MAN: to blame? GOD: benign and caring? What is the whole truth? (page 4)

Terry

I would suggest in the middle are agnostic theists (do not know, but tending towards belief in god) and agnostic atheists (do not know, but tending towards no belief in god).
Does that make sense? Is it the same as 'weak atheists'? So are there also 'weak theists'?

I cannot comprehend how one can quantify what they do not know in any way meaningful to such a designation.

It would seem the "goodies" attached to the concept of God (i.e. everlasting life, heaven or paradise, blessings, etc.) are what one attaches their values to. Consequently the loss of of God (even conceptually) is the loss of these values as far as achieving them. The emotional deficit would be felt as a kind of mourning and depression.

I feel this. I also grieve the loss of a very awesome "friend" in God whom I spoke to and "lived with" for many years intimately. The realization that I generated my own invisible friend and proceeded to interact (albeit neurotically) with him is a double whammy.

But, since I no longer have any proof set indicating the actuality of God as either person or concept I accept the loss and retain the emotional aftermath. But, I can't quantify my Not-knowingness as strong or weak. It is simply NOT-Knowing.

T.

Terry

it depends on your wording, LOL. there is much proof if what you mean by "acceptance of reality" is what i call "biology".

And I simply look at it all and consider it the consequence of antecedent conditionality. Ain't words fun?

T.

Nate Merit

Dear FlyingHighNow

Amen! Oops...er...right on!

I don't beleive the myth of Genesis either, in a literal historical or scientific way. However, the myth has percolated deep into the collective psyche of the Western world. The usual interpretation of it is not only erroneous if you look closely at the myth, but it has saddled people of the Western world with a deep sense of guilt and self-loathing, a feeling of being responsible for mess the entire Cosmos is in. Crikey!

Rather than simply dismiss the myth out of hand, which would not succeed (It's far too deeply engrained in our culture), I have chosen to give an interpretation that makes far more logical sense if one simply examines what the myth says. Also, the interpretation that I and other Gnostics give is far more mentally healthy. Rather than feel we puny humans somehow managed to muck up an All-Powerful God's plans, one can easily see that the myth says no such thing, and the 'guilt' if any lies on the shoulders of the Yahweh Elohim, the Jehovah gods.

I am finding this approach makes for some marvelous changes in the outlook of those who are able to read the myth afresh and see what it's actually saying. Once they stop blaming themselves for the condition of the earth and cosmos and blame "god," soon they are able to let go of the bible-gods entirely and have a profound inward encounter with the Source that is beyond all duality and personhood.

It may seem, in my book Jehovah Unmasked, that I am another sort of literalist, but I am not. The Bible is a book of mythology, and unfortunately the Genesis myth has been interpreted in a manner completely at odds with what the myth actually says. I am trying, in my own way, to give people an "out," a way to progressively escape the bondage this myth has placed them in. I include myself in that statement. I too needed to be freed.

Again, I am very pleased that Jehovah Unmasked has been of help to you. Order a copy directly from me, and you'll receive it autographed and personalized. Email me at [email protected] for my address.

Divine blessings to you.
Nate

Shining One

>Nope, if you are going to insist there is an intelligent design behind Earth, you have to account for the truth of the evidence, the whole truth of the evidence and nothing but the truth of the evidence. Death, fear, deception, struggle, bloodshed and chaos were all about life in its very nature from the get-go. Man is a late-commer. You can't blame him for everything.

Terry,
Nope, we don't have to account for any of the above, nor satisfy your questions at all. None of that matters except the physical facts and measurable observations that are explained already by scientists who support Intelligent Design. We are dealing with FACTS of nature and not reasons to believe.
Rex

Shining One

Hi Kid,
>What do you gain by believing in a 'pervading intelligence'? What evidence is there for this? Why does some "entity" need to be "responsible" for life, if, as you said, reality is just what it is?

Perhaps the facts just lead us to conclude that the best explanation for intelligent life is that there is intelligence behind the design! As I told Terry, it is not anyone's obligation to explain beliefs, it is only a study of the facts that lead us to the most likely conclusion.
Rex

Cygnus

I prefer to call myself an agnostic in the sense that it does not matter to me if gods exist or not. I consider myself a free moral agent regardless of whether gods exist, and I make my decisions under the assumption that none do, or if one or many do, they do not interfere for whatever reason. It is my observation that believers, people of faith, or theists, also do this at least 98% of the time.

tetrapod.sapien

rex,

Nope, we don't have to account for any of the above, nor satisfy your questions at all.

this seems particularly desperate of you rex. you are beyond having to provide proof?

AH HA HA HA!! that's funny. you make ID sound like a religion. ... whoops!

None of that matters except the physical facts and measurable observations that are explained already by scientists who support Intelligent Design. We are dealing with FACTS of nature and not reasons to believe.

rex, are you talking about this scientist? the one who came up with so-called irreducible complexity? michael behe? and yet when pressed in a court of law he concedes the following?

A key witness for the defence (the pro-intelligent design camp) conceded this week that ID does not meet the criteria, New Scientist reports.
Instead, Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, proposed a definition of theory that he had to admit was so broad, it would include astrology. Under cross examination, he also conceded that his definition of a theory was almost identical to the NAS' definition of a hypothesis.
ID's lack of scientific credibility is central to the argument put forward by Australia's scientists. In their open letter, they say that the core of the intelligent design argument relies on a belief in a supernatural entity of some form. This, they say, cannot be observed, tested validated or falsified.
Australia's News.com quotes the letter as saying: "They are free to believe or profess whatever they like. But not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for science: that is a theological or philosophical notion."

source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/21/intelligent_design/

"physical facts" you say? "measureable observations" you say? "FACTS of nature" you say?

lies. lies. LIES. you LIE for jesus. you should be ashamed.

TS

Shining One

Assertions don't make facts, Tetley. I don't need to get on the old 'merry go round' with you. I stated my position and your comments in no way refuted my statements.
Rex

Terry

it is only a study of the facts that lead us to the most likely conclusion.

Assertions don't make facts, Tetley. I don't need to get on the old 'merry go round' with you. I stated my position and your comments in no way refuted my statements.

Rex

FACTS?

Did I miss some facts? If assertions don't make facts---how did you reach conclusions?

T.

funkyderek

Did I miss some facts? If assertions don't make facts---how did you reach conclusions?

Don't be silly, Terry. Rex doesn't reach conclusions. He begins with them, then finds whatever he can to prop them up.

MAN: to blame? GOD: benign and caring? What is the whole truth?

Share this