I have discovered a surprising plethora of both atheistic and radical-religionist blogs on here. However, I have discovered one point that everyone else is either missing altogether or avoiding. It is this:
There are actually people who do not believe in God because it is comforting—some people believe in God because they have an honest and reasonable conviction that God exists.
I have found God is both tangible and explainable. In science, we make deductions based on experimentation with cause and effect. My faith in Heavenly Father is based on parallel reasoning of logical observation. In my religious "experiments" (for lack of a better word), I have discovered that certain things are true, that living these truths happens to bring order and happiness into my life, and that many things in life fall into place with an uncanny decisiveness that offers no other explanation.
I do not accept things blindly or with childlike fascination in fantasy. My intelligence would rebel at it. It is this same intelligence that rebels at atheism because atheism is in contradiction to everything I am certain of.
Sounds like deism's beliefs almost. And tell me how you can explain the existence of God? I use logic and reasoning and have yet to find any explaination of or for its existence.
Good point. That is NOT the stance that I take. Obviously revelation and spiritual confirmation is important... these are simply additional confirmations of faith and trust so I didn't spend time discussing them because I felt it would detract from what I was trying to say. People have a habit of latching onto one thing that they can argue about, and in my religious debate experience, revelation is usually it.
---------
"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. I guess I should have been more specific."
~Unknown
Are you saying Deism is not a stance you take? Revelation and Spiritual confirmation cannot be proven scientifically. You are making statements that I could say, that because of the truths i follow give me the same things it gives your life, but I don't ahve to have God. I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out that, that can't prove God, because everyone can do that whether you believe or not, at least based on the observations you give for believing in a christian god.
please explain
and i dont mean that sarcastically, i simply want to know.
I would be happy to, but I need you to be a little more specific. Explain what?
All,
Leave your comments and questions here and I will respond to them all in a part 2 post. I would stick around, but it's almost two in the morning in my hometown... =)
your religious experiments.
sorry i put it as the title and also meant it as part of the reply
Normally, the goal of an experiment is to demonstrate objectively that a hypothesis is or is not true. Can the experiments that you have performed do that?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
hey thanks for responding to my post
"In my religious "experiments" (for lack of a better word), I have discovered that certain things are true, that living these truths happens to bring order and happiness into my life, and that many things in life fall into place with an uncanny decisiveness that offers no other explanation."
if what you are doing is bringing happiness into your life, then good for you.
but aren't you still depending on something that you can not really grasp for your happiness? you say that it is tangible to you but you didn't really say how.
and when you talk about the many things in life that fall into place with an uncanny decisiveness that offers no other explanation...isn't this just an example of leaning on religion for the unknown?
i believe that everything happens for a reason; everything is explainable in science
In psychology i learned about fallacies that prevent critical thinking and false cause was one of them. i thought this was closely related to what superstitions and religion is about.
false cause- the fallacy of false cause is committed when someone concludes from the fact that two events happened in rapid succession, or have tended to happen together, that the first event caused the second. (e.g.) so when people used to do rain dances, it so happens that a day when they do it, it rains. although it doesn't rain every time they do it, that is the closest thing they can do to cause it to happen, so they will continue to do it even though there is no actual relationship.
But could your blind following of "psychology" be a false couse? Because unless you can prove that all things can be proven by science you can't rely fully on science.
And you can't prove that all things can be proven fully by science because there's no SCIENTIFIC MANNER to prove that all things can be proven by science.
It's like saying I only believe in what is scientifically proven... except for my belief in only what is scientifically proven...
Like "The only statement I believe that isn't scientifically proven is this one."
Therefore Science can't be the only way to explain things...
And tangible doesn't necessarily mean "touchable." It can also mean something "real or actual." Or something definite and not "vague or elusive."
T3
"but aren't you still depending on something that you can not really grasp for your happiness? you say that it is tangible to you but you didn't really say how."
No, I'm depending on Natural Law, the two fundamental laws. They are tangible because they are the basis of all religions, cultures and common law.
The rain dances weren't done everyday, sometimes they got lucky but mostly it was hit an miss when they did the dances.
Heyhey, I like this. Would you care to read my huge blog? Religion and God seems to be the big topic tonight.
http://www.progressiveu.org/015617-dancing-on-gods-grave
Nice blog, you have my attention. My religious beleif matches all of your hint so far.
Like katee101 I would like to know more.
In my own case I came to a definition of God that is consistant with the teachings of Jesus IMHO God=Truth. I also experimented with prayer, and was convinced to Love God.
On this blog I got involved in a debate. The discussion went back and forth on and off topic, and toward the end I did my best to explain my method in unambiguous terms. Here is a link to that post:
http://www.progressiveu.org/035310-is-god-real#comment-188878
The whole debate will probably help you see my position more thoroughly.
I am interested to hear your thoughts.
A fact is always better than an ideal
So what would you call yourself?
I would agree with everything you wrote.
T3
I would like to know more as well! How do prove God is real? I'm not too sure how much we can reply on science...but anyway, I'd like to know about the details of your religious experiences. What do you call yourself as?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
There are actually people who do believe in God because it is comforting—some people don't believe in God because they have an honest and reasonable conviction that God does not exist.
I have found reality is both tangible and explainable.
As no credible evidence exists to prove "god", I am unable to believe.
Can you, by objective exerimentation, prove this to be more truthful?
Atheists and non-Christians seem to put so much faith in "objective experimentation." So get to work.
So, without a shred of logic, you jumped straight to the conclusion that Christians are illogical and only follow Christ because they need comfort.
I'm an upper middle class American with a very blessed lifestyle. Both of my parents are living, all but one of my grandparents, and I live a very blessed life with good friends...
What comfort do I need? I came to my Chrisitan conclusion purely logically, partially by realizing that objective experimentation cannot prove everything because the only way it could prove everything is if the idea that "objective experimentation" or "scientific logic" can be proven scientifically or, for that matter, objectively...
You can't prove that all things can be proven scientifically therefore some *true* things must be scientifically unproveable...
It seems that no one even pays attention to that statement... why is that? Is it because it's incriminating to your cause? Or is it because you're illogical and hateful?
T3
You have some interesting points, although I have no idea where a few of them came from... Being illogical and tardy in response would not make one hateful... =)
To all, sorry that it has taken me so long to respond... This past week has been insane for me. I have been thinking about what you have asked and said, though. I'll post my response within the next couple days, so watch for it.
---------
"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. I guess I should have been more specific."
~Unknown
The hateful comment was in response to the comment above me... I actually thought I was responding to that one... I didn't mean it in response to you...
I'm actually on your side...
T3
Haha... that makes significantly more sense...
Y'all.... finally had time to produce the sequel... Here is my proof:
http://progressiveu.org/105603-the-other-theological-tidbit-proof
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.