My Beliefs- GDR

I've never, ever witnessed anyone have a "belief in God" as you describe here.Every single "belief in God" I've ever heard of is always described in terms of human wisdom and rationalization.
They're all better described as a personal "belief in your own human wisdom and rationalization of a concept you call God."Really, I don't see how it's possible to separate the two.You are a person.
You have a brain that allows you to use your consciousness.
Everytime you use you're brain you're using "human wisdom and rationalization."
Belief is an exercise done using the brain.
Therefore, all beliefs are created, developed and maintained on "human wisdom and rationalization."You can type out the words "belief in God is from God... not from my human brain."
I can also type out the words "support when standing on one leg is from air cushions... not from the human leg I'm standing on."This does not remove the fact that standing on one leg requires you to use one of your human legs.
This does not remove the fact that believing in God requires you to use your human wisdom and rationalization.This catch-phrase is like psychology 101... only "deep and mind-blowing" to 19 year-olds with minimal life experience.It's nothing more than an equivocation:
"To me, it all boils down to belief in human wisdom and rationalization..."
...is talking about believing that human have all the answers... not the fact that human use human wisdom and rationalization."...versus belief in God."
...is talking about believing that God has all the answers... not the fact that humans use human wisdom and rationalization to believe in God as well.But this isn't how you use the phrase.
No one here, especially atheists, has ever expressed the idea that "humans have all the answers to everything."You use the phrase whenever someone suggests that they use human wisdom and rationalization to get to any answer... in the same way that anyone uses the same human wisdom and rationalization to get to belief in God.Using the phrase in this manner is equivocation, and very hypocritical.

I am having a hard time understanding the wisdom behind such a statement.
Can you name an example of anything where "yearning" has been an indication that something has actually existed?To me, yearning always seems to result in humans inventing something.
Yearn for a smooth ride? Invent a wheel.
Yearn for easy access to fire? Invent a match.
Yearn for fast travel? Invent airplanes.There are sometimes desire for things to exist that come along with other indications.
Like Tiktaalik... there were indications that it could be found in a certain location... then there was yearning that would be found there... then it was searched for, and found.
But in this sort of situation, any yearning was never an indication of the existence of Tiktaalik... it was the evidence that was an indication.Maybe a few things from Sci-Fi? Like Black Holes? Were they "yearned for" by writers before any indication of their actual existence?
Even so... did this yearning ever indicate that Black Holes actually existed? I don't think so.There is an unending list of things that are yearned for that do not exist.It seems to me that yearning for something is pretty much irrelevant to any indication that such a thing may or may not exist.
It's also sort of a "common sense" theme as well, isn't it?
"Wish in one hand and shit in the other..." is a phrase I've heard a lot of growing up.Your statement just seems so counter-intuitive to me, I was wondering if you might be able to explain why you think it is valid? I would think that "the fact we implement justice to the degree that we are able" would be an indication that there is nothing else implementing any justice. If something else was going to implement justice... why would we need to do it as well?We do it because if we don't, then nothing will happen.
The only things that happen... are those that we do ourselves. This is not an indication that something else exists... this is actually evidence that nothing else exists.I'm just wondering about the thought-process that would cross these wires in the mind.

I was trying to understand "My Beliefs - GDR" a bit more.
I started with a question "why is the resurrection so important to GDR"?I then read through a bunch of your posts in this thread. I pretty much answered my own question, but then it sprang forth additional questions. And, since this is the thread about what you believe, I thought I'd ask.From what I can tell the resurrection, to you, is a confirmation that God/Jesus Christ/Christianity is the one true religion and describes the truth about the world and afterlife.It is not, however, attached to you "being a good person and helping your fellow man".
That is something that you find important and would do regardless of the veracity of the resurrection?
It's just that the resurrection confirms that Christianity is the correct guide to go about doing this, so that's why you adhere to the Bible and the afterlife as described by the Bible.
Is that about right?Assuming that's correct...
My question becomes "why does GDR care about the veracity of Christianity"?
That is, if GDR thinks it's important to be a good person regardless of the resurrection... and Jesus' message is to have faith in things like love, peace, forgiveness, mercy and justice... then doesn't GDR already align with Jesus' message regardless of the resurrection?Or... maybe you're just trying to answer everyone's questions because they're asking them... and this isn't as high a priority to you as the post-count about it makes it seem?Another question is "why does GDR think that the resurrection confirms the validity of Christianity"?Is it prophecy and fulfillment as described in the Bible?
Is it because it's a pretty big miracle?

I think this is a big part of it.Things like tradition and religious texts being around for so long.
Thinking of the time and energy of so many lives that must have been put into writing these texts, protecting them, governing them, copying them (before print-machines)... that sort of thing. That's really true, I'm sure it took quite a lot of time and energy.Anything that adds to the feeling of the idea that "this can't just be for nothing... no one would waste this much time on nothing."
Add in a fear of being wrong. (Who wants anything to do with a possibility of something they consider a high priority being "for nothing"?)
Add in peer pressure (not the kiddie-kind from highschool, but the subtle kind from every-day real life of the people they look up to)And they're right. Nobody did any of it for nothing.
So it must be because a supernatural God exists.Nevermind that it equally could have been done for all sorts of other, mundane reasons. That would be boring.
Reasons varying from hopes and dreams and wanting to calm fears... all the way to control and conspiratorial politics.
None of that is nothing, and a lot of it is extremely important (to us humans, anyway).But this comparison cannot be presented either.Because, even though these mundane reasons obviously contain some very important junk, if it doesn't include a supernatural God, then it is "nothing" as far as certain corners of the theistic mind are concerned, which nulls the value of the point. The supernatural God is so much better than all those mundane reasons. Who would ever want to give up such a wonderful connection to the "better" source?Plus, identifying that it isn't "nothing" only confirms to other corners of the same theistic minds that God must be present in order to sustain such powerful emotions....and then all the bases are covered...
They may not be touching the ground, but they're covered (Just forget about the part where no idea about God has ever actually been shown to be "better" than mundane ideas anyway...)

Besides, if I kept the money, I would spend it on alcohol or drugs...
-Greg GiraldoEdited by Stile, : I thought George Carlin was a good guess. Google lets me down so rarely. I should make a sacrifice to Google, for the appeasing.

Maybe this isn't on purpose, but you seem to be leaving out the following group. I assure you they are a very large group. Highly likely much larger than the group you describe above as "starting with the premise that God does not exist and therefore the resurrection is an impossibility":Those that start with the premise that God does not exist, but are open to the possibility that God does exist, and the resurrection is also quite possible... they are also open to the possibility that many other explanations are possible.
It would be clearer to state that they start with the premise that they do not know what happened... and are open to any and all possible explanations of what actually did happen.Then they go looking for evidence to support any of the possible propositions.Those that become supported by evidence gain in confidence.
Those that do not become supported by evidence drop in confidence.Those that never get any evidence at all... still never become "impossibilities"... simply just "so much less likely than the other explanations as to render them unworthy to spend too much time on until such time that evidence does come around to support them (if that ever happens)."I actually think this is how most people go about pretty much every situation they ever come across (90%+).
Seems to work pretty well for the Bigfoot issue, anyway.

What does this mean? Specifically this part:

quote:

---

Jesus will rule sacrificially...

---

I have a mental picture, but I do not think it is what you intended.
I have this idea of Jesus ruling everyone and making animal sacrifices while doing so... not really sure why.
Anyway, was wondering if you could explain since I'm fairly sure that you didn't intend to provide the mental picture I received.Were you just trying to pay homage to the idea of Christ's sacrifice for humanity?
"Ruling sacrificially" seems to have a present/future-tense to it and paying homage to what Jesus did has a past-tense to it... so I got confused.

I thought I was describing atheism What you are calling "atheistic" is more what would be called "fundamentalist (or military) atheism"... which is only held by a very small percentage of crazy people. Just like "fundamentalist (or cultish) theism"... which is also only held by a very small percentage of crazy people.But when you mention theism in your discussions here... you're talking more about your position... a rational theistic position.
I just wanted to explain to you the equivalent on the atheism side... the rational atheistic position.
Each are much more common, and quite different from the fundamental versions.I do agree with you (and I think most here would) that a rational theistic position is favourable to a fundamental atheistic position.
But no one really cares about this comparison.Everyone here is attempting to discuss from the rational atheistic position... degrading that down to the fundamental position is what's causing a lot of the problems.I understand it is difficult to self-monitor and regulate. I'm sure some here are also guilty of accidentally accusing you of holding fundamental-like positions instead of the actual rational-theistic position you do hold. You probably know that it makes you feel quite defensive when people get this wrong. ("That's not what I mean!") Materialism, again, is not a very widely held position in the extreme fundamentalist sense.
It is a widely held theory (since there is no known evidence against it yet). But it is not generally held in the way you are implying. It is generally held more in the way I've described atheism (as a theory).I don't really know what agnosticsm is. It's never made much sense to me.
I'm pretty sure it's for pansies

Well yes, of course there is.Did you forget that "atheism" is the opposite of "theism"?There certainly is a lot of fluidity in "theism" now, isn't there?
I mean, we have all the major religions... all the minor religions... all the different sects of each, plus anyone's personal view of a "higher power"...Yes, a lot of fluidity when the only requirement is "a belief in God."Wouldn't you then expect the same level of fluidity when the only requirement is "no belief in God"?How many different descriptions of "theism" do you think there are? Naming all the sects of all the religions... hundreds of thousands?
And then you're expecting one single, specific definition of "atheism"? That "nails down" everyone? It's just not going to happen, in the same way that there isn't one single, specific definition for all theists.The only thing that can be said for "all atheists" is that they do not believe in God. We're simply trying to tell you what that phrase means. No one is attempting to give you a specific definition that you can group all atheists under. That is as impossible as trying to give a specific description for all theists.

Why not? What's preventing you from having a reason? Do you live in Saskatchewan?
Your reason could be that you live in BC, surrounded by majestic mountains and beautiful greenery.
Your reason could be that you are easily impressed.
Your reason could be that you see how small you are compared to "everything else." Because you are a human being with feelings.
You simply seem to be assuming that if you are the result of unintelligent evolution then it is impossible for you to feel awe in any way.
And, yes... everyone agrees with you on that "if" statement. Every one agrees that "if GDR cannot feel awe in any way, then GDR would not feel any awe."But, well. That's a pretty boring and useless statement.The entire point is that you certainly are able to feel awe and have morality without any intelligent input to your creation or beginnings in the past.If you actually do try to consider that possibility seriously, then you could begin to see the other side of the argument. No. Why would I think it was daft? Can you explain a reason?I have 2 lines of reasoning for thinking it's not daft.
The first deals with the issue of thinking that "feelings" and "morality" are special:Mindless atoms seem quite capable to evolve light-sensitive patches or appendages.
Do you think "intelligent input" is required for that?
Can anything evolve without external intelligent input?
The same mindless atoms seem quite capable to evolve brain matter to control those appendages.
The same mindless atoms seem quite capable to evolve feelings and self-awareness within that brain matter.What is it about feelings and self-awareness that makes them so different from light-sensitive patches and appendages as far as their evolutionary basics are concerned?-light sensitive patches and appendages work through chemical processes
-feelings and self-awareness work through chemical processesIs it your feelings that make you feel like they are somehow special and must have a unique origin? Sounds a bit suspect.
Is there any actual reasoning based on objective evidence to suggest that "feelings" are some sort of incredible evolutionary achievement and "appendages" are not? The second deals with the issue of basing ideas on current knowledge vs. un-evidenced ideas:Humans with feelings and morality obviously do exist.
Why would it be daft to assume that something could begin to exist on it's own when it already exists on it's own right now?
It's a possibility that an intelligence is required for it to exist.
It's also a possibility that 24 evil incarnate Gods were required for it to exist.
But, with the knowledge we currently have available to us, it is most likely that no outside intelligence was required at all.
Since there is no knowledge of any outside intelligence ever existing in the first place.It may or may not be the truth, it's just what our current knowledge tells us. And following our knowledge seems to create valid progress in the best way ever developed by man.
Following un-evidenced ideas can also lead to valid progress... human history just shows us that it tends to be slower. A lot slower. With a whole mess of failures included.
So why, in this case, would we decide to follow un-evidenced ideas over our knowledge?Both could be right.
Both could be wrong.
One has a fantastic track record.
The other has a fantastic failure rate.I don't really see why it would be "daft" to go with the one that seems to provide the best results.

Good luck in your endeavours... or whatever else would fit nicely on one of those giant-ass cards.And look how interesting you are! Over 700 posts just about your beliefs It is rare to have a long conversation about this sort of thing without either side getting too... "uptight."
As long as you keep answering, I'm sure the questions will keep coming. Personally, I just like trying to understand what makes people tick.

Well done. Glad to hear the vacation was time well spent. I think your post paints a good picture describing why it is that you believe.I'm going to go through it and make a few point that will seem very nit-picky, but really I'm just trying to show why some other people (like me) don't see the same facts as pointing in the same direction. Agreed. Also agreed. So far just talking about people and Tom and how you think Tom wants people to be. I agree with the statements about people, but I don't really see any reason to include Tom at all.And then, this: This is a pretty bold claim:
Tom created mankind.
Therefore there's a spark of him buried in the consciousness of everyone which provides the sense of right and wrong.But no reason to think that this claim is true.
Maybe Tom did create mankind.
Maybe he didn't.
All we know is that mankind is here.
There doesn't seem to be anything preventing mankind from developing all on their own. There doesn't seem to be any reason why Tom would be required at all.Maybe our sense of right and wrong comes from a spark of Tom inside us all.
Maybe it doesn't.
Maybe our sense of right and wrong comes from our own natural development as human beings.
Maybe it doesn't.
Maybe we don't know where our sense of right and wrong comes from.
There doesn't seem to be anything pointing towards Tom being a source for our spark. Maybe this is because Tom created us.
Maybe this is because we created Tom.One is a very extraordinary claim including the existence of a fantastical being that resists detection in any way.
One seems very par-for-course for natural human beings.
Both explain the situation we find ourselves in now. Maybe so.
Or maybe our morality evolves with us as our intelligence evolves.

quote:

---

However the most basic instinct within mankind is survival and our own self interest. With that however, as mankind is Tom’s creation, there is a spark of him buried within the consciousness of everyone that gives people the sense that unselfishness is right, and that the right is something that we should choose even to our own detriment. However, in order for that to happen we have to overcome our basic instincts.

---

Right. Sometimes in order to "do right" we need to overcome our basic instincts.
People do this all the time, that's what our intelligence allows us to do.
The more we use our intelligence... the "higher" our intelligence becomes... the better we're able to control/overcome our basic instincts.It seems reasonable that as our intelligence evolves and grows over the history of mankind, then our morality also evolves and grows. We're constantly learning better and easier ways to overcome our basic instincts. Maybe.
Or, maybe Tom isn't required at all and different people have simply gown and developed different ways to use their intelligence to overcome their basic instincts. That's also a central factor that would be present in all the different societies of humans. Although not impossible, I don't think anyone sends money to third world countries in order to enhance the gene pool.
But, it's quite possible for people to use their intelligence to overcome their basic instinct of personal survival to help out other people who are not as fortunate as themselves. Exactly. I don't understand this point. Why do you think growth must be towards a destination?
What is the destination of a tree's branches? What is the destination of a galaxy spiraling through space?
Evolution progresses in every organism without a destination. Why do you think there would be one for humans?
I can understand that you may have a basic instinct that wants there to be one for humans... Maybe.
Or maybe this is something we need to use our intelligence for to decide for ourselves... before it's too late and our basic instincts help us destroy this planet or ourselves.

How much do we know (or assume) about Tom?
Is Tom all-powerful and all-kind, all-good.. that sort of thing?
Maybe Tom isn't and he's just sort of a mostly-decent, pretty-powerful god with a hope of creating an interesting world?
Is Tom expected to be fair?In my personal experience, if you've ever spent a lot of time with people (especially children) you'll know that people are different.
Especially in the way we think.
Some react to their instincts almost immediately without thinking.
Some filter their instincts through their intelligence before acting for a much longer time.When spending time with children, you can see this is more of a "luck of the draw" thing.
Children don't choose to think about things or not... they either do it a lot or do it barely at all. And, in most, you can see it growing and developing as they grow and develop. You can see them thinking more about decisions before acting... and how it progresses as they grow up. It's just that in some children this growth progression is slower and stops sooner than in others.So, if this is a spark from Tom... why did Tom give a long-thinking spark to some people and a hardly-any-thinking spark to others?
If Tom is good and kind and fair, and there's a piece of his spark in all of us to lead us how to be moral and good... why do some get a huge spark (a long time to think things over before acting) and others get a faint spark (a short time to think things over before being overwhelmed by instinct and action)?
Why not just give the same spark to everyone and allow our free-will to account for the differences?
Why handicap a select few? Why instill others with pre-destined excellence?
Sure, there are some that overcome a small spark to become great anyway... but that doesn't say why they needed to start with a small spark in the first place? And what of those that want to overcome it, but just can't?It's not as if those with a faint-spark are mean-spirited and choosing to turn away from doing good. Well, not all of them, anyway Some are just not given a chance to use the same tools as others when making a decision.Did Tom have no control over the amount of spark imparted to each of his creations?
Or did he do this on purpose and it's a "mystery" to us how this is fair (but trust Tom... it really is... somehow)?I don't see how to reconcile such a luck-of-the-draw system and also believe that the initiator is a "kind, just and good generic god(s) that has given us free will."This is sort of like the "problem of evil"... but not quite. More like the "problem of not having a chance."Some people are born and it doesn't matter what they do or want... they're just not going to play hockey as well as others.
Some people are born and it doesn't matter what they do or want... they're just not going to control their basic instincts as well as others.
Some people are born and it doesn't matter what they do or want... they're just not going to make moral decisions as well as others.In a natural world, this is expected... people are different because the miracle of pregnancy/birth is not perfect.
But in Tom's world... how does this happen? People are different because Tom's form of being "just" involves giving some opportunities to only a select few?

If this were correct, I would agree with your conclusions.My point is that this isn't correct.You are right that we are subject to the "moods, food intake, drug intake, etc of the mother" (plus the other millions of environmental stimulus you've mentioned) as we grow.
And I agree that these factors do play a role in making us individuals.But you cannot ignore the fact that there are also simple DNA differences that "instill our basic survival instincts" at different levels for different people. Yes, and this does explain a lot of our variability.
But the part you are ignoring is that your very DNA... was a luck-of-the-draw as well.What I'm saying is that it's quite possible that another baby could have been born from your exact same mom-and-pop, and they go through the exact same loving home and advantages you had... but just because their DNA makeup is slightly different from yours... they are not so good at hockey (or maybe better at hockey than you).In that same differentiating way, we can have people who are unable to be as moral as you, or who have the potential to be more moral than you... simply because of the luck-of-the-draw in the "spark" given to them at birth. Environmental factors after life begins (even in the womb itself) do play a part, but they are not the only source of our differences. My point is that this statement is factually untrue.Well, I suppose it depends on how you define "just."If by just we mean "all people start off with an equal, fair chance of being moral and choosing good."
Then, no. Not all people start off with this at all. Some are at quite a disadvantage simply because their "hearts" are not built the same as others and do not contain the ability to acknowledge "good vs. evil" the same way as other people.Sometimes this happens through environmental factors, but I'm not talking about those differences. I admit that if environmental factors were the only source of variability, then Tom's spark would be distributed fairly and he would be a just god.What I'm talking about is that regardless of environmental factors, there are natural, DNA-coded differences in people that cannot be helped in any way that can cause people to be different in terms of having the ability to be moral. This is a fact.If you're going to define "just" as something like "it doesn't matter if all people are treated fairly... just as long as society moves towards being more just..." Then I suppose you could then call Tom "just."
But I would then contend that this is not just at all.The ends do not justify the means for labelling an all-powerful god as "just" if even 1 human being is left behind without even the chance of being a decent person.Tom could still be just if he wasn't all-powerful... then he'd just be trying his best. But if he's all powerful... then the only explanation is that he wants that one person to be left behind and not have a fair-start like everyone else.

And you'd be completely right... for some people.
And you'd also be completely wrong... for other people.People are different.Some people require the feeling that a being greater than anything is overseeing them and making sure others "get their due" in the end regardless of whether or not they can show it to be true.Other people require the idea that things make sense and have a concrete base with no loose ends regardless of how they feel.Most people can go either way in varying degrees depending on their mood and the subject being discussed.To think that one is better than the other in "all situations" is ludicrous and easily shown to be completely false.One point is for sure, though... that if you think you have "the answer for everyone and everything" and you force what you think will help others onto all of those who are in need of help in the same way... you are definitely going to cause more damage than was there originally. The damage may not be visible right away, but it's there, and when discovered it will run deeper than the original pain it was meant to help ease.Betrayal from those who said they would help you is incredibly damaging in a way that goes beyond physical pain.
Be careful when you're helping others, make sure you're helping others and not helping your own beliefs.