I don't know. I never had one (an invisible friend as a child), and neither have either of my children. Funny that, because all three of us have vivid imaginations. But never a childhood imaginary friend.
Tammy
For non-believers: What evidence would it take for you to believe in 'god'?
by jay88 176 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
the-illuminator81
Hi Tammy,
I used to believe and I had the exact same experiences as you.. but eventually I realized that these thoughts and emotions are coming from myself and not from a God. And when you think about it, many other people in entirely different religions experience the exact same things. So that would make a poor qualifier for identifying the true God and/or religion and unreliable proof of an omnipotent being.
Even more so, after I stopped believing and became a full-blown apostate atheist, I still have the same thoughts and feelings that I once attributed to the holy spirit.
-
tec
Even more so, after I stopped believing and became a full-blown apostate atheist, I still have the same thoughts and feelings that I once attributed to the holy spirit.
Thank you. I was curious about that. Can't say I wasn't hoping someone would say, no, though... lol... because that would be something more tangible to others.
My faith is not based on these things I have described as 'hearing', mind you. These experiences are new for me. They seem to be coming quite rapidly, the more faith I put in them. But I appreciate the 'outside of faith' thought/perspective as well.
Tammy
-
SweetBabyCheezits
They seem to be coming quite rapidly, the more faith I put in them.
Would you ever consider investigating the psychology behind this for the sake of critical thinking?
-
tec
Such as they were happening before, and I just never noticed them because I wasn't looking? Or such as, since I'm looking for it, it's happening?
Those kinds of things, SBC?
I keep those things in mind - some things could be explained by both, but not all. Some other things would have to be explained away as coincidences - put all of them together and I'd have to be convincing myself that it was nothing, instead of the other way around, lol. But I don't mind looking at the psychology of anything else, if you are suggesting something else.
Tammy
-
punkofnice
@ still thinking. I was talking to my son last night. He said he never believed in the JW stuff but always felt there was a khama thing going on. What you do brings you good or bad.
I don't know. This thread has got a bit......er, how would I describe it...? Mystical?
I have never heard god call to my heart or that stuff. I'm a down to earth bloke and look for down to earth answers I suppose.
Perhaps I'm a bit of a philistine?
-
Nickolas
And for some, it never happens untill they die and all is revealed.
I chose to quote this assertion (from PSac) among many like it in this thread because it typifies my personal estimation of what is wrong with faith. Nobody can legitimately assert with confidence what happens after death, but people still do, along with other, equally unprovable assertions. I do not begrudge the faithful their assertions, but I cannot seriously consider them either. Then PSac said this:
We can't prove the existsence of multiple universes, but I am open to the possibility.
Ok, but would you not agree that one would be foolish to live his life according to something that is just a possibility in his mind?
This is the answer (provided by White Dove early on). This is what it would take for me:
If you are God, then produce my dead loved ones as living, pitty peez.
But I do not expect it will happen, alas. And this (Terry) is why:
Reality is potent; accept no substitutes!
As usual, the most succinct answer (thetrueone) is probably the best one:
The answer is within the question.
Although this (superpunk) deserves honourable mention:
In science, we're used to incremental progress and revision of our ideas. Evidence is our currency, it's how we progress and it's what gets results. It is a category error, however, to think that the way to address free-floating word salad and flaming nonsense is to take the scalpel of reason and empiricism and slice into it, looking for definable edges. No, what you do is look over the snot-ball of self-referential piffle, note that it has no tenable connection to reality, and drop-kick it into the rec room, where the kids can play with it, but no one should ever take it seriously.
Tammy: or 3) Some cannot hear because they do not want to, or something is getting in the way (such as anger, fear, lack of faith, negative emotions, etc.)
Or, Tammy, they cannot hear despite complete openness and despite being completely at peace with themselves and the world around them, and they cannot hear because he isn't there. I might paraphrase what you said in this way: or some hear because they want to.
I read this thread because I want to keep my mind open to ideas that may not have occurred to me. But by the time I get to posting my comment it's always the same. I know I'll read the next, similarly themed thread, and the one after that, and the one after that, etc. But I still have to wonder why we have this same conversation over and over and over and over and over again and despite sometimes lucid and brilliant argument and logic nobody ever changes his position.
By the way, I have an invisible dragon in my garage ....
-
punkofnice
@Nickolas = I have an invisible dragon in my garage ....
My garage is so full of junk we make the little bugger sleep in the yard!
-
tec
Or, Tammy, they cannot hear despite complete openness and despite being completely at peace with themselves and the world around them, and they cannot hear because he isn't there.
I think that was the 1) option. Which is why there is a little 3) before my additional option to the 1 and 2 ;)
Tammy
-
PSacramento
I chose to quote this assertion (from PSac) among many like it in this thread because it typifies my personal estimation of what is wrong with faith. Nobody can legitimately assert with confidence what happens after death, but people still do, along with other, equally unprovable assertions. I do not begrudge the faithful their assertions, but I cannot seriously consider them either.
There are many assertions that we can't prove now, just like there were many that we couldn't prove 1000 years ago or 500 or 100 and we can prove now.
We can't prove that we have thoughts, we can't prove that our brain activity means anythign other than it is active, we can't prove conscience and we certainly can't prove Love or Hope or Faith, but would you want to live without any of them?
I am certain you probably could, but would you want to?
But to your point,
Why would you live your life accorinding to something that is only a possibility in your mind?
That, my friend, is an excellent question.
Love is only a possibility, it is, according to science, nothing more than a simple biochemical reaction, perhaps phermone based, but LOVE can't be proven to exist, it can't be quanitified or measured or analyzed or anything like that, yet, would you want to live your life NOT according to Love?
Not having love, not feeling it, not giving it to someone, not receiving it from someone, life without the possibility of Love, soemthing that, truly only is a possibility and only exists in our mind.