the definitions of those words before you so misuse them again.
Sorry, quote fail in last comment. I was too busy destroying John’s crap to backquote properly.
Dan L-
Thanks for the insightful and enjoyable response. Can you teach that to your colleagues? lol
Take Care,
JC
John, when you learn not to lie you will begin to get treated with respect. Your pattern of deception and evasions is clear, by which I mean that you treat us with an astonishing lack of respect. Naturally I respond by treating you with no respect. Once you start making sense, once you learn to study what words mean rather than redefine them for your own deceptive purposes, you will perhaps someday be worthy of a small amount of respect.
Aor-
I think you have gotten to the point where anything I say is summarily dismissed prior to serious, open consideration.
Actually, I posed a interesting question…but your bashing swings into motion upon reading the letters….John C…thereby inhibiting your ability to…reason…at…all. lol
Hang in there A-
JC
“JC”
…wait a second!
John C:
Well, I’m having the same trouble as the others with this “mystical plane” stuff, but I thought I might have some insight into what you were trying to say, so I was asking if you thought that I’m thinking along the correct lines.
You describe the passage above as a quote; is it a quote of anyone in particular? Could you provide some context for the passage or clarify it, perhaps in terms that don’t involve magic? Do you think that Emerson’s description of a transcendent experience is the sort of thing you are talking about in that passage?
Not trying to be rude, just trying to understand what you’re asking us.
Wintermute: “Do we have any evidence or reason to believe that this ‘mystical realm’ even exists?”
No; nothing in the way of objective evidence. And interestingly, the “old quote” we are asked to consider starts out…
“Upon the plane of the mystical…[etc., etc]”
If people who insist(presuppose) this “mystical” realm exists would show some consistancy – in other words, if they’d accept the “mystic” claims of those who are of opposing religious persuasions, then maybe we could at least begin to take the notion seriously. Until then, blatant double-standards & compartmentalization is what we can expect.
John, when you destroy your own credibility as you have repeatedly done, then yes indeed anything you say can be discarded outright. Those are the consequences of being known as a deceptive person. If you want to correct that, then YOU must change your deceptiveness. A good first step would be to apologize for your lies and that would require admitting to them. Lets start with the whole not-being-here-to-proselytize thing, then move on to the not-having-a-religion thing. Those two lies alone leave you with little chance of being regarded as credible.
Don’t even bother pretending that you haven’t been caught lying multiple times since you came to this blog.
Not that I expect you to admit to anything or learn from your mistakes. Those actions would be more honorable than you seem likely to behave.
By the way John, are you just going to pretend that you used the words ‘reason’ and ‘logical’ correctly? I mean seriously. Each time you avoid responding to clear and accurate criticisms your duplicitous nature shows.
Respond to those issues. Learn what the words actually mean, and if you want to be treated with respect than show us that you have learned what those words mean by retracting the quote of yours from a few posts above.
Dan L-
Thx…I think RWE had more of what I would call a child-like “wondering” quality…which can play a part in a pre-lude sort of way to a higher, mystical change of consciousness I was referring to. If there is a place higher than and superior to but not in competition with reason than that was more where I was going.
So far..no other real responses from the forum. It appears there is only one realm, the realm of reason in which there is any comfort & confidence, thats ok.
As far as the quote…Plotinus…ancient mystical philosopher who believed in the division, or systems approach to man’s being…ie spirit, soul, body. This was apparently pretty edgy back then…I dont know, thought it (the quote) was helpful to my question, in narrowing it down.
Thx Dan
McBlog-
Nah…He was here a week ago…but now you will just have to settle for plain ol’ me! lol
JC
Who, me? What did I do?
Also, it is my experience that very often Christians who claim to be “open minded” and “reasonable” and who “want to have a dialogue” usually really mean “I’d like to express my unfounded beliefs without any risk of criticism. If you don’t automatically agree with me, or at least give my unfounded beliefs the respect and deference I feel they deserve, then you are by definition attacking/persecuting/being mean to me!”
The persecution red herring is their “get out of being pwned free” card.
It’s a very common tactic among creationist forum trolls, and I’ve seen it happen an uncountable number of times on virtually every blog I have visited. Dan L’s “concern troll” comment was very appropriate, judging by Tim’s behavior in this and prior threads. Usually the concern trolls turn out to be the most disingenuous in their posts and motivations for posting as well.
I disagree with your assessment of what motivated Emerson. Might I remind you that he attended Harvard Divinity School and only after intensive study of Christianity became something of a heretic. I have a feeling he was better versed in Christian theology than yourself and was familiar with the notion of revelatory experiences, and perhaps had a few of his own (perhaps one such event was what turned him away from the Book).
So I have to ask again that you clarify your question, because I am not at all sure what it is you are asking. What is the mystical plane? If I went there, how would I know where I was? Is it a state of being? A feeling or emotion? I think the other posters here might feel more obliged to take you seriously if you could describe what you’re talking about a little more clearly.
Ah yes, the old “mystical plane”. Basically, whatever science hasn’t found a rational explanation for yet = the “mystical plane”. You know…that stuff…out there…beyond! I thin the Grateful Dead also had a jet called the “Mystical Plane” once.
Here’s another “Mystical Plane” which also happens to be the first 20 results on Google when you search for the words “Mystical Plane”:
http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Plane-Of-Evil/dp/B000QNPE9I
JC,
I thought we just called the things we couldn’t understand “The Aether”.
On a completely unrelated side-note; I recall from the dim recesses of my memory, my track coach from high school never cursed at us for having two left feet, etc. He always barked out, “Jimminy Christmas!”
@Dan L-
You still put any weight on formal education, degree’s…ie Harvard School of Divinity? Yea…I bet he got a BS (bull#$@%) degree there…or maybe even a Phd (piled high & deep) degree.
No man is a “learned’ man…this is highly useless in the things that pertain to life & peace & joy my friend.
If you really want to be “in the know” then all you need to do is go back to pre-school, before the indoctrination process begins and stay child-like…thats the secret to a “higher” education. lol
JC
@John C
So the secret to learning is to not know anything. Never have I seen a clearer and more obvious support for willful ignorance. You are anti-knowledge, John. Anti-intellectual. You attack that which you fear, and you clearly fear knowledge. Why? If your beliefs are true, wouldn’t knowledge, all knowledge, agree with your beliefs? Why are you so ashamed of your beliefs that you are unwilling to see them evaluated openly and honestly by knowledgeable and informed people? Why would you want to keep people ignorant?
You should be ashamed of yourself John.
Aor-
Just the opposite…no shame in love. Father doesn’t shame us…that’s a product of the fall of man…Jesus restored us back to our original standing which is unconditional love, affirmation, acceptance…love.
No shame on me bro…
JC
So again you pretend to deny what you said. Now you want people to be educated, yet that contradicts your own words from two comments earlier. All you ever do is babble words with no attachment to their actual definition.
You stated that people need to go back to a child like state and stay there, then they will find the secret to a higher education. The meaning of this seems clear. The less people know, the less critical they are, the less skeptical, the more they will know.
The contradiction is clear. Your words are simply false. Wrong. Not just baseless, but outright wrong and provably so. Stop saying stupid things like this, because your words are the definition of willful ignorance. You act like this is the key to knowledge. Ignorance is truth! You fool. You sad sad fool.
You are anti-intellectual, John. Don’t deny it, your words speak clearly. Be proud of it. If you are truly not ashamed of your words and your opinions, then you should not avoid taking credit for them. What you are doing now is just a childish attempt to not accept the consequences of your own actions and words. You may pretend thats not shame, but anyone reading your words will know better. You run around like a chicken with its head cut off, hoping for a way out of the meaning of your own words. Eventually you will either learn to defend your points or learn to not make foolish points.
Its been a few weeks, and you still haven’t learned just how ignorant you sound. Now you support willful ignorance. Whats next?
I do put weight on formal education — I put weight on my own formal education daily. My education in science and mathematics has helped me to excel at my current job and has opened up greater opportunities in other areas at my workplace. It has also deepened and honed my appreciation of the natural world. My exposure to philosophy and other liberal arts as a part of my formal education has led me to new ways to view myself, my fellow man, and the nature of the world itself. I was even able to squeeze in a few classes on poetry, literature, and music, and the art and insights into it those courses provided enrich my life to this day.
While I have learned much since college, it was in college that I learned HOW to learn, and I have no illusions that I could be where I am now without that education. The degrees themselves, which you use to mock the very notion of education, are simply signposts on the journey; they have no meaning beyond reminding one of the work put into the educational experience and the benefits derived.
I strongly disagree that education is not applicable to life or peace or joy. Learning brings me more joy than just about anything else in life; my one regret about the way my life has gone was that I didn’t stay in school and dedicate my life to learning.
Of course, there is something to your exhortation to remain childlike. An education is useless if you fail to question the things you are taught. But it was partially through my education that I learned how to question what I am taught, and learned to ask childlike questions. Let’s not forget that this was Einstein’s approach to theoretical physics, and it would be hard to deny that he was a learned man. And again, perhaps it was Emerson’s education that led him to question those things he had already learned.
But you were supposed to describe a little more clearly what this “mystical plane” is. I’m still not certain I understand.
@Dan L-
Thanks…as usual I appreciate the civility in which you intend to communicate. Thanks for sharing a little more about your personal experience, both the positives and the regrets which we all share in common.
Obviously, I was being a little tongue in cheek. Do I believe in education? Absolutely. I was only trying to make the point that it has its place…and when it comes to the mystical, the spiritual or the true essentiality or higher life states…it can sometimes be a great hindrence in that it exalts and fortifies the other faculties, ie reason, logic (intractably) above any others thereby diluting the siginificance of the innocent (original, child-like) capacities of man(kind).
I LOVE your quote about learning how to learn as I think that is one of today’s major limitations in the education system. Much of the awe…the wonder, etc is flushed out being reduced to memory skills or systematic processes (moo’ve’m out cow-hands) kind of approach.
As far as the mystical plane goes…I would have to go way back into my understanding of man’s true being, his history, etc to do this justice but here is a little overview.
First…I believe man’s true (core) nature to be that of a spiritual being and not merely (only) physical . I base this on both experiential and scriptural intuitions. A couple reference’s for you (for communicative purposes only)…”for the things which are visible are merely temporal, but those which are unseen…these are of an eternal (permanent, lasting) quality”. And “the things which are seen were made by that which is unseen”. I do consider (much to the chagrin of the forum) the quantum world (unseen) to be a model for the spiritual. I cant go into all the why’s here.
This is why I say I left the notion many years ago that my body was…me. A fairer analogy may actually be found in nature, particularly the pomegranate. While unsightly on the outside…what exquisite beauty on the inside and quite the teacher in itself. But then again…I’m kind of “fruity” lol. One would never suspect the inside to be so very illustrative or beautiful if he never “sliced one open”. It would forever remain a mystery. This is why i made the “mining” analogies…is there anything, or anyOne inside us worth “digging” for. Christ IN you the mystery of the ages…Col 1:26-27.
Through seasons of fasting, being sequestered, prayer, study, no outside influences (no tv, no alcohol, no women, no caffeine, no sugar, etc) I have experienced this “mystical” realm. Our bodies (the flesh aspect) require, demand might be a better word that we constantly gratify its desires, food, comfort, sex, etc. If we deny the flesh of its desires, shut our ears to its constant screaming then we essentially diminish its power over us and we then become more sensitive to the spiritual aspect of our being and inversely begin to “hear” its longings, desires, etc which are always the opposite of the fleshly desires in that they are God-towards. So we “count the cost” the question being what do we want to hear, to know. The wisdom of this makes little or no sense to the natural, unrenewed man or mind I understand.
One of the greatest misconceptions about Jesus, christianity, etc is that its about…religion (endless rule-keeping devoid of love) when in fact this is not at all the message He brought. True christianity is a spiritual (mystical) experience (Jesus saying I will be in you and you will be in me). We are essentially spiritual beings “trapped” in a physical form due to our having departed from our original matrix in the fall.
I am of course a believer, a big fool. I believe Jesus and have commited to the “journey” with Him. As I have more and more gets “opened” to me through trusting Him which requires that I divorce myself from my own reasoning (self or faulty learning & doubts) but afterwards I receive more and more and my reason becomes more in line with spiritual (eternal) truth and is therefore elevated and not limited.
Trusting Him is the thing. Few of us have any understanding of His true nature, love or heart for us so we (naturally) will not easily relenquish ourselves to Him…completely.
Obviously what I have shared with you I did not receive through reason but rather child-likeness and trusting which Jesus said were critical if I ever wanted to enter into this “kingdom” of God in the here and now.
But like I said…I’m a really big fool and have come to know and trust Him completely.
Thanks Dan…we can continue if interested but I think I have probably put you through enough for now.
Take care…JC
John, the only reason to believe that education is a danger to your beliefs is if your beliefs do not match the facts. It is that simple. If the facts matched your beliefs you would encourage people to get educated on that subject. When they don’t match, you don’t want education. Obvious, isn’t it? You are not interested in the truth. You are interested in supporting your beliefs, DESPITE the truth. Again and again you show this.
You are willfully ignorant, John.
Oh, and I would appreciate if you responded to this article:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/29/believers-make-your-best-case-for-god/#comments
You got caught making yet another bigotted statement and haven’t responded on that article since. No retraction, no admission, no apology. That is how truthful you are, John. You speak often of the truth, but when it comes right down to it you LIE. You are a horrible witness for your beliefs. Again and again you lie and get caught and come back to lie some more. How do you expect to convert people with lies?
@John C:
Don’t know if you’re going to check this again, but wanted to say something about the above. You assume here that you’re finding a “mystical plane” by shutting out the body’s needs. From a scientific perspective, another hypothesis would be that your body (including the brain) is a machine and by not keeping it fueled, oiled, and tuned up, you’re causing the brain to work incorrectly, causing it to fail at its primary function — representing the natural world. Either way, you have an “otherworldly” experience. But I think my interpretation may be a somewhat better hypothesis given what we know about how the body (including the brain) works.
Not to try to tear down any experiences that are significant to you, but I wanted to point out that even if I experienced such a thing, I wouldn’t immediately conclude that it implied the existence of God. It’s relatively easy to fool the mind, and I’m of the opinion that one must be especially careful about conclusions reached through intuition and inward seeking.
I think John C got tired of claiming he was a different species and stopped posting.
One Trackback
[...] Remember to make claims of either “There is a God” or “There is no God“ [...]