This time I'm doing a 180. That is, instead of putting Christianity(my former beliefs) under the microscope, this time I will be putting my current worldview, atheism, under the microscope. I intend to discuss where atheism is lacking, in my view. Why? For a few reasons: One, so that my theist readership (and/or critics) can see that I didn't discard Christianity and replace it with atheism for purely emotional reasons..e.g...."Oh, because I like atheism better!"
So, let's start here: As an atheist, I know that many times during my lifetime I am going to get the type of phone call that we all dread, and that is the phone call where someone is letting me know that someone I know has died. None of the relationships I have with the people I love are going to go on forever; those relationships are all going to end, most of them abruptly. As an atheist, I do not(and cannot) believe in a mind/body dualism. Or more simply put, I do not(and cannot) believe that our "personalities" survive the death of our physical bodies. And for every piece of reasoning that my spiritual, god-believing friends (or critics) offer in support of an afterlife, I can offer a dozen reasons why what they believe doesn't make sense. In fact, I contend that the concept of a mind/body duality is so nonsensical that it's highly, highly improbable if not impossible, and therefore, that it doesn't merit my belief nor anymore of my time wishing it were true. And trust me, I spent a lot of my time wishing it were true.
That said, let me tell you that being aware of this cold, hard reality sucks, and nothing...nothing makes up for it, in my view. Yes, I can(and do) focus on the time we have in this one life, and yes, the time that we have right now is precious precisely because it is limited. And, yes, of course when I am dead too, it won't matter or affect me then. But truth be told, it affects me now, and the above-mentioned things don't buffer, or at least, they don't buffer enough, the disturbing and inevitable reality that there will come a time when I will never see the ones I love/care about ever again. IOW, the above atheist principles, in my view, don't completely make up for the comfort that Christianity once provided on the subject of death.
Here's another: Unless I have an accomplice, then I, and I alone, am responsible if I wrong someone. If I wrong someone, I need that person to forgive me. Of course, forgiveness has to be available, and let's face it, we know that it is not always is available, because some people are already so wounded from within that they can only think retaliation and hatred for the offender. But in any case, the idea that some third party can come waltzing into the situation and blurt out " you're forgiven!", is a bad idea, and it doesn't do jack' for the person I offended. And worse, a completely innocent third party taking my punishment for me is nothing less than scapegoating. In having a scapegoat, I have essentially dodged responsibility. But that is for another discussion.
So, while it would be convenient to, when/if I wrong someone, blame a "Devil" and then pile my guilt onto the back of an innocent man who claims that he loves and forgives me, I must put what is actually right over what is more convenient and what makes me feel better.
Here's another: being unpopular and not fitting in, Vs being popular and fitting in nicely with the majority. Atheists are very unpopular with most believers, despite being one of the fastest growing (non)religious groups. Coming out as an atheist takes courage. And let's face it, fitting in just feels better.
So, there you have it---those are a few ways that I firmly believe that atheism is lacking in areas when compared to what Christianity has to offer. But alas, I'm not finished yet, and if you are an atheist reading this, you might know what's coming next. Yes, I'm talking about the non-sequitur that, 9 times out of 10, goes unrecognized by the believer. What I mean is that the believer invariably takes the erroneous position that, since atheism is lacking in comparison to what they already believe - and this is even according to some atheists, themselves - then what they already believe must therefore be true by default. They are wrong when they take this position. Again, it is a non-sequitur....or in simple terms, it does not follow that since atheism doesn't provide all of the comfort and fuzzy feelings that Christianity offers, that it therefore cannot be the correct worldview. If you are a lurking Christian, I ask that you please remember that about atheism, if nothing else.
134 comments:
Since life ain't always that much fun. Why bother living it? Just a question... Not because it's limited I might hope. If it sucks, it sucks... (Sorry for being this blunt).
'No need to apologize for being blunt; being blunt is a form of honesty.
Your question, "Why bother living it[life]", is a good one, one that I've asked myself many times when things utterly suck. The first thing to point out is that my reasons to go on living life might be very different from someone else's reasons. But to answer your question, I know how much the people I care about mean to me. So, I think that I can then reasonably conclude that I probably mean a lot to the people who care about me. So, a hasty decision to call it quits is just going to make the people I care about very sad, not-to-mention, I'd be cheating myself out of time with them. When time is limited, it is more precious. The same way that gold is precious. If gold grew on trees, it wouldn't be worth jack'. If life never ended, the same.
If you want to go on living, because you care so much about certain people, I guess you must have a big heart.
Just one other question. If so, then why would this be different if life never ended?
What other reasons do you have to go on living or am I becoming to personal now?
The first question seems a bit nonsensical, since, if life never ended, then it really wouldn't matter if I wanted "to go on living", or not. But, suppose I finally tired of living after 9,000 yrs, or after being recycled 9,000 different times, but could do nothing about it. It would ultimately become a living "hell".
Other reasons could be because I haven't reached my full potential or accomplished everything I want to accomplish, or because, since the earth won't support human life forever, I'm very lucky to have this chance, whereas, trillions of potential human beings will not have that chance.
The assumption being made here is if this is to be one of 9000 lives you would remember them all and thus get bored. Since you believe this to be the only one you most certainly do not have any recollection, so getting bored is not of the essence here.
What strikes me in your story is that boredom would now prevail being cared for/ caring about loved ones besides the other reasons you mentioned here. Is caring about others limited to one lifetime only? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here.
"The assumption being made here is if this is to be one of 9000 lives you would remember them all and thus get bored"
No, I am not assuming that; I'm merely going on what most proponents of "reincarnation"(AKA "soul"-recycling) proclaim, and one of those things is that we keep coming back until we overcome suffering, which they few as necessary in becoming "enlightened". Human suffering is actually seen as "virtuous". This whole process, BTW, is a central tenet of a few Eastern religious philosophies...e.g..Buddhism.
The problem with this philosophy, is that if we have no recollection of the previous 8,999 past lives, then we have no frame of reference on which to improve. Imagine trying to go through grade school having zero recollection of what was learned in the previous grade. Now, I fully concede that you might not view "reincarnation" that way, and frankly, I don't care to get into it with you because it's irrelevant to the topic of the post, which, again, is what I believe atheism lacks in comparison to Christianity.(my former beliefs)
"What strikes me in your story is that boredom would now prevail being cared for/ caring about loved ones besides the other reasons you mentioned here."
What would "prevail" in an afterlife is pure speculation. However, if, now and then, I'm already bored in the very first of 9000 lives, that's a pretty good indicator that boredom will creep in again sometime in the next 8,999 lives. But let's suppose that I concede that caring for/and being cared for would prevail over boredom. That is a point of no practical value, because I don't believe that scenario will arise.
"Is caring about others limited to one lifetime only? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here."
There is no objective evidence confirming otherwise. So until/unless that evidence is forthcoming, I say the answer is "yes"
We had a discussion during dinner about atheism and Christianity. For your reference, two were atheist, one was a former-catholic (believing in something but doesn’t know what) and then there was me (and honestly I do not know what to call myself nowadays. Since I got to read your views I’ve been looking at church and the bible with a whole new look and it’s not a very positive one I might add. I got to discuss this with some other people and the conclusion was that God seems to be an angry one according to the bible, since killing people seemed to be “normal” in the Old Testament).
Something you said in your first post on this subject was that it’s very unpopular to tell people in America you’re an atheist. I believe over here it’s the other way around. Most people are either a former believer or outright atheist. Hypocrisy seems to be the keyword, combined with being destined for hell (reformed Christians) before even being born. Catholicism would be a little milder compared to this, but still…
I got your message here, so I won’t get into the whole reincarnation thing. I was actually trying to prevent this from happening, knowing how you feel about this. I just couldn’t understand what you’d said before about the difference having to live 9.000 lives or just one. I’m not sure I do right now, but again you do not want to get into this subject, so I’ll let it go.
The whole atheism description sounds very lonely to me. How do you deal with this? Is caring for people/being cared for in this life enough compensation? And just curious here – wouldn’t you have been the same hard working person, improving things constantly, if there had been an afterlife? As in, have you changed that much because of being an atheist now?
"For your reference, two were atheist, one was a former-catholic (believing in something but doesn’t know what)[...]"
When you say that the former-Catholic believes "in something but doesn't know what", it seems to me that you're trying to make a distinction between him/her and the two atheists. The former-Catholic either still believes in a Supreme Being, AKA, "God", or they don't. IOW, he or she can declare that they are unsure if there is a "God", but still decide one way or the other if they believe that such an entity exists. There is no reason to be "on the fence" on the matter.
"[....]and then there was me (and honestly I do not know what to call myself nowadays"
If you mean that you "do not know", when it comes to the existence of "God"/gods, then the same applies as above. Being agnostic("I don't know for sure"), and being atheist("I don't believe") are not mutually exclusive positions. For example, I don't know for sure that gremlins don't occasionally hide my car keys. But I don't believe that they do.
"Since I got to read your views I’ve been looking at church and the bible with a whole new look and it’s not a very positive one I might add."
The only way to look at the bible and remain "very positive" is to ignore(or explain away) the very negative passages, and this is precisely what Christians do. With the exception of an old man and his inbreeding family, biblegod drown the entire planet. It really doesn't get more negative than that.
"I got your message here, so I won’t get into the whole reincarnation thing. I was actually trying to prevent this from happening, knowing how you feel about this."
We've discussed what you believe to be evidence for "reincarnation" before, and I gave detailed reasons for why/how I found that evidence unconvincing. If nothing else, the occupants of the earth will soon outnumber the amount of "souls". But again, this post is largely about one thing: I want to make it clear to Christians that I did not just wake up one day and decide to be an atheist because it makes be feel better. In a few ways, Christianity made me feel better, hence, why so many people believe it and don't want to think that they could be wrong.
"I just couldn’t understand what you’d said before about the difference having to live 9.000 lives or just one."
I'll try to encapsulate: Things that are abundant don't have as much value as things that are scarce, and this includes life. IOW, having one life is therefore more precious than having multiple lives(e.g..reincarnation), or having one, long perpetual life(e.g..Christianity). How I feel in the one life..e.g..bordem, happiness, sadness, etc., doesn't change the fact that it is one life.
"The whole atheism description sounds very lonely to me. How do you deal with this?"
Again, you, like many others with whom I discuss this subject, seem to have many misconceptions about what atheism actually is(and isn't). If I say, "I don't believe in God", that sounds "lonely" to you? Why? When I was a child, 5-6 yrs old, I wasn't lonely, and I didn't harbor a belief in "God" at that time. How do you explain that? Here's how I explain it: I had my family, friends, and household pets, and that gave my life meaning. Moreover, I certainly had no belief in an afterlife, and yet, that didn't effect me adversely at all. It is only when adults teach children religion that children start thinking about death and "God". Since the thought of non-existence isn't a pleasant one, this is how/why we start looking for ways to subvert death..e.g..."heaven", "reincarnation", etc.
"Is caring for people/being cared for in this life enough compensation?"
"Compensation" seems like a strange word to use. But most of the time, yes, those things provide meaning in life. I assume that it's not enough compensation for you.
"wouldn’t you have been the same hard working person, improving things constantly, if there had been an afterlife?"
Not necessarily. Why shouldn't I think that I can just "improve" next time around? If I'm a drunk in this life and I firmly believe I'll get another chance later, who cares? Right?
"[...]have you changed that much because of being an atheist now?"
I've changed in that I no longer believe I'll get another chance to get things right in some "afterlife".
First of all I want to tell you Jeff, I appreciate you taking this time out to answer all of these questions and giving your views. The things you are talking about give me a lot to think about, unfortunately they also raise new answers. This is not because I’m questioning you here in this matter, this is all about me trying to understand it all (being aware here that we only know “so” much).
…
“Being agnostic("I don't know for sure"), and being atheist("I don't believe") are not mutually exclusive positions.”
That sounds plausible. You are right when you say I do not understand the terms and meaning of atheism completely. So I guess my friend is an agnostic when looking at this definition. I’m not certain about myself though. You speak of an “entity”. What does my Spirit Team qualify for? They are not God, I guess they could be seen as intelligences. Are these entities?
At school (the one for healing) we didn’t talk about God, we talked about the Source. This already makes things somewhat questionable. When you were talking in your other post about a prayer to God… that’s something I do not recognize. I do work with affirmations, call it prayer, but to me there’s only one person responsible for his or her life and that’s we ourselves. Not God, just us. Is God responsible for all the bad things happening to us? It’s the humans that eventually start wars, abuse others and so on. There are a million questions in my mind following these… So I won’t say there’s an easy answer to the question what I can be called. But if there is, you tell me which one this is for me.
"I don't believe in God", that sounds "lonely" to you?”.
Well actually that’s not what I meant. I referred to this part:” That said, let me tell you that being aware of this cold, hard reality sucks, and nothing...nothing makes up for it, in my view.” That sounds lonely to me.
“When I was a child, 5-6 yrs old, I wasn't lonely, and I didn't harbor a belief in "God" at that time. How do you explain that? Here's how I explain it: I had my family, friends, and household pets, and that gave my life meaning.”
Things were the other way around for me. I felt alone, despite my (loving) family and being raised believing in God. One of the things I learnt pretty quickly is we all have to this alone when it comes down to it.
Since being in contact with my Spirit Team things have somewhat changed. I wouldn’t say they give life necessarily meaning, but to me it’s feeling less alone and helping me see things positive again. So since we are living, why not make the best of it? But if something were to happen saying “please do all you can do… I don’t know.”. And no, this is not because there may be other lives or an eternal life. It’s just the way I feel right now being here living this life. This doesn’t mean I didn’t and wouldn’t try and make the best of life without being in contact with my Spirit Team, it just gives some solace to it all.
"Is caring for people/being cared for in this life enough compensation?"… I assume that it's not enough compensation for you.”
Why would you say so?
What gives meaning to my life is helping other people find the strength to change their life for the better. When I see people leaving with a smile on their face, standing taller than before they were walking in and/or some time later having changed their life in a way they feel utmost content with, that’s what I live for. Being cared for… I have to see about that. Caring for others…yes absolutely. That most certainly makes life worth living for.
“If I'm a drunk in this life and I firmly believe I'll get another chance later, who cares?”
Question is what being drunk in this life would bring a person. If we are here anyway, why not make the best of it? One can choose to “drown in sorrow” and act accordingly or do something about it. I guess this all comes down to taking responsibility or not. Having multiple lives or an afterlife (or not) doesn’t dismiss anyone of being responsible for their own actions. And also why postpone things you can do now? What defines living fully? Living in the now and doing things right here, right now, without constantly worrying about what might lie ahead of you, makes things a lot less complicated.
“I've changed in that I no longer believe I'll get another chance to get things right in some "afterlife".”
Again I ask you… If you were to get multiple chances, would you really not make the best of it in this life? Would this really change who you are and what you do right now? I cannot believe a mindset could change this much (as in now having the mindset to making the best of things and constantly improving yourself plus taking your own responsibility) just because there could/would be another life. We’re talking a complete change of character here and to me this doesn’t make sense.
To you it may be all understandable as in what you believe/see yourself to be. To me (for myself) things are less obvious. Working with people who come from all sorts of different backgrounds it’s not important to me whether people are believers, agnostics or atheists. It may make me “walking the fence” every now and then. In the end all that’s important to me is that people remain focussed on possibilities and making the best out of life. And this is regardless of there is only one life or more.
"Question is what being drunk in this life would bring a person."
That's a question best answered by a drunk. Notwithstanding, we can know that there's a pay-off of some sort, since they prefer to be drunk, as opposed to sober. Yes?
"If we are here anyway, why not make the best of it? One can choose to “drown in sorrow” and act accordingly or do something about it."
I'm afraid free will isn't quite that simple. Maybe I'll post on that subject at some point. For now, someone choosing to "drown their sorrow" is to do something about that sorrow. They are numbing themselves to it. You probably meant, why not just choose not to drink and confront your sorrow head-on, and I agree, but it's not that simple. If someone has a past of sweeping pain under the carpet or numbing themselves to it, that past has a huge influence on future decisions. To make truly free choices, we'd need to be starting with a clean slate for each decision. That, of course, is impossible. Can a female rape victim ever totally trust a man as if she's never been raped? I think not. In that way, her free will is limited.
"Having multiple lives or an afterlife (or not) doesn’t dismiss anyone of being responsible for their own actions."
True, but yet, that doesn't stop people from acting irresponsibly, nor does it stop people from thinking that all of their laziness(sloth) and/or shortcomings will be forgiven and that a perfect life of never-ending, unadulterated bliss awaits them.
"What defines living fully?"
We do---each of us, for ourselves. If someone else(e.g.. God) defines what "living fully" means for us, then we're not living our own lives; we're living theirs.
"Again I ask you… If you were to get multiple chances, would you really not make the best of it in this life?"
That's only something I could honestly answer if I firmly believed I was getting more chances. I don't believe I'm getting more chances. You do. Thus, it would better be asked why you make the best of this life if you believe you'll get more chances/more lives. And if you don't recall past lives and each life is a "clean slate", then I fail to see the point in multiple lives.
"In the end all that’s important to me is that people remain focussed on possibilities and making the best out of life"
That's admirable, but I then fail to see the benefit of things like past-life regression as therapy or the purpose of having multiple lives to achieve "enlightenment".
“we can know that there's a pay-off of some sort…”
True. Everything people do, has a pay-off, whether it truly helps them or not. About numbing yourself, I guess that’s the reason I like to go into a slight or deeper trance. When I was writing that first bit about my Spirit Team earlier today (first part previous post), I later realized that just going away from reality for a moment helps me to get through the day. That’s why I’m grateful to be in touch with them. The advantage of working with my Spirit Team is I don’t need any substances, I can just go into some sort of meditational state, leaving the daily world behind and get in touch with my team or either just get into nothingness. When I couldn’t before I wished a lot of times there was this switch just to turn off the world for a little while. So yes I do know the pay-off. Fortunately when I have been in this “trance”-state, I’m completely reenergized and ready to face the world. But yes, you were right, I meant “why not face it and do something about it.”
“I'm afraid free will isn't quite that simple. Maybe I'll post on that subject at some point.”
Excellent idea!
“To make truly free choices, we'd need to be starting with a clean slate for each decision. That, of course, is impossible.”
Actually a lot more is possible when one wants to face that trauma. Sometimes I take people back to the actual event, other times I do not let them relive the situation, but just let them watch from a distance or better yet fast forward and start confronting the people in their mind. By working with their energy and their memories I can then get them to confront their “enemies” and change their experiences and with this their future actions. I’ve had a woman who was abused in her childhood by her brothers and seeing the change in her personality is remarkable. She’s become a vibrant person who no longer lets her brothers dominate her, nor anyone else.
“… but I then fail to see the benefit of things like past-life regression as therapy.”
Regression therapy is meant to go back in the past, like the above mentioned story. When people get stuck in this life and they do not know why, it can be useful to go back to the life related to this. It has helped me figure out a number of situations and in return I got to help others understanding why they would react a certain way and give them the possibility to change this.
“Thus, it would better be asked why you make the best of this life if you believe you'll get more chances/more lives.”
The answer to that one is actually quite simple. Everything we get to improve/overcome in this life is something we will not have to face anymore in the next life. Don’t face it and you might experience it even get worse, which BTW quite often already happens in the current life. That’s one of the reasons one would not want to get stuck in a certain situation and do nothing about it, except feeling themselves the victim.
“And if you don't recall past lives and each life is a "clean slate", then I fail to see the point in multiple lives.”
The fact that we do not have any recollection does not mean we start with a clean slate. There’s a difference in the memories we are aware of and the ones hidden (conscious and subconscious). It’s not that much different from people being in an accident and having forgotten all about that accident. If we were to remember everything, then we would not be able to act out of free will. We most likely would react based on earlier experiences, just like we do in this life.
I noticed you didn’t refer to that first part I got to post. There’s one thing I’d like to know though. You said:” "Is caring for people/being cared for in this life enough compensation?"… I assume that it's not enough compensation for you.”
Why would you say so/assume this?
We're getting deeper into subject matter that is tangential to the topic. And slowly, but surely, you are (re)introducing metaphysical concepts into the discussion, concepts that I reject(ed), and much of which was rejected because of the contradictory explanations used to support what you are proposing. I'll touch on a few of the newer ones down below. But first, if you are helping people overcome their deep-seated problems, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. On the other hand, when/if you start using "spiritual" methods to give vulnerable people false hope, for instance, suggesting to them that their deceased loved ones are in fact still alive and well, then at that point I take issue.
You continue.....
"When people get stuck in this life and they do not know why, it can be useful to go back to the life related to this."
That it's "useful" is one thing. Whether it's true or not is quite another thing. Telling a child that holding their teddy bear very tightly will make the boogieman go away is useful. It's a useful lie, but it's not true, nonetheless. There is no evidence for the boogieman; there is no evidence for past lives. The second that you start using words like "energy" and/or "spiritual" and/or terms like "back to the life related to this", etc., you are speaking another language; you are speaking gibberish to me.
You continue...
"Everything we get to improve/overcome in this life is something we will not have to face anymore in the next life."
If we are guided in life in ways that prevent us from certain situations, and/or, make us impervious to harm or suffering, then we are not truly free, or at best, our free will is an illusion. It doesn't matter *what* is actually guiding us; that part is irrelevant.
Don’t face it and you might experience it even get worse, which BTW quite often already happens in the current life."
So, if the rape victim I used in a previous example doesn't overcome her fear and/or suffering, what you are proposing is that she might suffer even more next time/next life. What's worse than rape? Gang-rape? In any case, you are more or less taking a position I spoke of earlier, and that is that human suffering is "virtuous" and necessary. I'm sorry, but that is just despicable, and I will not embrace (or respect) any philosophy that proposes such a sickening thing. 'Sorry, but this touches a nerve.
"That’s one of the reasons one would not want to get stuck in a certain situation and do nothing about it, except feeling themselves the victim"
I'm sorry, does a rape-victim get themselves stuck in a situation to be raped? Does a child get themselves in a situation that their step father molests them? Did they do something in a past life that they deserve to be molested?
"The fact that we do not have any recollection does not mean we start with a clean slate. There’s a difference in the memories we are aware of and the ones hidden (conscious and subconscious)."
I've not proposed that we "start with a clean slate". In fact, I said that that's impossible. We can never act freely if we have memories of past experiences. We are natural pattern seekers, and our past experiences directly influence our future choices.
"If we were to remember everything, then we would not be able to act out of free will."
Your own statements(above) have already destroyed the notion that we have free agency. One of those is this notion that what will face in a future life is based on how we deal with suffering in this and previous lives. If we are impervious to or protected from "evil", we are not free.
Previously, me: "I assume that it's not enough compensation for you."....in reference to when you asked..Is caring for people/being cared for in this life enough compensation?
I assume it's not enough for you based on your asking me if it's enough for me, and prior to that, saying that "atheism" seemed "lonely" to you. IOW, you highly suggested that it wasn't enough for you.
I missed the first of your two posts, above, and only responded to the second one. I don't see much else I feel the need to respond to for now.
Wait...there's a few more things I want to address. You said....
"At school (the one for healing) we didn’t talk about God, we talked about the Source."
For all intents and purposes, the "Source", which is capitalized no less, seems like it may as well be another name for "God".
"Is God responsible for all the bad things happening to us?"
Maybe not, but if said "God" claims or is claimed to care about us, and yet, stands there on the sidelines while bad things happen to us, then why call him "God" - or if the "Source" is going to make our next life even more of a struggle because we can't overcome our suffering in this life to its liking - why admired the "Source"??
"It’s the humans that eventually start wars, abuse others and so on"
Yes, it's humans who, 9 times out of 10, are fighting wars over who "God" is or what the "Source" wants. So, in my view, either those aforementioned entities don't care, or they don't exist.
Lexje ,I don't think a Source / your Team is any better then God.
The Source, if we don't act responsible ,improve/overcome our problems in this life, we will be suffering even more in our next life.
It isn't always easy to overcome things if others are involved in the same matter.
God,if we don't act like God wishes us to do we will go to Hell or He forgives us.
After last night I’ve removed a number of the previous replies. It it’s correct you received three replies in a row, including part 1 from the earlier reply as reply no. 2. I’ve deleted this one as well, since it is already showing in your blog before. Instead I’ve taken the time to carefully reread your answers and answer them anew. This post will probably consist of two parts (getting careful here) ending with a reply back to Anonymous…
“But first, if you are helping people overcome their deep-seated problems, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.”
So if I’m saying to you I listen to the person, I watch them closely and I feel the emotions reflecting inside of me… you can “live” with this?
“On the other hand, when/if you start using "spiritual" methods to give vulnerable people false hope, for instance, suggesting to them that their deceased loved ones are in fact still alive and well, then at that point I take issue.”
I understand what you’re saying here. To me this is the most difficult part. I know I sometimes get some pretty good evidence. However I also have become rather careful saying anything, precisely because of the discussions we had before. That’s why for now I just stick to what I know and feel to be true and what’s tangible and evidential. So no false hope here and no taking advantage of people being vulnerable, I believe this would go against any ethic code.
“The second that you start using words like "energy" and/or "spiritual" and/or terms like "back to the life related to this", etc., you are speaking another language; you are speaking gibberish to me.”
I’ll do my best to stay away from these topics/terms. When do you ask me a question about how I see things, it is hard to avoid staying away from it though. So I do not use them to upset you, but if you ask me a question in return, I might not be able to avoid using these terms.
“If we are guided in life in ways that prevent us from certain situations, and/or, make us impervious to harm or suffering, then we are not truly free, or at best, our free will is an illusion.”
This is one of the most difficult topics. What is free will? We always have the choice to make the “responsible” choice or not. If we “listen” to this guidance is a choice we make ourselves.
“So, if the rape victim I used in a previous example doesn't overcome her fear and/or suffering, what you are proposing is that she might suffer even more next time/next life. What's worse than rape? Gang-rape? In any case, you are more or less taking a position I spoke of earlier, and that is that human suffering is "virtuous" and necessary. I'm sorry, but that is just despicable, and I will not embrace (or respect) any philosophy that proposes such a sickening thing. 'Sorry, but this touches a nerve.”
You may have noticed this statement you made here shook me up quite a bit. After a good night sleep I can only say, this cannot be true and it most certainly is not what I meant. However it is a logical conclusion. So if I say this is only applicable to character trades, am I contradicting myself here? Possibly. That’s what making your answers rather useful, it’s giving me something to think about and when necessary adjust these views.
So, I do NOT believe human suffering is virtuous. From experience I do know that when people do not change their ways, they do get in the same situations, often getting worse in time. The only thing being relevant here is what happens in this life and what people do about it. Go on being the victim or change their ways. Again, this example is gruesome and I cannot believe this could be happening. There is however one true example I do want to use and this about women being dominated by men. There is a certain pattern to this when not broken. It starts out innocently, than an occasional slap. Next friends and family can no longer come over and it may end it utter violence and even death. This is not something I made up and unfortunately it happens more often than anyone would like to. This is something a person can stop, when/if there is enough support and they can find the strength and courage to change.
I know it doesn’t explain everything, but it does tell you why I said so previously. I’m not sure how to fit this in the statement you made before. Again, that’s why I value your opinion, it gives me the possibility to rethink certain concepts.
“We are natural pattern seekers, and our past experiences directly influence our future choices.”
Very true. My intent is to help people change these patterns and that’s why working with “mindsets” and the unconscious mind is such a fascination to me. It really helps people to change their ways.
“For all intents and purposes, the "Source", which is capitalized no less, seems like it may as well be another name for "God".”
True. It was used not to offend the people who did not believe in God. I said it before, but over here it’s not that common to be a Christian or believer anymore.
This being said, we (me and my fellow colleagues) do believe in a universal power. I believe there is some force behind all of this and this is what we call upon when we start to work healing people. When we get to work this is the intent we start with => That whatever is best for the client may come and join in. And honestly I do feel a difference and so does the client. To me the client telling me what they felt and when and – of course – noticing a visible and touchable difference (and for the client also feeling more relaxed and less painful) is good enough proof I work with something. Specifically because of all these discussions evidence has become very important to me. When people with ADHD come to me and tell me that for the first time in their lives they were finally quiet in their mind and this state remains for a while, it means something is going on. When I can feel what’s going on inside other people’s bodies (energy fields) and we each got our own story afterwards which is perfectly aligned, how can I say there isn’t something more behind it all? So I may not be able to say what it is, but since I feel the difference and see things (in this state of mind) about the person that later get confirmed by this person, I know there’s a lot more to it then meets the eye.
“…or if the "Source" is going to make our next life even more of a struggle because we can't overcome our suffering in this life to its liking - why admired the "Source"??”
All I can say it that the Source I’m talking about is a positive force. When I ask for assistance, it may start out very emotional (and sometimes painful), but it always ends up with a warm, positive, empowering feeling. I do not know what to call this exactly, but I do know this is about love and compassion and not about suffering or worse.
“..So, in my view, either those aforementioned entities don't care, or they don't exist.”
Could this be what free will is all about?
And to Anoymous saying: “God,if we don't act like God wishes us to do we will go to Hell or He forgives us.”
This is precisely why I have decided not to go to church anymore. Anyone who claims God is one of suffering (including hell) is essentially saying God is an “entity” of fear. This is the reason why people no longer have to take their own responsibility. I got to go recently because I was invited to play music and I can no longer continue praising God and saying that if I “just” rely on him everything will be okay. Where is my own responsibility towards myself and others in this story? If anything, that is the one good thing I read in Jeff’s story on atheism I completely agree with.
I'm afraid that you're now resorting to a tactic that many Christians resort to when faced with conundrums involving their beliefs, and frankly, it's a tactic that I find to be disingenuous as well as slightly nerve-grating, and that is, rather than just admit that your current position could be wrong, or at least nonsensical, you'd prefer to just come along and readjust that position until (you think) it makes better sense. For example, you now say...
"You may have noticed this statement you made here shook me up quite a bit."
Yes, and it should shake you up. If people, say, a rape-victim, cannot (or will not) acknowledge their pain and deal with it head-on like you and the "Source" feel that it should be dealt with, you propose that in the next life the person's pain and suffering could be multiplied. I'm sorry, but I find that notion disgusting, and I'm actually relieved that you have no evidence to support it.
"After a good night sleep I can only say[...]"
So, correct me if I'm wrong----I should disregard what you said previously and give you another shot at making sense of things?
"[...] this cannot be true and it most certainly is not what I meant. However it is a logical conclusion."
It's not what you meant, but it's "logical", nonetheless? Really? So, it's only "logical" that if each individual cannot deal with their past pain and suffering in a way that makes "X" happy, then they deserve more pain and suffering later on?
"So if I say this is only applicable to character trades, am I contradicting myself here?"
I've zero clue what you mean by only applying to "character trades".
"That’s what making your answers rather useful, it’s giving me something to think about and when necessary adjust these views."
My answers are "useful", but not to the extent that you'd change your mind. And for the record, it's always worth pointing out that I have, yes, changed my mind, namely, my entire worldview, from bible-believing Christian, to agnostic atheist. If you could just offer some credible, non-contradictory evidence for things like "reincarnation", "spirits", "past lives", etc., I just may have to change my mind again. So far - and not to be rude - but you haven't even come close, and lately, you seem to be grasping at straws.
"True. ['Source'] was used not to offend the people who did not believe in God."
Fair enough. So, you were basically trying to sneak "God" into the mix under the radar, so-to-speak. It reminds of how creationists use the euphemism, "Intelligent Design", in lieu of "Creation". This, I feel, is also a disingenuous tactic.
"This being said, we (me and my fellow colleagues) do believe in a universal power."
Electricity is "power", too. Yet, surely we agree that lightening doesn't care one iota what we believe about it. No. So, the kind of "power" you're alluding to, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is a personal "power" that is claimed to actually care how we homosapiens, here on our little blue dot of a planet amongst upwards of 125 BILLION galaxies, act and think. I can't put into words how utterly preposterous such a notion comes across.
"I believe there is some force behind all of this and this is what we call upon when we start to work healing people"
If you cannot(or will not) conceive of that "power" simply being nature, and therefore, you then assign nature a "mind" and "feelings", then you have waaaay more explaining to do than a Pantheist or Deist. For one, who or what created this "force", or the more formal, "Source"?
“So, correct me if I'm wrong----I should disregard what you said previously and give you another shot at making sense of things?”
Nope. You do not have to do so. I just needed some time to process for myself the statement you’d made. Last night I gave you a very intuitive, impulsive reaction. It’s not that it didn’t make sense, but more that I could only respond with this statement in the back of my mind.
So even though I shouldn’t answer you straight away right now, I do want to set this straight. Cause there now is a big misunderstanding here: “It's not what you meant, but it's "logical", nonetheless? Really? So, it's only "logical" that if each individual cannot deal with their past pain and suffering in a way that makes "X" happy, then they deserve more pain and suffering later on?”
What I meant is the conclusion you wrote down is a logical conclusion based on what I’d said. I did not think things through to this level. That’s why it came as a shock. And honestly I cannot and will not believe that could be true. That’s why I later on tried to explain this with the story of the women being dominated. So, it’s time for a little reset on my part here and see what it is I do mean.
You are the first one here to confront me with the consequences of certain statements, which is basically what I’m asking for. The downside to it all is that I’m getting you upset and that’s not what I want to be doing. Please remember that you have thought this through - I did not (well at least not to your level – it feels like I’m taking baby steps here), that there is after all somewhat of a language barrier here, especially with you using certain terms that not even are to be found in the Dutch language and that I’m struggling here were what it is what I’m feeling and you – basically – are asking from me. And let’s not forget I cannot speak freely here, since you have set some rules, this being your blog.
“…So far - and not to be rude - but you haven't even come close, and lately, you seem to be grasping at straws.”
I have become rather careful after our discussion during summertime; do not want to get into that same situation again. Know that ever since you wrote these things down, to do with evidence, they haven’t been out of my mind anymore. I actually was very down for a number of months because of this. There are so many things I’m trying to comprehend here, but it takes another person to take things to the next level. You speak your mind, no restrictions here. For the first time I can slowly start to make sense of things no one wants or dares to talk about in my nearby environment.
"I just needed some time to process for myself the statement you’d made. Last night I gave you a very intuitive, impulsive reaction. It’s not that it didn’t make sense[....]"(italics added)
If we back up, you said the following...
"Everything we get to improve/overcome in this life is something we will not have to face anymore in the next life. Don’t face it and you might experience it even get worse, which BTW quite often already happens in the current life." ~ Lexje
The above philosophy(your philosophy) is either true and you are sticking by it, or it's not true, and you are (hopefully) not sticking by it. Please pick one. If "yes", and if we then apply that philosophy to the example I provided previously, which was a rape-victim, then I am being reasonable to conclude that a rape-victim, if she doesn't "improve/overcome" her resultant fear and/or adverse feelings in this lifetime, she just might find herself getting the same treatment in the "next life", possible even worse, according to you. Your words.
If you think I'm being unreasonable and/or a jerk for simply holding you to your words, we can stop here. If not, then please.... either start saying what you mean and owning up to it, or revise your position....or even better, if you're wrong, simply admit it. I'm not interested in following you along, seemingly making it up as you go. Been there; done that.
"So even though I shouldn’t answer you straight away right now[....]"
Oh? And why shouldn't you? The truth isn't something that needs to wait, as far as I'm concerned, nor it is something that I'm afraid of.
"I do want to set this straight. Cause there now is a big misunderstanding here:"
Why do you assume it's a "misunderstanding"? Why couldn't it just be that I follow you just fine, but simply reject what you're proposing?
"What I meant is the conclusion you wrote down is a logical conclusion based on what I’d said."
Okay, then why say there's a "misunderstanding"?
"I did not think things through to this level."
Right, but now that you have realized that my conclusion and analogy are reasonable, instead of scrapping your philosophy and replacing it with something better, you want the freedom to "tweak" the old philosophy bit-by-bit in the hopes that you can reconcile it with things like reason and logic.
"That’s why it came as a shock."
I know it's a shock. It was a great shock to me when I had to admit that there's no reconciling human suffering on a MASS scale with a benevolent "God", or "force", or "Source". The best you can do, in my view, is Deism or Pantheism..or..::gAsP::..Atheism.
"And honestly I cannot and will not believe that could be true."
If your above-quoted philosophy about having to "face" and "overcome" X, Y, and Z is true, then you are forced to accept "that could be true"(see rape-victim analogy). You are talking to someone who has studied this subject extensively, so I know all the apologetics and "loopholes" when it comes to trying to reconcile "evil" with a benevolent, caring "God".
"So, it’s time for a little reset on my part here and see what it is I do mean.'
Forgive me, but I honestly don't think that you know what you mean. From where I sit, the most likely scenario is this: you simply cannot conceive of this being the one and only life we have and that the universe doesn't care if we like that, or not, so you crave a reality in which we don't ever die(by no coincidence, just as Christians do).
"The downside to it all is that I’m getting you upset[..]"
"Upset" probably isn't the right word. Frustrated, perhaps, and constantly raising my eyebrow.
"I just needed some time to process for myself the statement you’d made. Last night I gave you a very intuitive, impulsive reaction. It’s not that it didn’t make sense[....]"(italics added)”
We are talking past one another here. I was talking about the deleted replies.
"Everything we get to improve/overcome in this life is something we will not have to face anymore in the next life. Don’t face it and you might experience it even get worse, which BTW quite often already happens in the current life."
I’ll take this back as being not true. I’ve always made the assumption that we get to redo our lessons, if not done properly. Till today that is.
“I'm not interested in following you along, seemingly making it up as you go.”
I’m not interested in making things up as we go along. So if I do, just say so. That’s okay. This whole bit was about taking some views under the microscope so here we go…
“The truth isn't something that needs to wait…”
This wasn’t about the truth, it has to do with emotions combined with not always understanding you properly. I vividly recall giving you an answer while misunderstanding you and being slightly irritated at that moment. The both of us know the result. Had I taken the time I probably would not have answered at that moment. Add to this that I’ve noticed you quite often are using certain words I do not know which change the meaning of the whole sentence. When scanning quickly and replying fast, I miss this and so this leads to confusion.
Also when replying straight away I often do not think things thru and things tend to get somewhat chaotic. Like these sentences have been rearranged three times at least already.
If you still just keep raising an eyebrow every now and then it’s fine by me. If it should change I’d like to know.
“Why couldn't it just be that I follow you just fine, but simply reject what you're proposing?”
If you want to reject things that’s fine by me. I do feel it’s important it’s not based on the wrong assumption.
“…instead of scrapping your philosophy and replacing it with something better, you want the freedom to "tweak" the old philosophy bit-by-bit…”
Honestly, I’m not used to having to adjust/revise my visions, let alone this drastically. Call it something new. Again just say so when I keep doing this.
“..Deism or Pantheism…”
Let’s first start with explaining this some more. I looked up the translation and I simply don’t get it. Like I said before, things which are common for you may not be common for me…
“…or..::gAsP::..Atheism.”
Can it be combined with me being convinced all of us have a Spirit Team? And I didn’t say here I do not believe in multiple lives. I still do, even if I didn’t give you enough convincing evidence.
“…you simply cannot conceive of this being the one and only life we have…”
True.
“…that the universe doesn't care if we like that, or not…”
If you now are referring to God, it’s true I can no longer reconcile "evil" with a benevolent, caring "God". It simply doesn’t add up.
If you say this about my Spirit Team, I strongly disagree.
Since I frequently refer to my Spirit Team it might be easier to explain to you what I mean. For now let’s keep it to them not being God and also not being about suffering, but all having to do with helping out. Problem is to correctly understand them, as is with this whole Spirit World business.
“Frustrated, perhaps, and constantly raising my eyebrow.”
As long as it doesn’t stop you from reading and replying… just keep raising that eyebrow. If you get frustrated, stop me and explain what I’m missing… Like you said you’ve studied the entire process, I haven’t.
Lexje, speaking to a Spirit Team is the same as speaking to God or Santa Claus. Do they exist No, at least not for me.
Do you or do you not believe in multiple lives ??
Because you already wrote we will be suffering even more in our next life if we don't act responsible ,improve/overcome our problems in this life.
Make up your mind.
After giving everything some thought we talked about yesterday, there is only one thing I can do, which is going back to what I know to be true. Not because of hearsay but because I've experienced it. This means church is "out the window", bible might contain some historical facts but otherwise is anything but helpful/ sensible here. Same with the theory behind reincarnation.
However I do have my own experiences and I would like to share these if you say it's okay. One being about how my father passed away (next week exactly a year ago) and why to me (and the people around me) this is true. The other having to do with multiple readings involving my three (!) fathers. This will of course be my own truth and if you are to ask me critical questions afterwards that's understandable. But for now I first need to know whether you'll be okay with it.
Previously, me: “…you simply cannot conceive of this being the one and only life we have…”
You respond: "True."
Then guess what?... we could feasibly just stop right here. Your mind is made up; you've found and know the "truth" about life, existence, and death(the latter doesn't exist, of course). Your search? It's over. You are here under the guise of "learning", with the exception of course, of learning that you could be wrong and self-deceived about your core beliefs.
So, do you know what you've got, here? It's this: A conviction. And thus, I'm not being unreasonable to conclude that your motivation for being here is to convince, NOT to listen.
Here's more evidence that I'm right on this....
After giving everything some thought we talked about yesterday, there is only one thing I can do, which is going back to what I know to be true. ~ Lexje[bold added]
Yes, 'got it.... you are convinced that you're right because of your personal experiences and hanging around like-minded people..i.e..a "Spirit Team", which amounts to anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias, respectively. Just like the Muslim; just like the Jew; just like the Christian; just like the Scientologist, you have your personal experiences and fervent belief that convinces you that you are right, and yet, we know that they cannot ALL be right. To the observant person, this then means that personal experiences and fervent belief, alone, doesn't make one right. These are my last words to you on the matter. There's absolutely no reason for me to take the time to explain things like Deism, Pantheism, or even atheism to you, if your mind is already made up.
'Best
Why do I feel like being judgded right now? You told me why you would think I could not comprehend this and I agreed. When you asked me before about the reason behind multiple lives I said something with the same intent. Did I stick to this? No. So why would this be any different, as in maybe I'm wrong here as well. Things do not change overnight. But this morning at the breakfast table I did mention that the concept of past lives might be different then I had thought about up till now.
If I were here to convince you I would have told you the story. Is it possible to point out the not so obvious (to me), which is obvious to you if you do not know my perception of things? Maybe it is. I don't know. I do know it was reading back my own words combined with your logic that showed me things did not add up. That's 41 years of being convinced of something that suddenly changed. So
I was under the impression I already made some (to me) huge steps here.
Do you now expect me to change all believes at the same time? It's babysteps here Jeff and that's something else than wanting to make you believe that I want to convince you instead of change myself.
Today for the first time I decided not to pray "our father" before lunch. Instead I just came up with something in my mind having to do about being grateful I was having lunch with a friend. Again to me this is a huge step. Had you not pointed out the (not so) obvious to me, I would still feel guilty about not going to church anymore and not knowing what to do with such a thing as prayer before dinner.
Remember you told me I need not hold back. The moment I do not you're angry again at me (again). I believe I was allowed to say what was on my mind. Obviously I was wrong or I misunderstood what you said a couple of posts ago.
Slighty disappointed here,
Lexje
"Why do I feel like being judgded right now?"
Now you're going to play the "persecution" card? I guess I don't know why I'm shocked; this conversation is just like clockwork. And I'm not judging you; I'm simply holding you to your own words. And please, it's not like I've asked or demanded that you change your mind about your worldview. I've not asked you to tell me you're wrong. No. But on the other hand, I kind of expect that you'd admit that you could be wrong(when asked), and recent statements tell me that that is an impossibility with you. So, given that conviction, I simply don't see why we should waste each other's time.
"When you asked me before about the reason behind multiple lives I said something with the same intent. Did I stick to this?"
No, you didn't stick to it, and that's part of the problem. Your premise, "soul"-recycling..i.e..we never die; we just keep coming back to live life over and over and over, never stopping, is something that, IMO, you've yet to put into any definitive, meaningful terms, never mind proffering tangible/testable evidence. I'm wondering how many chances you wish to be granted before it's reasonable for me to conclude that you are no different from any other faith-based proponent of the supernatural. 10? 100? 1,000? It isn't going to happen, at least, not here.
"[...] maybe I'm wrong here as well."
This is a diversion. To admit that you could be wrong in the way that you approach reincarnation is not that same as admitting that you could be wrong about reincarnation.
"Things do not change overnight."
I realize this, as it took me around 4-5 yrs to fully be free of Christianity. On the other hand, if at no point I admitted to myself that I could be wrong, I'd still be a believer. So, I cannot be guilty of clinging the way that you are clinging.
"But this morning at the breakfast table I did mention that the concept of past lives might be different then I had thought about up till now"
Yes, understood---the concept of reincarnation might be "different" than you once thought, but not altogether wrong, in your view.
"If I were here to convince you I would have told you the story."
Stories are stories. Genesis 1:1 is a story. Marconi the angel burying some magical, golden tablets on a mountainside is a story. Stories are useful in making a point, but they aren't necessary useful for proving anything.
"Remember you told me I need not hold back. The moment I do not you're angry again at me (again). I believe I was allowed to say what was on my mind."
Pretending to know my emotions isn't gaining you any points. I'm not "angry", just pretty much over it. And yes, you were invited to speak your mind here. However, if part of that is telling me that you cannot be wrong about reincarnation, there's the rub.
You are right. You didn't ask me. I asked you. I already admitted I was wrong on a number of subjects. Who says I'm right here? But what decision can I make on the limited amount of information I got now? I am very aware at the moment that the views I got here right now are all based on up bringing, being different than making consciously my own choices. And as such I'm questioning almost all right now, so don't blame me if I hold on to my Spirit Team, which for all I know may even be part of me.
The hardest part here however is I've been on a quest of what the truth might be for a while now. Finally things start to make sense, well actually I'm getting to understand they actually don't and then you just leave it...
So yes you can tell me I'm wrong if you can get to do this the same way as we got to discuss the reason behind it. Chances are if the reasons behind it do not add up the whole concept might not either. I'm still thinking about what you said about the "force" and if this might be coming - simply - from within us. Again I don't know. That's what I meant this morning. Almost everything I've assumed up till now might be based on cultural upbringing rather than making logical sense. There are a number of doubts I've been having for a while now and it feels good to get rid of some of these.
And to be perfectly honest I'm not that thrilled about life on this planet. If this were to be the last one I'd jump for joy. The only thing that makes it somewhat worthwhile is I get to help others find out their truth and thus empower them. It doesn't happen too often I ask others, but here I am asking you now...
Sorry Jeff for my outburst here. I needed to blow off some steam. Thanx for the time you did put into it.
Therefore a big HUG, Lexje
Yesterday was a day different than others. I was vibrant all day, feeling more alive and then ten to six my time (well actually the feeling was there a little longer, but it had it’s peak making me watch the clock at that specific moment twice to remember this time while in the middle of treating a client!) the thought crossed my mind, you’ve now send me message you’re over and done with things now (which I interpreted as being angry, otherwise why would you… but that’s me and my interpretation of things). When I got home a couple of hours later there is was in my mailbox, that exact time to the minute.
Later on I went into meditation to write things down. This to me is my way of making sense of things when I no longer know what to make of the chaos in my mind. It was actually kinda shocking what I wrote down ‘cause there were some wake up calls for me here:
* The truth is there is no truth – and –
* It’s a big pool of nothingness, but peace. Energy cannot be broken, it cannot disappear, it can only exist. Changing it’s shape and form.
A couple of hours I went online to look some things up you’d been talking about like Deisme and Pantheisme. When I saw Einstein’s name pop up something clicked. I’ve been reading his quotes and actually I already have been using them in one of my books I’m writing on Duality (which has been inspired by our discussion in the Summer I might add). Not only did it click, my physical reaction was I was yawning for quite some time. To me that’s release of energy, meaning that I have stumbled upon something very important. Every time I picked up my diary to continue the story about “truth being there is no truth”, to write something down on why I experienced this reaction, same reaction as well.
So today I’ve been looking up the basic principles (again) and these I seem to understand and agree with. It explains the energy I’m feeling and connecting with. It talks about meditation and feeling better afterwards (it’s what I do to get my mind at ease and reload again). I recognise the small joys in life (the living in the now moments, like enjoying an amazing view and yes I’m going to add something about your music as well here) which usually make me smile all day long. So when they say this is daily therapy, that’s exactly how I live. It also says it establishes the connection with divine reality. And to me that’s what my Spirit Team represents. It gives me inspiration and information to build on. When talking about Nature I fully understand this part. It’s the impossibility of going outside and reloading which gets me down (it’s so nice to be living in Holland with the grey skies during winter). These last few years these have been principles I’ve been applying.
The most striking bit is probably this one: Our bodies are part of nature and part of matter. For the brief span of our lives we have been separated from the whole (*this is what’s getting me down every now and then. The feeling that there’s something missing*). At our death we are re-united with nature and the cosmos, and the matter of our bodies is recycled into new life. When combined with what I’d been writing down earlier: “Energy cannot be broken, it cannot disappear, it can only exist. Changing it’s shape and form.” This now makes sense. And this could also explain the energy I’m experiencing from people who have been. Not so much that they still exist (their sprit) but their energy remains of their spirit. This might be what it is I’m connecting with every now and then. I can go on here, but this fits. And who knows… the energy goes on in a different shape or form… Not reincarnation, my Spirit Team spoke of nothingness and peace - but possibly something to do with the imprint/energy of the soul. I’m in contact with something from the cosmos here I might assume.
Continued...
Would this be an acceptable starting point for you to continue from? I would like to know more about it and I would like to know how you see these things they are talking about. Reading this, things you’ve written in your blog suddenly make more sense. Not to mention that at this moment I feel vibrant and alive again.
"[.....] you’ve now send me message you’re over and done with things now (which I interpreted as being angry, otherwise why would you[SNIP]"
There's a multitude of reasons why I could decide to bow out of a conversation besides being "angry". For example, if I feel that I'm wasting my time, which I value, BTW, then that's a legit' reason. Or, if I feel that the person with whom I'm conversing cannot at least admit that he or she could be wrong about his or her core beliefs, then that could be another legit' reason. Seriously, why should I bang my head against a wall while you perpetually readjust your views in the hopes that you can make them align with logic?
"When I got home a couple of hours later there is was in my mailbox, that exact time to the minute"
I have no clue what you're talking about, well, other than one event has apparently happened in sync with something else..e.g.. at the "exact time to the minute", which you instantaneously attribute to something "cosmic", when the more likely reason is pure coincidence. This is a perfect example of the confirmation bias mind-set I spoke of earlier. And yet, you keep demonstrating this sort of bias over and over ad over. ::sigh::
"Later on I went into meditation to write things down."
"Went into meditation" is simply "spiritual" lingo for partaking in deep thought and/or deep introspection, blocking out all other thoughts. Again, *there's not necessarily anything cosmic or "spiritual" going on. Natural thoughts from a natural brain.
"This to me is my way of making sense of things when I no longer know what to make of the chaos in my mind."
I'm glad that it gives you peace of mind, however, see here*, above.
"It was actually kinda shocking what I wrote down ‘cause there were some wake up calls for me here:
* The truth is there is no truth"[....]"
What you're suggestion now is that you took dictation via thoughts that originated from somewhere other than your own brain, and again, I do not buy it.
As for what you wrote down, as long there is an objective reality(and there is) that exists irrespective of human consciousness and its opinions on said reality(and it does), there is objective truth out there.
"[and] It’s a big pool of nothingness, but peace.'
Peace is a human concept; it is a state of mind. To have such a "state of mind" there needs be something that generates the thoughts that produce the "peace", therefore, that conflicts with "nothingness". A physical brain is not part of a set of "nothingness".
"Energy cannot be broken, it cannot disappear, it can only exist."
Energy and consciousness are not mutually inclusive. Yes, the latter might require and be produced by the former, but the former, alone, does not necessarily make up a "mind".
continued....
"Light Changing it’s shape and form."
Understood, but none of that process - a natural process, BTW - necessitates a mind, thought, or consciousness.
"I’ve been reading his quotes(Einstein's) and actually I already have been using them in one of my books I’m writing on Duality (which has been inspired by our discussion in the Summer I might add)"
I don't see what Einstein's quotes have to do with anything right now. "Duality", as in mind/body, is an unproven concept, though.
"Not only did it click, my physical reaction was I was yawning for quite some time. To me that’s release of energy, meaning that I have stumbled upon something very important."
Uh-huh, confirming to me once again that you are so far "out there" and mired in pseudo-science "woo", that you are literally unreachable. You can add this to the reasons in my first paragraph, above. There is not one scrap of scientific confirmation that supports the idea that when people "yawn", that they've stumbled upon something "very important". That is sheer nonsense.
"So today I’ve been looking up the basic principles (again)[...]"
Yes, as in, examining only those sources that confirm(reconfirm) what you ALREADY believe, again.
"[...]and these I seem to understand and agree with."
'Funny how that works, isn't it?(rhetorically asked)
"It explains the energy I’m feeling and connecting with"
And yet, that little bit of self-confirmation "explains" nothing besides that Lexje "feels" something when/if she thinks really, really hard about what she wants so desperately to be true, but so far, has yet to proffer any evidence that it is.
"So when they say this is daily therapy, that’s exactly how I live."
People who believe as you do, tell you that it's therapy, and that's how you live. Fair enough, despite the very obvious 'group-think' mind-set.
continued....
"It also says it establishes the connection with divine reality."
Fallacy of bare assertion. There's no evidence of any "divine reality"; there's only people and their various (and conflicting) opinions on the subject.
"Our bodies are part of nature and part of matter."
Correct. No super-nature nor super-duper nature required.
"At our death we are re-united with nature and the cosmos, and the matter of our bodies is recycled into new life."
And at that point, the available evidence says that consciousness is likely annihilated due to the fact that the material part of the body that once generated said consciousness, dies.
"'Energy cannot be broken, it cannot disappear, it can only exist. Changing it’s shape and form.' This now makes sense. And this could also explain the energy I’m experiencing from people who have been."
It can "explain" it, yes, if that's what you want to believe---similar to how crop circles can "explain" to UFologists that we're being visited by space travelers. IOW, you are throwing a dart at the side of a mountain, then running up to it and drawing a bulls-eye around it. You think it's an "win" moment, but you only convince yourself and those who are already-convinced.
"I’m in contact with something from the cosmos here I might assume."
One word stands out to me, here. I wonder if you have idea which word that is.
Lastly...
"Would this be an acceptable starting point for you to continue from?"
To let a useless pattern continue is insanity. I really do not see the point.
"I would like to know more about it and I would like to know how you see these things they are talking about."
I don't know who "they" are, but if it has anything to do with a mind/body "duality" or "reincarnation", I've already examined what proponents of those things have to offer, and I find it lacking, at best.
"Reading this, things you’ve written in your blog suddenly make more sense."
But not enough sense for you to rethink your entire belief-system, one that continually comes up short each time you reply about it.
"Not to mention that at this moment I feel vibrant and alive again."
I'm glad that my blog has peeked your interest and produces the feelings that you describe. On the other hand - and the bottom line, is - I'm just not interested in going further on this topic with you.
If this http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/einstein.htm (the "they" I was referring to)
is not the right page for info, where can I find it? It's not I like to dodge anything here...
That's why I asked for more info...
And not everything (actually hardly anything) I talk about is spiritual and/or supernatural. Actually it is just what it is, feeling/becoming aware of a change in energy and to me everyone can pick up a change in energy, including you.
Add to this the words "might" "assume" and "could" and it says exactly what I think, I simply do not know. I'm not saying it's all spiritual. It's just something I'm thinking about.
If that's the "they", then you need to be more specific when you say "they [X, Y, and Z]". And besides that, I still don't know what you're asking.
"And not everything (actually hardly anything) I talk about is spiritual and/or supernatural"
But your entire premise, e.g.."soul"-recycling, mind/body "duality", *is* supernatural. The fact that you add tangential data here and there that doesn't pertain to the supernatural, that doesn't take away from this fact.
“I still don't know what you're asking.”
I’m asking for proper info on Pantheism. I was serious. Obviously I did not look up the right page. I want to know more, get to understand it. I’m not that set on being right and only wanting to see things my way. If so, I wouldn’t be studying all the time.
“But your entire premise, e.g.."soul"-recycling, mind/body "duality", *is* supernatural.”
Well just maybe this where we get to misunderstand one another. Maybe I’m being just a little more “down to earth” as you might think. I’m actually someone who likes to understand things, as in analytical. If not, I wouldn’t have been wasting your precious time here.
To me "duality" isn’t necessarily meant as mind/body "duality". In the piece I was writing about it had to do with communication. It was meant as two extremes, which seem to be overlapping. And my question in this piece is about where “inspiration” actually is coming from. Is this coming from our own minds (right side of the brain) or is it something that’s passed on? That last assumption would not be optional for you, so… what would you say?
And if it comes from the mind, how come an analytical person like you (left brainer) would get all this inspiration when it comes to creating (composing) music (right brain)?
Sorry… wondering away from the topic of your subject. I’ve been “dying” to ask you this actually for a couple of months now.
"I’m asking for proper info on Pantheism."
I fail to see what you mean by "proper info".
From dictionary.com:
*Pantheism: the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.[bold added]
Simply put, God = Nature, and Nature is impersonal. IOW, there's no Cosmic Consciousness, nor is there any force/source that cares what we think or how we live our life(singular).
"I was serious."
And so was/am I.
"Obviously I did not look up the right page."
Dare I ask why you say that?
"I want to know more, get to understand it."
See here*, above.
"I’m not that set on being right and only wanting to see things my way. If so, I wouldn’t be studying all the time."
Maybe instead of studying what to think about X, Y, and Z, study how to think about X, Y, and Z. 'Just a suggestion.
"I was serious." And so was/am I.”
I didn’t expect you not to be. I got the impression you were thinking I’m not serious here with the whole spiritual/supernatural “view” I must be having. I was truly disappointed you refused to tell me more about the Pantheism and Deism. And with what you’ve been explaining so far, I’ve come to realize that I have some trouble comprehending what it means without you giving some extra info/translation. It’s like stepping in a whole new world, with its own language.
What else is Pantheism about, except for “there's no Cosmic Consciousness, nor is there any force/source that cares what we think or how we live our life(singular).”? Is it indeed also about “God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists” as in Einstein’s view (just looking up things here). And what’s the difference with the creationists here? I was under the impression they also were talking about an orderly harmony (in combination with the evolution theory). But since you said they were “disingenuous” I’m probably mistaken in this assumption.
"Obviously I did not look up the right page." Dare I ask why you say that?”
I’m quite sure the word “dare” is not something that would prevent you from asking :-).
When I said “"So today I’ve been looking up the basic principles (again)[...]", you replied “Yes, as in, examining only those sources that confirm(reconfirm) what you ALREADY believe, again.” Well they were placed on this page: www.pantheism.net/paul/basic-principles.htm and I was under the impression these principles were THE principles. Judging by your answer(s) they apparently are not. So if I’m to study how to think about X, Y, and Z, where (and maybe I should also be asking “how”) would you suggest I’d do that?
"I was truly disappointed you refused to tell me more about the Pantheism and Deism."
a) You weren't "refused", and more importantly, b) I'm neither Pantheist nor Deist, so other than giving a basic description of what those things are(and are not)..e.g...neither believe in a personal god(in contrast to theism), it's up to you to learn more on your own.
"And with what you’ve been explaining so far, I’ve come to realize that I have some trouble comprehending what it means without you giving some extra info/translation. It’s like stepping in a whole new world, with its own language."
Then I guess that's one more reason to not further the discussion. If there's a language barrier on top of a disconnect, all the more reason it could be futile.
"Is [Pantheism] indeed also about 'God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists' as in Einstein’s view (just looking up things here)."
Again, in Pantheism there is no "who", as nature isn't a "who". Nor is it a "him" or a "her".
As for what Einstein's views on the subject were, I simply don't know(or care). You will always be able to find those people who proclaim a descriptive title that best fits them, but who deviate from it to a degree. There are Christians who accept evolution, for example.
"And what’s the difference with the creationists here?"
Both Deists and Theists believe the universe was "created" by a Supreme Being. But again, I fail to see how this line of questioning, which is has long become tedious, IMO, is relevant to your premise, which is reincarnation..e.g.. that we never die; we just keep being recycled as "souls" in different bodies.
If you wish to learn more about Deism/Pantheism, please just learn it on your own. Maybe I'll post about it one day, but until then, I'm just not interested in going down that road, which is likely a rabbit hole.
"When I said 'So today I’ve been looking up the basic principles (again). you replied 'Yes, as in, examining only those sources that confirm(reconfirm) what you ALREADY believe, again'."
And the reason I said that is because you weren't clear as to which "basic principles" you meant, and yet, since you followed it up with...."and these I seem to understand and agree with", I have every reason to believe that if you agree with it, then it must be what you already believe.
I really fail to see the point in going further.
Ok, let's leave it at this. Thanx again for your time and patience here. Have a good night, Jeff.
Again, thank you for taking all this time out for me. Because of your time and patience I got to change (& get rid off) a number of things. If anything that’s something I’m most grateful for.
The most important one being that I can now safely say I’m not a Christian anymore (which is a very huge relief for me since I’ve been struggling with it for quite some time now). Having been able to give the concept I was thinking about in regard to God a name, as in Nature and with it embrace a concept that’s way more fitting / logical for me.
Getting rid of the theory behind the reincarnation theory having to do with coming back and then get some more of the same in an even possibly worse scenario. And truth be told, I’m rethinking the whole reincarnation theory at this moment. The concept* I’m thinking about would align with the idea that after this life we get to be reabsorbed into the energy of the cosmos (following a Pantheism principle here).
And if nothing else at least I’ve learnt that what I’ve always seen to be as true isn’t necessarily true at all, which applies to what I just said about concepts*. With it comes a way more open-minded view, with evidence playing a very important role in all of this.
Just one more question (sorry). Is the following true for you and if so how does this apply to the concept of “Nature”? => An atheist will not likely dispute that gods can exist metaphorically in an individual’s mind; the disagreement lies in whether or not these gods can exist or not independently of the mind and outside of human belief. => Is Nature a concept you embrace or that you reject here?
Again, thank you.
No prob' on taking some time to find common ground. The result, BTW, should give something to think about to those who insist that discussing religion is stupid and/or a pointless waste of time, their reasoning being, that because neither side will budge(change their minds). It is clear that this reasoning is false, when you said...
The most important one being that I can now safely say I’m not a Christian anymore (which is a very huge relief for me since I’ve been struggling with it for quite some time now).
Your two-part question:
Is the following true for you and if so how does this apply to the concept of “Nature”? => An atheist will not likely dispute that gods can exist metaphorically in an individual’s mind; the disagreement lies in whether or not these gods can exist or not independently of the mind and outside of human belief
The three-letter word, "GOD", is just a concept, and an unproven concept in terms of an actual being that exists outside of our heads and aside from the pages in books.
So, correct, I don't dispute that a "God" can exist in someone's head.
Is Nature a concept you embrace or that you reject here?
No, I do not reject "Nature".
When you say” I don't dispute that a "God" can exist in someone's head”, is this like guidance in the mind? How…?
If you do not reject “Nature”, do you “care” about the concept of “Nature” or is it irrelevant to you?
"When you say 'I don't dispute that a "God" can exist in someone's head', is this like guidance in the mind? How…?"
I do not claim and never have claimed to know what purpose the concept of "God" existing in one's head serves him or her. It could be for "guidance", I suppose. But ultimately, I reject that there is anything in their head guiding them but their own brain and their own conscience.
"If you do not reject 'Nature', do you 'care' about the concept of 'Nature' or is it irrelevant to you?""
To me, nature(lower case "n" because I do not view it as a personal noun or being) is simply the universe and its contents. As for whether its "relevant" or "irrelevant", I'm not sure I understand the point of the question until/unless you express what it is you're asking me that nature is relevant/irrelevant to.
I wasn’t planning on asking you (m)any more questions about this topic, but reading about Atheism/Pantheism/Deism questions seem to be popping up here, hence the questions I asked you before.
Going back to the statement that was made by someone else (!) about Atheism being: “An atheist will not likely dispute that gods can exist metaphorically in an individual’s mind”, I was wondering what God metaphorically could be in someone’s mind? Or IOW I didn’t have a clue what they meant. Apparently you don’t seem to have a clue either.
About my question regarding nature, I’m trying to define how God now is seen. Since basically now is being said that considering God to be a personal and caring God is not logical, next - one refers to God as in “nature”. As in something that has been created immensely beautifully and beyond our comprehension, well at least that’s what Pantheism claims. So I was just curious about your view of the concept of nature. That’s it.
Reading some more on the topic today, I’m beginning to understand here why you’re having a problem with (some/most of my) assumptions without any decent evidence to back it up. Which basically means that if I want to stick by what I said before (being aware of energy of people either living or dead – which I still feel is basically a skill waiting to be developed and with is therefore not something supernatural) this also deserves some decent evidence to back this up. Otherwise why would it be true?
What you said previously about the why to make most out of life when you’re only leading a single life, now also makes more sense to me. Suddenly taking responsibility for yourself, others (and nature) gets a whole new perspective. I guess that my appreciation of things and life were up to some improvement. I now get to see this differently and understand why you’d said so before. I guess because of this discussion I now have a renewed, stronger appreciation for life (and nature).
Atheism has a very dark sound to it if you know nothing about it (at least it did to me), but I’m beginning to see here it goes way beyond “not” believing in a personal God and with it comes (at least some) appreciation for it as well!
Yesterday I was at a party. Longtime friend of school was there with her mum (my "foster" mum). Then statement: "What you don't do in this life you get to redo in the next". I just kept to myself. Some things give new energy (renewed appreciation for life and nature), some give immense questions/ doubts. Whoa this is hard... Did you have a struggle (probably if it took you 4 to 5 years to get away from Xtianity). How did you deal with it? Xtianity is the easy part BTW to change even though I expect some comments when I do not pray before dinner tonight, but instead give it a moment of silence... (Other party). It's strange to go public with it. Not because I want/ need to but because of the many rituals attached I kept doing everywhere I went, like praying for dinner. Again... How did you cope with these changes?
I guess I could use a little support here. This "quest" suddenly seems very alone. No regrets though.
"I wasn’t planning on asking you (m)any more questions about this topic, but reading about Atheism/Pantheism/Deism questions seem to be popping up here, hence the questions I asked you before"
I would prefer that you, if you have questions that you just cannot get by another day without having an answer, stick to the Atheism category. Thx.
"I was wondering what God metaphorically could be in someone’s mind?"
You'd have to ask the person who states that "God" can be a "metaphor" in someone's mind. I haven't a clue what that even means, and I'll wager that the person who said it doesn't either.
"About my question regarding nature, I’m trying to define how God now is seen."
There's literally an infinite list of ways to define "God". It's all academic and really means nothing.
"Since basically now is being said that considering God to be a personal and caring God is not logical, next - one refers to God as in 'nature'."
I don't refer to "God" as "nature", so, again, you'd have to direct your questions about that belief-system to people who hold that belief-system, which, again, is what I'm asking you to do, instead of asking me.
"I’m beginning to understand here why you’re having a problem with (some/most of my) assumptions without any decent evidence to back it up."
Good.
"Which basically means that if I want to stick by what I said before (being aware of energy of people either living or dead – which I still feel is basically a skill waiting to be developed and with is therefore not something supernatural) this also deserves some decent evidence to back this up. Otherwise why would it be true?"
Being "aware of energy", as in human consciousness, is a claim that is not testable/falsifiable. Human consciousness might very well be classified a "energy", yes, but science tells us that this energy is generated by a physical mechanism..e.g..a brain, and true, you haven't proffered any evidence that this "energy" can exist independently of said brain. So, that you "feel" it isn't evidence of anything except that you "feel" that certain things are true. It's worth pointing out that a child might "feel" that their stuffed animals are "alive" and that they can carry on conversations with them. That they "feel" this, however strongly, does not mean that it is so.
"I guess because of this discussion I now have a renewed, stronger appreciation for life (and nature)."
Okay, good.
"Atheism has a very dark sound to it if you know nothing about it (at least it did to me)"
The word "Atheism" is just a bunch of letters. Therefore, you must know something about it - even if what you think that you know about it is false - for it to have a "very dark sound to it". For example, the reason that "Atheism" might have a "dark" aura around it could be directly attributed to people who nothing about it at all, so, they assume, erroneously, things like "atheists worship Satan!", and the like, which is as absurd as it is wrong.
When I asked you during the last post for some support, I wasn’t asking you to answer the questions from the post before and before that one. You’d basically answered those already, told me you could only answer questions having to do with Atheism. Fair enough. Don’t think I didn’t appreciate though you getting into the questions again today after some more explanations from my side, ‘cause I always do.
So please do not think this question about support from my last post had to do with you not answering quickly enough. Yes I can be very impatient (which you know by now) but I understand you have a life too here and you cannot always reply (whether straight away or at all).
The support I was asking for had to do with one question and one question only: “How did you deal with this process, call it transition, call it something else, but how did you handle this?” You’ve been through the process before unlike others I know and that’s why I asked you. I’m now slowly getting into situations having to do with my changing views, whether it be because people are giving statements I used to do as well or because they are used to me acting a certain way. People do not know I’ve been rethinking the whole Xtianity thing, nor (the reasons behind) the whole reincarnation theory and I’m not sure what I want to tell them about this yet, before I’ve figured out how I feel about all of this. So yes at home I talk about it, but this is something that mainly influences me outside my home, during courses, with friends, with family, you just name it…
Since you have been through this already I was wondering if you could tell me how you dealt with the whole transition period (by lack of better words). Maybe you have some suggestions. And if every now and then I can just write down my thoughts on the changes I’m experiencing, that would mean to lot to me. Simply because I believe you might understand them, unlike others and that in itself is already some (much needed) support.
If I’ve offended you by calling Atheism something I’ve always thought of as dark, I’m sorry. I wasn’t talking something as extreme as Satanism here, more what I felt like to be a lack of interest or call it judgement. What I wanted to say is that I probably have been judging it without understanding one bit about it, much less trying to understand this. Because of your blog and your answers a new world is showing itself and it’s something I’m slowly learning to appreciate. So it’s basically some sort of apology here.
When it comes to transitioning out of Christianity into Atheism, the whole process can be as individual and unique as finger prints. There is often times a common denominator, though, and that is that the former believer can (early on) be left with feelings of fear, sadness, anger, resentment, guilt, to name a few. Someone's first question to that might be, "Then why on earth change beliefs if doing so brings such feelings?", and the answer is simple: The truth doesn't care one iota how we feel about it. Many people would prefer a beautiful lie over an ugly truth, but many do not, and I for one do not. You cannot "unring" a bell once you've heard it.
Notwithstanding, one can be fearful of being alienated and/or chastised when telling friends and family that they no longer believe. Friends and family members, while they may love you, they can be the most critical of the change. Why? Because they know that if you can change your mind about it, so can they. If you can lose your "faith", so can they. This is why they'll, 9 times out of 10, try to talk you out of changing your mind.
Telling you about how I "dealt with the whole transition period" could easily require several chapters, if not an entire book. I just don't have the kind of time on my hands right now.
And yes, you probably were judging, or at least, you probably had some preconceived ideas about "atheism". Better to ask and investigate than to assume, though.
BTW, you eventually overcome most all of the undesirable feelings I mentioned above. It might take a year; it might take 10 years. You cannot get the wasted time back, but to me, the new freedom of thought makes up for that.
“Notwithstanding, one can be fearful of being alienated and/or chastised when telling friends and family that they no longer believe. Friends and family members, while they may love you, they can be the most critical of the change.”
I guess one thing I’m afraid of is my mum might be disappointed, even though I’ve told her already a thing or two and she seemed to be okay with it, even interested. Since I’m godmother for two cousins (both 12 years old) this feels weird as well. Not sure what to tell them yet.
Most part of the family is “done” with religion. Not for a specific reason I guess, but simply because it’s “easier”. And hardly anyone of my friends has ever been religious.
But I know the questions will have to do with the “why” and I guess I’m dreading this part a little.
Especially when it comes to the “Spiritual” part I’m mostly seen as the one who know most, among friends and family because of all the studying. And then I am going to tell them I’ve changed a number of my views based on lack of evidence? It’s gonna be interesting. That’s for sure.
Thanx for explaining the process to me here just now. Is it okay if I keep posting/asking questions every once in a while? It gives me some feeling of support here.
"And then I am going to tell them I’ve changed a number of my views based on lack of evidence?"
I don't know what to tell the people close to you. But for sure, you shouldn't tell them anything until/unless you are the one who is convinced that there is a lack of credible evidence. You shouldn't tell them because someone else says there's a lack of credible evidence.
Thank you for the advice here Jeff. It’s a complete battle of contradictive feelings going on inside of me. I happen to agree with the lack of evidence, but there’s no denying to me what it is I’ve experienced/am still experiencing. So you’re right about me having to come to terms with this first. And till that time it’s okay to be critical myself I guess. It was my own mediumship teacher (now don’t get frustrated here please) who is BTW always about the evidence, who said I should start to doubt everything I know, a couple of months ago. I just wasn’t ready for it back then.
I do know that if I want to claim anything from now on, it’d better be based on something substantial. I do not want to accept things, simply because I’ve assumed them to be true up till now. That’s a big improvement, regardless how things are going to turn out. And for these things I know to be true, I’ll just work that much harder to make it evidential one day.
Luckily everything to do with Christianity is going to be a lot easier, because of the doubts I’ve had for several years now, not to mention not feeling at home there anymore for years and years on. I feel actually rather gullible for just accepting the bible, even with the idea it was meant symbolically. I really do not understand how I’ve missed all the stories to do with for instance mass murder. And I guess that last visit to a church to play some music and only hearing them praise the Lord (and not talking about taking any responsibility) was enough to be fed up with it. But it wasn’t till this discussion it felt as a relief to say I’m no longer a Christian anymore. It feels as if I can stop being something I’m not. Having said this, I still do not know how to explain this to my cousins.
Still that part of the theory behind the reincarnation theory, which has come as a big shock to me, has probably been a big wake up call to me. And yes everyone tells me I should not see it this way (your example following my logic) and this example isn’t right and therefore doesn’t add up, but to me it’s enough to say I no longer wish to be “associated” with this kind of thinking. And where one reasoning might be faulty, others are likely to follow (or not). But that’s for me now to investigate. But some critical questions now and then can be very helpful here…
Hi Jeff,
Just a little update here. I’ve had a number of conversations these last view days about my battle here and also none at all. Some people simply do not notice things have changed, so as long as I keep silent about it life seems to go as it always has – on the outside.
My mum is very supportive. She doesn’t understand why I’m done with Christianity. She does understand a number of things are completely outdated and not be taken literally. She does not understand why this would be a reason for me to take a full step back from church and leave it for what it is.
I told her a bit about the Pantheism and to my surprise she's been reading a little about it already to get to understand me.
Other people, also the ones close to me, are surprised this is an important subject to me. They obviously haven’t given this topic that much thought and are okay with whatever current (non)beliefs they have now.
It’s weird. To me the world seems upside down, however it’s still going on like it used to for everyone else.
Did a lot of things change for you when you started your transition period? Or is this question also taking several chapters, if not a book :-)...
"My mum is very supportive. She doesn’t understand why I’m done with Christianity."
She doesn't really need to understand why. Christianity has to make sense to you, not her, in order for you to find it convincing.
"She does understand a number of things are completely outdated and not be taken literally."
If all believers could agree on what is (and is not) "completely outdated" and agree on what is (and is not) "to be taken literally", then maybe Christians and their bibles could be taken a little more seriously. As it stands, though, curiously, we see that whatever Christians find ridiculous and/or useless about their bibles is "not to be taken literally", and whatever they find valuable and/or useful about it, that is the literal, "gospel" truth, to which I say, oh, how convenient.
"She does not understand why this would be a reason for me to take a full step back from church and leave it for what it is"
Because if you can't trust the church (or bible) to tell you where you came from, then why trust them to tell you where you're going, or why trust them on anything else, for that matter?
"Did a lot of things change for you when you started your transition period? Or is this question also taking several chapters, if not a book"
You answered your own question. It would take a book. But learning about deconverting doesn't start and end with me. You can learn more by asking other atheists, too, not just me. And in fact, there are some good books to help give answers. Here's a good one: "Losing Faith in Faith" by Dan Barker.
“She doesn't really need to understand why. Christianity has to make sense to you, not her, in order for you to find it convincing.”
I get it’s my battle here, not hers or anyone else’s. So it has to make sense to me why I’m taking this step back. Let’s call this another part of growing up and letting go.
“Because if you can't trust the church (or bible) to tell you where you came from, then why trust them to tell you where you're going, or why trust them on anything else, for that matter?”.
I guess this basically answers it all as in the reason behind this transition.
“You can learn more by asking other atheists, too, not just me.”
I’m aware I’ve taken too much of your time already. It’s just that I do not know any others who have gone through this process. Sorry here :-(.
“And in fact, there are some good books to help give answers. Here's a good one: "Losing Faith in Faith" by Dan Barker.”
I’ve ordered the book :-). It would be very welcome if this indeed would give me some much needed answers.
Then again, it basically comes down to something I realized since I was a very little girl: “When it comes down to it, we all have to do it on our own.” It doesn’t make life any sweeter.
What do you do when people want to pray for someone you've loved and have lost? Do you let them?
Just asking since someone now is being denied to pray for the one who's passed away. Not sure what to think of this.
I thought I touched on "prayer" in one of my older posts, but I suppose it can't hurt to revisit the subject.
When/if believers want to "pray" for people, it's usually a well-meaning gesture. In cases where believers are praying for people who are ill or those who have lost loved ones, it's usually a way for believers to feel like they've actually done something helpful, without actually having done anything at all.
In cases where believers "pray" for me(and other Atheists), I usually just chuckle to myself, or in some cases, I bash them over the head with the obvious: If there exists an omniscient(all-knowing) being who has a "plan", then asking this being to alter its "plan" - which, BTW, is essentially asking it to alter the known future set of events - is nonsensical, illogical, and if nothing else, it is counter-productive to the "plan". If this being knows things, things like who will believe and who won't, or the time and place that all of us will die, then these things cannot be changed. This is a serious conundrum for the believer, and I've yet to hear anyone overcome it.
So basically it depends on whether the person being prayed for is an Atheist or not? And if so and they (the believers) are well-meaning, that means they have to be set straight regardless? I’m sorry it just sounds so harsh. Why would you do so, unless… you now consider prayer to be an insult?
Your post is gone, but I had already started a response, so here it is:
I'm merely stating the reasons for why I, an Atheist, find it comical when believers say they're going to "pray" for me, as in, when they ask for me to change my mind about "God", and/or, when they ask their "God" to implement its supposed "infinite mercy" on me, when we know that should there be a "hell" with people in it right this second, that said "mercy" is NOT "infinite". Basic logic.
As for when believers "pray" for loved ones to get well, whether they be Atheists, or otherwise, I usually just accept it for what it is, which, again, is their way of doing something helpful without lifting a finger. So, no, I don't feel the need to "set them straight" in every single case.
I’d deleted it, since the words seemed to be a bit mixed up, as in not the way I wanted them to be. It should be up again now.
“Infinite mercy” and “hell” both seem like hollow phrases/words to me. For some reason it almost feels like a threat if one does not start believing straight away.
And honestly… I like it much better knowing you do not want to set everyone straight every single time. But... that's me...
“Infinite mercy” and “hell” both seem like hollow phrases/words to me
I have no clue what you mean by "hollow", but the two things certainly contradict. The latter thing, according to the bible, is a literal place where non-believers will die their "second death"(Revelations). Many Christians, because the thought of their fellow human beings getting tortured forever is unpalatable, like to say things, like, "Hell is just a separation from God", or they say the focus should be on "Jesus", when in fact, "Jesus" spoke of no other subject more.
And honestly… I like it much better knowing you do not want to set everyone straight every single time."
What do you mean when you say "it"? Do you mean, you like me better? You like my blog better? Bear in mind that this is my own blog; it's my own little corner of the internet, so when it comes to people who choose to navigate in here, I just might want to set them straight every time they make statements that go against logic and/or and reason and/or the scientific method, the later of which, to date, is the most reliable way of knowing what is most likely true about the world we live in.
With “hollow” I meant as with little to no substance to it. Maybe I should have said ”empty words”. It just seems pointless to use these words if one can wonder if there’s any real meaning behind it. Let’s put it this way, it’s been used so frequently as a sort of threat: “If you don’t believe you go to hell” or, “when you were born you were already destined to go to hell”. Same with “infinite mercy”. So basically all we have to do is “believe” and confess to our sins and then it’s suddenly okay? It gives me this feeling of one sitting in the front row in church every week and meanwhile acting completely different outside of church.
About “What do you mean when you say "it"?” I meant “you” and I’ll explain why. These last replies started out with my question about someone passing away. Part of this family are believers, part are not and the part of the family which are Christians were denied praying for the deceased since the deceased wasn’t a believer anymore. Now when you were using words like “chuckle” and “bash”, I was wondering for a moment if you were to do so in public and maybe even at a funeral as well (I’ve got a vivid imagination here). I was thinking for a moment “Are you really giving these people a piece of your mind when they are grieving over their lost ones here? And if so, then why?” So when you replied you do not necessarily do so that image got readjusted. Hence the remark I made.
So please don’t see this as me attacking your blog. If you want to set people straight commenting on your own blog, I’d say “sure, why not?” and also “I wouldn’t expect anything else from you.” If you want to do so in other people’s blogs I still could understand it. But doing so “at a funeral” seemed out of place to me. And again that’s what this started out with, with someone being denied to pray at someone’s deathbed.
So basically all we have to do is “believe” and confess to our sins and then it’s suddenly okay?
That's what it boils down to for most believers I encounter, but for others, it may be worded differently, or it may be different, altogether. A *Christian Universalist might not believe in the doctrine of "hell". Christianity is really a free-for-all "grab-bag", as I've said many times.
*Please don't ask me about Universalist doctrine. Investigate it for yourself if you're curious about it.
Now when you were using words like “chuckle” and “bash”, I was wondering for a moment if you were to do so in public and maybe even at a funeral as well
No, my lips are sealed at a funeral. I was talking about these discussions, and others, that take place on the internet.
This thread is getting long, and frankly, it's beginning to look like the "Boomslang and Lexje" dialogues. If there's nothing else that pertains to the topic at hand that needs to be addressed, I'd just as soon bring this thread to a close, unless someone new pops in. Thx.
Just posted this on a certain popular networkingsite. Since you can't read it I just wanted to share it here with you: "Sometimes reading takes preference over sleeping. Especially when it involves important topics. For now I just want to say I appreciate those out there taking the time to listen, reflect and comment on certain statements and/or thoughts. To me, it's those people that make a BIG difference in this world, regardless of whether they meant to do so or not."
Okay, I assume that you count me as one of those whom you believe to be making a big difference in the world, and if so, thx for the shout-out. I just wish more people would view what I do that way, but unfortunately, when people's core-beliefs are challenged, they usually label me(and other atheists) as "bullies" or "militant", and the like.
Yes I meant you, hence the post on here. And about you being “militant”, let’s say you’re not afraid of a good discussion. This being said I also feel supported by you and I appreciate it very much.
You were right about a number of things and I’m glad you got to mention them upfront. For one thing someone told me “Lucas must be taken literally, Jonathan however should never be taken literally and Solomon speaks from the heart.” Excuse me? It indeed seems the bible is multi-interpretable as is convenient to each.
It’s strange to be reinvestigating a number of things. Some things I will never change (like the energy from the deceased can still be felt and again this can be done by anyone – also you - if open for it), other things I do question (then what do I actually feel, an imprint or could there be another possibility?) and what if we indeed only have one life? Then what is being seen/referred to when going back to a past life? Are we talking a wonderful trick of the mind/imagination here? Or should I just leave it up to… “we simply do not know, since there’s so much we have no clue about?” So yes there are a lot of doubts on my side here.
It also seems to me some people are shocked that I’m questioning things now, I’ve for so long believed to be true and “normal”, as for instance reincarnation. Answers seem to consist of “but you know it’s true” and “that’s why they call it believing in”. It’s strange to actually say “What do we actually know?”.
And then there are a number of questions:
* What’s the difference between prayers and affirmations, except for I’m not addressing God here? What is it I am addressing? The unconscious mind?
* Pretty soon it’ll be Easter. I’ve always enjoyed going to the vigil, lighting the candles in the dark. But considering all, there would be no use anymore to attend a service (especially being annoyed by all else) or even celebrate this as a holiday. So I am going to ask you “How did you handle this for the first time after deciding to leave Christianity behind and/or right now?”
Today I’ve started working with a new intern for the energetic therapy. I know we do not agree on this subject, but how do I explain what my philosophies are at the moment when they are being revised here? A while ago you said I had some serious explaining to do, talking about intent. I now would say I have some serious explaining to do to myself. Cause what do I call upon now when sending this intent to …? It’s actually the same question here as I posted before in this reply about prayer.
The power of intent and affirmation seems to be very powerful, especially when comparing it to not using it. And it may not take away mass-scale problems in the world, but it most certainly seems to be creating focus and with it redirection. I’ll for now just leave it to there’s a lot of things we simply do not know about.
Yes I’m aware you’re over and done with this thread for long now, it’s just a very insecure time right now. And while still waiting for that book, I now just write about this process on my own blog, to get some perspective on all of this and to stop “bugging” you on your blog. And honestly, this felt/feels somewhat fearful too, as in “is it wise to talk about my doubts and changing beliefs on my own website?” and “should I not post things like these anonymous elsewhere?” All of this is unfortunately making me somewhat restless (and at times slightly hyper) and the writing about it seems to take the edge of a little, just like going outside, cycling to the beach… So yes I know I’m probably “abusing” your blog, or at least this thread here, but I really need to get it off my chest every once in a while, just to keep me functioning in daily life. Sorry for trying your patience here. L.
IF this thread is still open - i'd be happy to share some of my insights as a former christian (marginally practicing) evolved to atheist.
Regarding prayers, for example - i friend recently posted that her mom might be dying and there was an outpouring of "prayers sent" via facebook - as jeff said - it appears absurd an empty and meaningless,yet those who did so really had heartfelt and positive intent ... so when someone says they are "sending prayers" in this time of crisis, the atheist can simply interpret as the believers show of concern and hope for a positive outcome without challenging their beliefs since a challenge would be inappropriate to the situation.
Sorry for being late to the game - it took me a while to read through the whole thread and i have probably missed some things
~robert
I'm open to keeping a discussion going as long as we can keep the subject-matter more narrowed.
Prayer. I have no qualms when it comes to those who pray for the ill. But when/if they pray for me, as in, for their god to spare my "soul" or lead me back to the fold, that is where I find it extremely difficult to not respond.
@ Robert! Glad you joined in. I’m relatively new to this whole subject as you may have noticed, so I still have lots of questions here. Hence the long thread.
@Jeff, I’ll do my best to stick to the subject.
I got the book today (Losing faith in faith) and it’s hard to put away. A lot of the words you’ve used on your blog I now get to read in the book and I’m slowly getting used to this whole new language. Most of these words are unknown in our language, so it’s reading with Google close by my side.
I know I said it before, but there are some things I’m reading in the book which are very recognizable and I’m not too proud of when it comes to how I looked at Atheism till very recently.
I’m now also beginning to realize this whole process of deconverting has started a while ago and like they say in the book (not literally), sometimes you need someone else to help you take the plunge. And no I’m not going to say it again here… :-)
My struggle when it comes to prayer still has to do with the question of prayer now is completely obsolete, or if it’s useful when not used to pray to a God, but simply for the intent behind it, like being appreciative of certain things and/or getting (re)focused. That’s what I mean(t) with affirmation. To me this seems pretty close to prayer just not being directed to God.
And it’s heart warming to read that it’s okay when prayers are being said/send with the right intent, even though I can understand it might cause some irritation as well.
@Lexje - I have more recently "taken the plunge" so to speak, into proclaiming myself "atheist" ... the major reason for withholding my own final "step" actually had more to do with the stigma associated with the word and misperception of what "atheist" meant.
AS defined on wikepiedia:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" (italics and bold added - source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism )
But I reached a conclusion that I had fit that definition many years ago - but the stigma and all the silly tripe that had been assigned to the word had more to do with my unwillingness to "label" myself what my (non)belief really was.
i believe this is the same sticking point most people who are on this "journey" arrive at because the same indoctrination into the theology of their/our culture also instills the dark bastardized belief that atheism is somehow the sworn enemy of the theists - that somehow an atheist is "out to get" and destroy the believers.
I've come to understand that atheism is not about what it IS but everything about what it is NOT
You see - the theist has a belief and an investment in their faith in their god ... the atheist rejects the existence of all deities and "embraces" the ABSENCE of their existence!
let that sink in for a moment ...
the ABSENCE of their existence - to the degree anyone can "embrace" something that doesn't exist.
Well, there's nothing that "requires" that an atheist go out and knock on doors like a missionary and drum up converts nothing says we have to kill the theists, don't have to burn the churches or in any way, shape or form, tell anyone anything. atheism is simply the truth - to ME - that there is nothing that supports what i once fully believed - there's more "evidence" to suggest that Santa Clause is/was an actual person than there is that any supernatural god exists ... much less, created the universe ... in fact, there's arguably more evidence that would suggest our planet was visited by a superior life form that there is that a god or gods exist - but that is getting off point.
So instead of trying so hard to figure out what it "is" ... I focus on and appreciate what it is NOT ... it is a vacant place in my mind that once held all the beliefs of christianity and and the open slots on my daily planner that no longer require me to perform religious rituals (not that i ever did much of that) ... but i still have the option, should i choose, to still go to easter mass as a social event if i decided to ... i can still have easter and christmas dinners and even bow my head to respect the beliefs of others - i respect their beliefs because they are THEIR beliefs to hold - not mine. As long as the only thing going down my throat is ham and mashed potatoes and not their beliefs - it's all good with me if they want to keep themselves linked into their version of their theological "matrix"
"[...]what if we indeed only have one life?"
Then first and foremost, said life becomes more valuable. Just like pretty much everything else, when something is scarce(as opposed to abundant), that something has more worth. For instance, gold is scarce, but dirt is abundant, hence, why the former is much more valuable than the latter. By the same token, a life that is "everlasting", or a life that keeps getting recycled over and over in perpetuity, is less valuable than a life that eventually terminates.
"Then what is being seen/referred to when going back to a past life? Are we talking a wonderful trick of the mind/imagination here?"
What's being seen/referred to probably has very much to do with what's being suggested and/or sought. The power of suggestion is very strong. I can intensely focus on my deceased grandmother and intense feelings can be generated. Those feelings can drive me to smile, laugh, or bring me to tears. This is evidence of nothing going on outside of my brain, however.
"Or should I just leave it up to… 'we simply do not know, since there’s so much we have no clue about?'"
It's okay to say "I don't know." It's an honest position, after all. However, just because we don't for certain - for instance, in a case where a hypothesis is not testable/falsifiable..e.g...the "Big Bang", where we don't know for certain because none of us were present - that doesn't mean that all hypotheses are then equally plausible.
When it comes to "spiritual mediums", this is a little different because it *is* testable/falsifiable, and time after time it has been tested and failed.
"So yes there are a lot of doubts on my side here"
Doubt is the beginning of wisdom. - Clarence Darrow
Today I told a friend about this process transitioning from Christianity into Atheism. And she replied “So you’re an Atheist now???” I answered “I don’t know what I am, I just know what I’m not.” Next I told her a bit about what Atheism is and what it’s not (thanx here Robert, this was excellent timing last night).
We also got to talk about Easter and yes she basically said the same thing as you Robert, to just go if I like being in the atmosphere of church and lighting the candles and as far as everything else, to just close my ears to everything I do not agree with and go into a meditational state (no Jeff, simply meditational, nothing fancy here…).
Than something interesting when we got to talk about prayer. Her vision on prayer was totally different then what I’ve experienced up till now (our heavenly father… & could … please…). She called it unselfish, instead of wanting something. She obviously was not raised catholic and could not understand that prayer has a certain meaning to me, defined by Christianity.
“Then first and foremost, said life becomes more valuable.”
Yes Jeff I’ve heard you here. I do not know if I find it to be more valuable yet, since it’s still the same life and I still feel very lonely at times and have enough of it all. When I was in my twenties, I always said I didn’t want to get past 50. I stopped saying this years ago at someone’s request, but lately seeing what life or better yet aging does to people... It seems undignified to me. Are you telling me you find life constantly really enjoyable?
Saying this… I just got an email of one my oldest clients (77 years old) and he and I got to talk about the bible a while ago (remember the thread on the poem and the poem you next posted? I told him this poem and he loved it too and so we got to talk about the bible and how this wasn’t very “friendly” at all.) That’s when I got to realize what it actually said. Your blog saying it all and making me come to decide to leave Christianity behind.
I’m very fond of this man, since he’s immense positive, and it’s people like these that make life worth living (same as I value your opinion as you may know by now and I’m also happy with Robert’s response). So yes I’m most certainly more appreciative of things. It’s just the hyper bit that can really get me down.
And “getting recycled”… I get what you’re saying, but I simply do not share this view. All we can do is make the best out of this one. I have heard other people claim what you said “We’ll just do it again next time”. However that’s beyond my comprehension (as are more things nowadays).
“The power of suggestion is very strong.”
Yes you can say so. Reading on I immediately got very emotional. But yes, I am aware now that some things I thought to be true and real can indeed be “just my imagination”. It’s creating immense insecurity here on my side. What if I am imagining all these things I thought to be true (like… just maybe my Spirit Team… ouch that hurts, don’t want to but am thinking about this). Delusional right?
I’m still going to certain medium courses, so it’s a good way to look at things more critical. So even though you say: “When it comes to "spiritual mediums", this is a little different because it *is* testable/falsifiable, and time after time it has been tested and failed.”, I still do not agree. I know many are fake, but I also know some have very surprising evidence about both the living and the dead. I know the process, it’s not supernatural, it’s just hard to learn.
I know your expectations though and why you say it cannot be true. My experience is different, then again your standards are high, which I can actually appreciate nowadays as well.
“It's okay to say "I don't know." It's an honest position, after all.”
I’m saying it a lot lately. It feels better though knowing I’m no longer simply accepting things I quite recently still thought to be normal.
Doubt is the beginning of wisdom. - Clarence Darrow
Not easy, but I guess very true. The friend I was seeing today, was actually very pleasantly surprised I’m more open now to different view/opinions, since I clearly was not before.
"I do not know if I find [this life] to be more valuable yet, since it’s still the same life and I still feel very lonely at times and have enough of it all."
And yet, the fact that gold is more valuable than dirt doesn't mean that everyone must desire or acquire gold.
IOW, the fact that this life has its share of ups and downs has no bearing on the fact that a finite existence makes existence, itself, more unique/special than a perpetual, never-ending existence. Moreover, if we're talking Christian theology, where its "Heaven" is presumably a perpetual existence that is free of all pain and suffering..e.g..being "lonely", etc., then consider that it's not a fair nor logical comparison at all, since, in the absence of "bad", "good" then becomes meaningless since there is no longer a frame of reference. For me, this is just one more reason to conclude that "Heaven" is man-made concept with wishful thinking at its core.
"And 'getting recycled'… I get what you’re saying, but I simply do not share this view. All we can do is make the best out of this one"
Then your views have changed somewhat since we started correspondence, which, again, should serve as a good indicator that having discussions like these can actually change minds, when naysayers, mainly on FB, insist that it's a waste of time because, "Nobody ever changes their mind". Welp, bull'.
Yes my views have changed considerably. Mostly because of you I must admit and the logic you've been using and even though it's anything but easy... I'm happy to be where I am now... even with all the doubts I'm having here.
Surprised? I know I am and I'm pretty sure you were convinced as well I would not change my views. Sorry to say but the word “delusional” (along with some others) is still engraved in my mind.
I'm just not too thrilled to have this discussion so openly on the net for everyone to see. I mean, I do not mind people reading my views and how things have changed, most certainly not if it may help others, but it's VERY personal and I've said way more things on here then I'd normally share with any person in daily life.
And about the gold: You won't ever see me wearing it. It's silver and titanium for me.
But seriously… “…that a finite existence makes existence, itself, more unique/special…”
The concept of existence itself is honestly a very special concept and I do add to this that I’m very lucky I got to be born in this place, without hunger and wars and constantly having to look for enemies. It’s a very special period right now where we (a number of us) have the luxury of finding out what it is we want to do, just as we can get to “talk” about this via the net, while being on opposite sides of the world.
Is it so rare that I think life should be lived to the max and that we are to make most of it, regardless if this is the only or not? I guess it is if people only see life as a way of passing time till they can get to “heaven” or whatever there could be. Which to me then would sound like a waste of their precious time, they are actually having right now, without being aware of this.
"The concept of existence itself is honestly a very special concept and I do add to this that I’m very lucky I got to be born in this place[...]"
Actually, you and I are lucky to be born period, considering all of the potential people that will never realize an existence, simply because one day the earth will no longer support human life. For instance, when the sun burns all its energy. Of course, that is of no practical importance since said potential people will never know that they won't exist, and in which case, they cannot suffer or be inconvenienced by it. IOW, there are some instances where what people do not know cannot hurt them.
"Is it so rare that I think life should be lived to the max and that we are to make most of it, regardless if this is the only or not?"
It would be rare in Christian circles, simply because the phrase "to the max" implies doing whatever one wants to do whenever one wants to do it. IOW, decadence, partying, heavy music, etc., which are all "sins", as far as Christianity is concerned. Please notice that I'm not saying that you meant those things; I'm simply saying that that is what's implied.
In any case, living life to the fullest or "to the max" just in case this is the only life we have is precisely what I'm talking about. In contrast, living life like there are "do-overs", when there is not one scrap of evidence that there is, is a mentality that's more likely to be found where there is a belief in reincarnation and/or theologies that promise an "afterlife". Some simplistic examples of the mentality we might see could be, "Oh, I'll just tell [so 'n so] how much they really mean to me when I get to Heaven"..or, "In my next life I'll work on my alcoholism". That sort of thing. And then there's the whole "self-fulfilling prophecy" thing. If a person is taught that they worthless like a "filthy rag" and that they cannot achieve anything without the help of "God", it should be no wonder that some people live up to(down to) that self-image.
The downside of knowing (or if preferred, believing) that this is the only life that we'll ever have and that we need to get things "right" this time, is that it can create anxiety.
"The downside of knowing (or if preferred, believing) that this is the only life that we'll ever have and that we need to get things "right" this time, is that it can create anxiety."
And then what??? I'm sorry I do not get what you're trying to say here.
I think he is suggesting that knowing you get one go around might lead to 2nd guessing, over analyzing and inaction for fear of making a "wrong" choice
However, I'd counter that concept with - whatever choice we make, rightly or wrongly - only we, ourselves, have to bear the consequences of those actions since there is nothing "beyond" to judge or keep score of the rights and wrongs we commit.
And then what?
You are the actual master of your destiny and have full reign to live as you see fit to and to leave the legacy you so choose - the ultimate freedom.
“…only we, ourselves, have to bear the consequences of those actions since there is nothing "beyond" to judge or keep score of the rights and wrongs we commit.”
This would imply we can do whatever we please, as long as we do not get “caught”. Nice mentality. This contradicts that’s life is worth a lot more, if there’s only one.
Same with “anxiety” => “knowing you get one go around might lead to 2nd guessing, over analyzing and inaction for fear of making a "wrong" choice”
If this were to lead to not doing anything anymore, life would suddenly become a lot less valuable.
This cannot be the outcome of one life being more valuable than multiple ones.
“Actually, you and I are lucky to be born period”
I was thinking for instance about the people who died in the Japanese camps after having to do hard manual labour, without hardly any food. What kind of life did they have? Then this one life can be very cruel. Why not appreciate we are born in countries which provide us with the possibility to enjoy life and make something of it?
“And then there's the whole "self-fulfilling prophecy" thing. If a person is taught that they worthless like a "filthy rag" and that they cannot achieve anything without the help of "God", it should be no wonder that some people live up to(down to) that self-image.”
As in “if you do not believe in God, you’ll be destined to end up in hell?” or “we’re destined to be doomed anyway from the moment we are born?”
These kind of mindsets are being created regardless of people grow up with/around religion. And it’s a very sad thing these things happen. It says more about the people who say these words (whether in the name of God or not) than about “religion”. They are then simply using religion as an excuse for not having to take any responsibility and thus transferring this idea onto others. This actually gets me somewhat “upset”.
“This would imply we can do whatever we please, as long as we do not get “caught”. Nice mentality."
Absolutely true - and getting "caught" bears no relevance the only thing that guides us is our moral compass and values - otherwise we're free to act and think how we please
"This contradicts that’s life is worth a lot more, if there’s only one."
I couldn't disagree more - if we think we have a plurality of opportunities we're apt to be lulled into a malaise that stunts our drive, will and determination to get the most out of life
"If this were to lead to not doing anything anymore, life would suddenly become a lot less valuable. This cannot be the outcome of one life being more valuable than multiple ones. "
Life - at it's most basic - has no value. What give our lives value is the unique collection of thoughts, ideals and experiences that we assign value to. but regardless of the value system we each define to use for determining the value of our individual life, id don't think it possible to "compare" a single existence to multiple existences
But like our favorite food - if we're having it for the very last time (like our single existence) we will cherish and savor the experience in all it's detail - where as if we could have that favorite food every week or every day - we'd eventually find it commonplace ... and to miss and opportunity would not be anything to worry about - no big deal - in fact it might be a relief to skip the meal once in a while.
What does "ad hominem" exactly mean? Translation talks about "personal" and "without reason". As I now understand it it's used by people who cannot see a way out to win their argument, so instead they turn on the other one by saying "but you... !!!", laying the blame on the other party involved.
Reading on in Dan Barker's book, he says God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. Why not? Maybe you can dedicate a thread to that book?
"I think he is suggesting that knowing you get one go around might lead to 2nd guessing, over analyzing and inaction for fear of making a 'wrong' choice. ~ R. Hall
Among other things, yes.
However, I'd counter that concept with - whatever choice we make, rightly or wrongly - only we, ourselves, have to bear the consequences of those actions[....]" ~ R. Hall
'Not entirely true. If I commit trespass "X" and as a result that trespass affects others adversely, either, emotionally, or physically, that wrong choice created consequences that are not exclusively my own. A quick example would be if I choose to drive drunk, get in accident, and disable or kill someone else in the process of getting a DUI.
"[...]since there is nothing 'beyond' to judge or keep score of the rights and wrongs we commit." ~ R. Hall
Agreed, but that doesn't preclude others sharing the consequences that I, alone, created.
"You are the actual master of your destiny and have full reign to live as you see fit to and to leave the legacy you so choose - the ultimate freedom."
And yet, who wouldn't choose to take advantage of that kind of personal power? I think most people would, and yet, we don't see most people super-achieving and shooting for the stars. Quite the opposite.
Desire and/or will do not necessarily say anything of the capability to act, which requires being emotionally/psychologically secure. So, I must respectfully disagree that there is "ultimate freedom" in one's emotional capability to act. To have that type of ultimate freedom, again, every choice would need to be made from a "clean slate", devoid of emotions. As human beings, that is impossible.
"Reading on in Dan Barker's book, he says God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. Why not? Maybe you can dedicate a thread to that book?" ~ Lexje
If his explanation doesn't convince you, I'm not sure how mine will. Nevertheless, I'll try:
If there is a "God" who possesses all knowledge, which would include knowledge of the future set of events, then from his/her/its perspective, the future is solidified, and therefore, he/she/it cannot freely act to change any outcome in the future. Theists, namely Christians, generally come back with, "God isn't confined to linear time"(or something similar). If that's true, then this "God" cannot be omnipresent..i.e...in all places at once.
“If his explanation doesn't convince you, I'm not sure how mine will. Nevertheless, I'll try”.
Yes it helped. I simply did not understand what he meant and I counted on you to understand it just perfectly, thus being able to explain it to me. It worked!
“…is that it can create anxiety.”
What do you mean by this? It seems Robert didn’t explain what you meant since you answered: “Among other things, yes.”
To me it seems like there’s a number of things you could say following the statement “it can create anxiety”.
Do I understand this “ad hominem” correctly? We do not use such terms and it’s frequently used by both you and in the book, so it would be nice if I know I understand this correctly.
I’ve read the following phrase now a number of times: “it’s like learning a whole new language”. That’s what I concluded myself a while ago. It slowly is becoming more clearly, though I sometimes need to reread certain parts. It helps that you’ve already “prepped” me for this book.
The explanation about mankind needing something to believe in (to put it freely) and that religion makes us feel safe as being part of a community (again being written freely), is quite revealing. There are a number of things I can relate to and with every page I’m more surprised how I got myself to be led along such a path (and yes I’m talking more than just Christianity here) and go along with all the excuses.
How “caught up” were you in Christianity? Just curious here.
Thanx again for your support, it sure helps!
"Not entirely true. If I commit trespass "X" and as a result that trespass affects others adversely ..." ~ Jeff
Of course you are 100% correct - for brevity i was limiting the scope to stay between the individual and the hypothesized afterlife/deity(s) - I tend to get long-winded and i really don't like typing all that much ;)
"What does "ad hominem" exactly mean? " ~lex
I think you have it right - it's basically "shooting" the messenger because you don't like the message
" ... and yet, we don't see most people super-achieving and shooting for the stars. Quite the opposite." ~ Jeff
Perhaps because too many people are bamboozled to believe there is "something beyond" or "another chance" that they've become complacent and risk adverse? or they just don't have any desire to be anything more than they are - many folks can be very happy in a simple, basic life - who's to say to them, they aren't living their version of "reach for the stars" and are content that they've "arrived"
"To me it seems like there’s a number of things you could say following the statement “it can create anxiety”. " ~lex
Yes lex - you are correct - like taking a final exam to complete a course - if you "fail" this hurts your grade greatly - this causes many people to get sidetracked from the task of completing the test by focusing on the negative results of failure ... which tends to cause the failure to come true - this is why the philosophy of focusing on positives tend to lead us down a positive path - it's perspective - which i believe was Jeff's original intent with his original statement
"... every choice would need to be made from a "clean slate", devoid of emotions. As human beings, that is impossible."
considering that one of the main motives we do anything is to feel something - you are correct it's impossible - but ultimate freedom MUST be obtainable for it to be ultimate ;) otherwise it's simply a "wish"
About anxiety: If someone knows, or the more conservative, if someone believes, that this is the only life they'll ever have, then he or she might feel a burden and/or pressure to get everything right this time around. The type of pressure of which I speak could be likened to taking an exam, and ten minutes into the exam, the professor announces, "BTW, you only have 30 minutes to complete the exam."
“The type of pressure of which I speak could be likened to taking an exam, and ten minutes into the exam, the professor announces, "BTW, you only have 30 minutes to complete the exam."
That’s one of the reasons I live by the rule, to live every day as if it’s the last day. The first part of this is relatively easy. It’s telling my loved ones how much they mean to me and letting others know how appreciative I am when appropriate.
The second one is a bit harder. It has to do with acting on things I love/want to do, instead of keep(ing) postponing this. I do live up to this principal as best as I can, even when challenging, but I do not do so constantly, mostly having to do with what you wrote before: “Desire and/or will do not necessarily say anything of the capability to act, which requires being emotionally/psychologically secure.”
I have to admit though that if today was the last day I would have some very mixed feelings. I did what I do best, I did what I love to do best and with both of these activities massive doubts were present and it takes away the joy, making me sad. Tell me please this will change. :-(
“Desire and/or will do not necessarily say anything of the capability to act, which requires being emotionally/psychologically secure.”
I felt the distinction needed to be made straight away, as many people, when they think of "free will", they tend to think that the "will" part is simply the freedom to desire. IOW, they see it as we are "free" to want this, that, or the other thing. If defined that way, then yes, I agree that we all have limitless "free will". On the other hand, we are not entirely "free" to act on those desires to make them reality, and that's the type of "free will" that I mean as I discuss it here.
With religion, specifically Christianity, "free will" means the ability to commit "evil"(Vs "good"). Christian apologists insist that the reason that "God" cannot simply do away with "evil", the "devil", and related suffering, etc., here on earth, is because doing so would make us the equivalent of "robots"(a word they often use). And yet, look.....these are the same people who will tell you that, in "Heaven", there will no "evil" or suffering of any kind.
So, it seems that we can safely conclude that the occupants of "Heaven"(assuming such a place exists for sake of discussion) will be a bunch of robots. Factor in that, from the onset, "God" had prescience(AKA foreknowledge) of who would go to "Heaven", and who would get the alternative, and then it seems that we're "robots" before we even get to where we're (supposedly) going. If, before "creation", including time, itself, "God" knew I'd become an Atheist, then my "free will" is just an illusion. I'm just following a script.
Jeff, please take a step back here. You obviously have in mind what you want to explain, but you lost me somewhere along the way.
“IOW, they see it as we are "free" to want this, that, or the other thing. If defined that way, then yes, I agree that we all have limitless "free will" “
If I understand you correctly we have limitless “free will” when it comes to dreaming/wishing.
“On the other hand, we are not entirely "free" to act on those desires to make them reality, and that's the type of "free will" that I mean as I discuss it here.”
Next you start talking evil and robots. Who is “they” and what do “they” mean when talking “robots”?
And last but not least, what do you see as the reason for people not being able to act on their dreams (when it comes to (actually not) having free will)?
will n.
1.
a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination.
b. The act of exercising the will.
2.
a. Diligent purposefulness; determination: an athlete with the will to win.
b. Self-control; self-discipline: lacked the will to overcome the addiction.
3. A desire, purpose, or determination, especially of one in authority: It is the sovereign's will that the prisoner be spared.
4. Deliberate intention or wish: Let it be known that I took this course of action against my will.
5. Free discretion; inclination or pleasure: wandered about, guided only by will.
6. Bearing or attitude toward others; disposition: full of good will.
No where in the definition of "will" is the requirement for "capacity to ACT" - one can decide to fly and wish it and will it so - but they still have to go about creating the conditions to make that happen within the physical limitations of the act - if one fails to achieve what their will dictates, nothing STOPS to capacity to retain the WILL to still try however gravity and not will can and will always work against them ... hence planes - less arm flapping ;)
From 1. b. of the supplied definition, above:
The act of exercising the will.
So, at least one entry aligns with the what I have in mind when I talk about "free will", as in, the capacity to act. If we can't agree that there's a difference between being free to want/wish/desire, and being free to act on those wants/wishes/desires, then all discussion on the topic might be futile. For the record, I've been talking about the latter of the two, simply because wishing things is of no practical value in a world where there is free agency.
"one can decide to fly and wish it and will it so - but they still have to go about creating the conditions to make that happen within the physical limitations of the act"
I agree with all of that, so, I'm kind of at a loss as to where our positions part ways. If I understand correctly, you believe we have "free will" in a broad sense..e.g.."we are the captains of our on ships", etc., and if so, I agree. But in a practical, more narrow sense, we have limits on our "free will", which is where/why I fall into the deterministic camp.
I think the major difference is - you are equating the "free will" to think and do something with the level of success of that act.
Just cuz we wish something, doesn't always make it so ... we can will god to appear til the cows jump over the moon ... ain't gonna actually happen but we're still free to will it to be so despite our continued failure to will it in the first place. my point is the resulting outcome of our willing has no bearing on our continued ability to will as we freely choose. That's the disconnect
will =/= result
"I think the major difference is - you are equating the 'free will' to think and do something with the level of success of that act."
Then I think that we're miscommunicating, or at least, I am.
If we take, "to think", and "do something", from your assessment above, I'm saying that these are two entirely different things, the first of which we can do without limitation; the latter of which, limitations most def' come into play because of who/what we are.
"Just cuz we wish[will] something, doesn't always make it so ... we can will[wish] god to appear til the cows jump over the moon ... ain't gonna actually happen but we're still free to will it to be so despite our continued failure to will it in the first place"(words in brackets added by me)
Once again, agreement. However, I contend that the distinction that you make is of no practical value, and I'll use the Genesis fable for analogy to illustrate why:
Imagine if "God", when he told Adam & Co. not to eat the apple, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, had stuck the apple out of reach from the duo. For sake of discussion, say that "God" put the apple on top of 100 ft. tall obelisk(similar to how a parent puts a pair of scissors out of reach of a child), and cover it with barbed wire.
Now, you and I agree all the day is long that Adam and his would-be accomplice can will/wish/desire/seek/crave/dream of that "forbidden" apple. They are both perfectly free to do all of those things. However, they are not free to realize any of the above. Why? Because the apple is out of their reach. Thus, they cannot(because they are unable) commit "evil".
If Adam & Co. cannot commit any "evil", then in a practical sense, they are no different than had "God" programmed them to do no "evil". They'd be the equivalent of automatons. In the story, Adam & Co. needed to possess the capability and wherewithal to actually eat the apple, as opposed to just possessing the illusion of "choice".
Without the freedom to actually go against the wishes of "God", the entire story crumbles. Of course, it crumbles for other reasons, as we know.
"...they are no different than had "God" programmed them to do no "evil". They'd be the equivalent of automatons."
Would you mind explaining this whole (pre)programming stuff? I asked you before about the whole robot-idea which obviously contradicts free will. Would you mind telling me some more? To me this whole concept is new.
It's very simple: Where the "good"/"evil" dichotomy is concerned, the thinking is that, at any given time, one must be able to freely choose between "good" deeds and "evil" deeds. This is generally the apologetic(excuse) given when Christians are asked why "God" can't just do away with the "Devil" and his corresponding "evil" here on earth.
The concept of "Original Sin" is predicated upon man being able to choose "evil", as seen in Genesis when the Garden duo chose to eat the "forbidden fruit". The only other option, they argue, would be for "God" to have programmed man to be good, exclusively, similar to how one would program a robot to be good, exclusively. So, yes, robots contradict "free will".
“The only other option, they argue, would be for "God" to have programmed man to be good…”
I assume you’re still talking the apologetics when referring to “they”. Why are they called the “apologetic”? Cause they come up with every excuse to say the bible is… legit? I already was wondering when reading on in LFIF what was explicitly meant.
And how can men (or did you indeed mean one person here?) be programmed to only do “good”? If anything the world is full of people who have done anything but “good”, including the church. So this reasoning doesn’t make any sense – at least not to me.
Just going back to what has been posted previously:
"You are the actual master of your destiny and have full reign to live as you see fit to and to leave the legacy you so choose - the ultimate freedom." ~ Robert
“And yet, who wouldn't choose to take advantage of that kind of personal power? I think most people would, and yet, we don't see most people super-achieving and shooting for the stars. Quite the opposite. Desire and/or will do not necessarily say anything of the capability to act, which requires being emotionally/psychologically secure.” and added “…as many people, when they think of "free will", they tend to think that the "will" part is simply the freedom to desire”… “On the other hand, we are not entirely "free" to act on those desires to make them reality…” ~ Jeff
Next you get to write about there not being any possibility to act upon free will according to the apologetics. If I’m not mistaken you were talking about why people (in general) would dream about something, but never accomplish it.
Would you mind following up on this?
‘If, before "creation", including time, itself, "God" knew I'd become an Atheist, then my "free will" is just an illusion. I'm just following a script.”
What would be the use of there being a script of being an “Atheist”?
"I assume you’re still talking the apologetics when referring to 'they'. Why are they called the 'apologetic'?
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. And it's from the word apologia, which means to give a defense.
"Cause they come up with every excuse to say the bible is… legit?"
Apologetics are not meant to convince the unconvinced. No, they are meant to quell any doubts the believer may be having.
"I already was wondering when reading on in LFIF what was explicitly meant."
Many of these terms you can readily investigate for yourself on the internet, as opposed to having me explain them to you. And honestly, I wish you would do just that.
"And how can men (or did you indeed mean one person here?) be programmed to only do 'good'?"
Idk....the same way a universe can appear by just thinking about it? If the (supposed) "Creator" is omnipotent, then surely he/she/it could program some lowly homosapiens to be incapable of "evil". After all, Christians believe that "Heaven" is devoid of all "evil". From there, it's logical to conclude that the occupants of "Heaven" have no "free will". But again, that doesn't preclude Christians from concocting a defense of some sort.
"If anything the world is full of people who have done anything but 'good', including the church. So this reasoning doesn’t make any sense – at least not to me."
This is how thinking people know that there is no "Holy Ghost" guiding the church or its believers.
I think you keep getting confused when I use the Christian beliefs, their bible, and their own apologetics, under the *pretense* that they are right, to illustrate the exact opposite..ie..that they are wrong. When I speak of having "man" programmed to do no "evil", it's not because I believe it's possible; it's to illustrate a point. When I speak of "free will", I don't mean the "free will" that "God" gave us. I don't believe in "God". I simply mean the illusion completely free choice to accomplish whatever we can conceive of. < that is impossible. I don't believe we are "the masters of our own destiny". At least, not in the ultimate sense.
For the record, I don't mind answering questions when it comes to my personal take on the issues, religious, or otherwise. That's a large part of why I have this blog. On the other hand, I just don't want to become a "glossary".
And you are doing such a good job at it... My luck...
On a more serious note... Please tell me a good site to go to and I'll stop asking these questions and go there instead. Know you have an excellent way of explaining things. You most of the time add the extra word(s) or example which makes it - to me - more understandable. It's already relatively "abstract" material and as you might have noticed I do not always understand it when reading it the first, second or third time and that's when I turn to you. You make it more understandable. Can't help it you are doing such an excellent job. Especially for people like me who like to know (and read) and are a bit dyslectic, making it harder to process what's being said when it's all abstract and without any example. The examples make this material come to life and with it ... more understandable.
And you should know by now that I'm always interested in your view on things. Otherwise why would I even ask?
If you're not genuinely interested in my views and have some other motive, I guess only you would know that? Or maybe one can guess....idk. Nonetheless, again, I'm simply not interested in becoming an online "glossary" for new words that pop up in these discussions. If you Google "apologetics", there are pages and pages of descriptions/definitions that explain it just as I did, if not better and more thoroughly.
'Also want to make clear that when I previously spoke of "free will", in the sense of it being the freedom to conceive of any goal or idea, and when I said that this is of no practical value, that this is not to say that the opinion, itself, has no practical value. It was important to point out that "free will" has different meanings in different discussions.
What would be this practical value of "the opinion" on "free will"?
Let's back up...
Previously, a definition of "will" was provided to (I think) illustrate that having the complete freedom to conceive of multiple options constitutes "free will", and yet, according to said definition, it doesn't necessarily require that one realize/actualize those freely chosen "thoughts". While, on the one hand, I agree with that and what Robert has alluded to, above, on the other hand, I'm merely saying that such freedom is of no practical value in light of such mantras as, "We are the masters of our own destiny", and the like.
Example: What if a man is in an accident and is paralyzed from the neck, down. He most certainly has the "free will" with which to dream about getting up out of his chair one day and entering a triathlon, but we know that that would be a medical impossibility, directly because of his past.
So, viewed in that light, it should be clear that our "free will" has limits. That's all I'm saying.
And the opinion about "free will" not necessarily requiring that the desired results come to light, that is of practical value because it shows another way to look at the subject, a view that is technically correct, depending on one's definition.
To me the last bit is the most interesting part. Being physically incapable is just that, but what if one would be physically capable, without having had the worst possible experiences (other thread on free will) and still does not live up to any dreams / wishes? This bit never gets discussed. What's the use of having free will and not doing anything when given all (sorts of) options? What does one get out of life (in the end)?
Jeff - you pretty much nailed the exact point i was trying to illustrate, with the exception of the conclusion - you combine will with the results - whereas i think they are completely different and independent of each other ... like meat and potatoes equal a meal ... one can still have a meal without either or ... and in fact can even make a meal without either one for that matter - think doritos ;) .
@lex - living "up" to some goal tends to come from an outside perspective of what success for us is ... I might think you are capable of acheiving "A" but you may be content with "B" and while you might be capable of getting to "A" you may not desire it, therefore you haven't "lived up" to your full potential ... from MY perspective ... but to you, "B" might have exceeded what you ever thought yourself possible
To further illustrate as jeff's example of the paralyzed guy - that guy has the choice of will of what to think and dream DESPITE our outside belief and opinion ... and as to "value" that will has all the value that guy chooses to apply to his own will which, if he continues to will his recovery despite all accepted medical evidence, would assume he values that will very highly ... until he comes to a point to where he chooses to will a different result, one more realistic ... however - it wouldn't be the first time there was a headline that reads "Doctors stumped as permanently paralyzed man walks out of hospital" ... the proverbial "miracle" from god ... is it that god blessed this man for his perseverance and dedication of his belief? or is it just that he tapped into an undiscovered ability to will our nerves to regrow and rewire his innards to allow him to do what the genius doctors say could never happen?
For the record - no, i'm not having 2nd thoughts regarding the existence of god - there ain't one ... but that doesn't mean there cannot be one.
I'm glad with the continued example about the paralyzed guy Robert. I was thinking the same thing and I actually do know some people who are still able to walk having (had) broken vertebrae.
To me this has all to do with mindsets, litterally setting your mind to do something, in this case will your mind to do something and by visualizing it and focussing on it, much more is possible than we ever might have thought possible.
This has nothing to do with God, it has everything to do with the right mentality. And it may not always work out, but I've seen remarkable changes in people and especially their lives once they started to see (and visualize) things differently.
I always compare it with kids who are going on a trip with school to an amusementpark (back in the days when this was still something special). They start to think (repeatedly) I cannot get sick, cannot get sick. First of all the mind does not know the word "not", secondly they are visualizing being at home in bed ill.
So one can question if prayer isn't just about focussing on a positive outcome and thus getting the results. It's actually faith in the positive outcome and believing things (miracles) can happen.
And why do these "miracles" or let's just say "positives outcomes" never or rarely happen? Cause if you talk to most people, they do not think it's possible or were born for any luck. Instead they are only aware of what can and might go wrong.
Sorry for going on here... but this is what I love to do best. Working with people, getting to find out what limiting beliefs (mindsets) they have and then help them refocus and be pleasantly surprised about the outcome :-).
In regards to the example of the kids... I forgot to add they often do get sick and therefore do not get to go on the schooltrip, since that's actually what they have been focussing on all the time.
"I was thinking the same thing and I actually do know some people who are still able to walk having (had) broken vertebrae."
This misses the point, entirely. There are always those exceptions when it comes to medical issues. E.g..not all cancers are terminal, and then of course, some amputees have prosthetic limbs and can accomplish all sorts of things. The list goes on.
But again, that misses the point. My one and only point is that when it comes to mantras such as "We are the masters of our own destiny"(and similar versions of this), that we are not all entirely "free" to be or accomplish precisely what we'd like to be or accomplish, and this is many times directly because of our pasts. Surely no one would deny that we've all had very different pasts. This was my original contention, BTW..i.e..that our pasts, can, and do, influence our futures. There is no way around this.
and....
"To me this has all to do with mindsets, litterally setting your mind to do something, in this case will your mind to do something and by visualizing it and focussing on it, much more is possible than we ever might have thought possible."
The power of suggestion is, yes, is very strong. Notwithstanding, a legless, bedridden man can focus and visualize 24/7, 365 days a year that he will ***grow new legs, but we all know that it won't happen. Viewed in this light, our "free will" is limited.
***note, I do not mean receive plastic legs, but grow his own legs back.
"And it may not always work out[..]
Precisely. And why? Because we are all individuals with different past experiences. Note, I'm not arguing that some people aren't mentally crippled and therefore they don't know their full potential. I "get" that. So, I hope you won't confuse that with what I *am* saying here.
"So one can question if prayer isn't just about focussing on a positive outcome and thus getting the results. It's actually faith in the positive outcome and believing things (miracles) can happen"
So, here you've taken the colloquial meanings of words and simply modified them. In the colloquial sense, "prayer" is commonly thought of asking for "divine" intervention; a "miracle" is receiving it. If "good" things can be achieved on. our. own....without "divine" intervention, I feel that using words like "prayer" and "miracle" adds confusion to matter.
"Working with people, getting to find out what limiting beliefs (mindsets) they have and then help them refocus and be pleasantly surprised about the outcome"
Nothing wrong with helping people, so long as the credit goes to the people, and not some other place.
When you say that when people have certain physical limitations making it (almost) always impossible to chase after their dream, sure. Same with those who've had a past having them scarred mentally.
But coming back to that mantra, one can wonder if this is meant for those people who'll never be entirely free because of their past (like in the example above).
That's why it's even more sad that the majority who would have the chance, because they do not have those limitations, will never get to accomplish just a fraction of what they could accomplish when putting their will to it, cause they do not dare or just give in to... why even bother?
And just maybe (I don't know) it would be those other people with those limitations who show those who do not have any limitations at all, that when really wants something, one can accomplish this to a certain degree.
"The power of suggestion is, yes, is very strong. Notwithstanding, a legless, bedridden man can focus and visualize 24/7, 365 days a year that he will ***grow new legs, but we all know that it won't happen. ... "
Absolutely correct ... a person can "will" whatever they choose for however long they decide to will it ... so you are correct right up until this
" ... Viewed in this light, our "free will" is limited."
That's where you go off the rails ... you see, the ability to "will something is NOT contingent upon the result ... just because you and i both know the guy will never grow legs no matter how much he wishes it to be so ... there is not one iota of limitation or restriction on his ability to continue to will it to be so - futility (or bounty for that matter) never plays into the choice to continue to freely will something
I want a million dollars ... haven't got it yet ... but I ain't gonna stop willing it to be so ;)
@lex - i found it kinda funny that our examples include amputees and paralysis and you chose to describe it as "chasing after a dream" :P
"That's where you go off the rails ... you see, the ability to "will something is NOT contingent upon the result ... just because you and i both know the guy will never grow legs no matter how much he wishes it to be so ... there is not one iota of limitation or restriction on his ability to continue to will it to be so - futility (or bounty for that matter) never plays into the choice to continue to freely will something" ~ R. Hall
Robert, at this point, we are talking past each other, bro'. I've conceded, idk, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a half a' dozen times now, that one is perfectly "free" to "will" stuff, where "will" is defined as wish/desire/dream/ruminate, and the like.
IOW, this boils down to semantics and definitions. If you look at the definition of "will" that you provided, you can see that at least one entry ties the "will" to the act that is willed. I'm saying, using *that* definition of "will", we are most certainly limited, and again, if we look at the Genesis parable, we see straight away that the "free will" that biblegod gave to Adam and his accomplice was the type of "will" that necessitated action. After all, biblegod's instructions were to not eat from the "Tree of Knowledge". His instructions were not, "Thou shalt not even think about eating from the Tree of Knowledge!". Never mind the blatant chronology error...i.e..they were expected to know "right" from "wrong" BEFORE they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. Hello? Gawd? Holy blunder, Batman.
"And just maybe (I don't know) it would be those other people with those limitations who show those who do not have any limitations at all[...]" ~ Lexje
Having "no limitations at all" is the definition of "omnipotent". Human beings are not "omnipotent". I "get" the point you are trying to make, but you could have found a better way to make it.
Agreed - we're splitting hairs a bit here ... although even assuming your spin on half of one definition entry (1B which omits/disregards 1A), I still view the "act" of willing - predominantly a mental action - separate and independent of the physical action considered the best course of action to successfully exercise the will being willed.
One can continue to be successfully committing the act willing while the course of action to carry out the will becomes a disastrous failure - a strong willed person will just see the action failure as successfully identifying something that will not achieve the result being willed. For instance assuming the sunshine skyway bridge was gone and one wanted to will themselves across the bay ... one might first try walking on the water - fail ... then driving - fail then a boat - success ... the will remained constant and separate from the physical act/solution to achieve the will.
but you are correct - it's all academic semantics - but that's kind of the intent of these types of forums to explore these subjects in their minutia.
FYI - we should really continue this "free will" discussion on the free will thread - if only because it's shorter and easier to reference and read :)
Also - as an unrelated aside - someone made a reference that they thought you are from a mennonite or amish family - just curious as to the authenticity of that - not that it matters and if it's personal please disregard - we're friends no matter :)
Not sure when I'll get to a response, or if it even requires one, but if so, I'll relocate it to the appropriate thread. As for family--I've got some Pennsylvania Dutch in me, and many of my relatives up there don't have electricity(Amish).
Post a Comment