I would like to know...

M

MagiAwen

Registered Senior Member
Ok look. Before someone comes in this thread and starts telling me I'm going to hell I will put a disclaimer:

I am not christian or god believing. I do not much care whether I am going to your hell or not. I simply would like YOUR thoughts, not something written in the Bible or some other religious document. Again, I am asking for your thoughts. Please do not quote scripture at length and get in fights and get off topic.

The reason I ask these questions when I do not believe is that I am trying to understand some things about people in general. It is NOT to persecute anyone. I, myself, have beliefs. I am not an atheist.

That said I had some inquiries:

1. How would you explain (I said YOU not a book) the fact that there were animals on this planet before man and god does not show up until man is obviously well into his evolution? I have read many theories and would like yours. and not "because the bible tells me so"

2. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?

Now, before anyone goes off half cocked. I did not start this thread to bash anyone. I honestly would like to know and if you are reading this just to tell me or anyone how stupid it is, please refrain from posting.

Thank you.
 
Is everyone too afraid of this question?
Is it so hard after years of conditioning to actually have some free thought of your own to come up with a comment?
 
MagiAwen said:
2. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Ever read the Historian Arnold Toynbee. The way he sees it Religion is the only Institution that survives the collapse of civilization. Religion becomes the crysalis or nucleus for the next civilization. Then, typically, as civilization again takes hold, religion declines. It declines against several competing influences -- Government, Business, the Military, the Universities. But when everything starts collapsing again, Religion becomes, again, the last thing left.

Toynbee poses the question of whether Civilization would ever collapse if there were a Religion that could ride with the competition and remain influential as a Civilized Institution. There has never been a Civilization that collapsed because it was TOO Religious. Typically Civilization collapse because of complications involving Concentration of Wealth -- narrow greed and special interests divert wealth away from necessary social infrastructures. It would be expected that Religion would teach against such runaway selfishness, but at this point in Civilization, Religion is set aside as a non-factor and is only appreciated by what has become counter-cultural proletariatis.

So the problem is not that Religions try to be controlling. It is that they lose control. Just look at our own Civilization. It is obvious that secular governments do not have the moral authority to prevent what is becoming an avalanche of social, economic and even environmental collapse of the Social Order.

Islamic Civilization's collapse is far advanced. Here we can see Toynbee's vision being proved in fact. As their societies unravel into chaos and disorder we find that the last surviving organizations are the Religious Schools and the Mullahs. For Western Civilization to subsume and incorporate what used to be Islamic Civilization, it will have to neutralize the Mullahs in order to circumvent the rise of a resurrected Islam.

Notice in America, that as more of the populous decides to doubt the legitimacy of government and other social institutions -- corporate globalization, for instance -- Religious Organizations are more and more resorted to.

A significant problem regarding the factionalization of Religion, and the inability of Religion to retain influence, is the innate quality of the particular Religion. If a Religion alienates large sections of the demographic, or can't achieve a wide concensus of acceptance within a Society, then the Civilization it generates will be inherently weak at its moral core.

Toynbee would have liked to see the 4 Higher Religions of the World arrive at a commonality and a consensus. Without a comprehensive Religious Reconciliation at the Global Level, a Global Civilization will simply be too tenuous from the very getgo.
 
MagiAwen said:
Is everyone too afraid of this question?
Is it so hard after years of conditioning to actually have some free thought of your own to come up with a comment?
Click to expand...

LOL I challenge you to come into my boxing ring and battle with me, but first of all tie your arms behind your back and while your at it but them 40 kg weights on your legs. Don't worry the contest will be even......... Any takers????..... "Is everyone too afraid" ..... LOL LOL LOL :rolleyes:

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
wow.
How sad Adstar. No wonder everyone fights all the time, they think that is what everyone else wants. So I guess people really are afraid to voice their own personal thoughts without being able to site the bible.

I think it is hilarious that you would intervene in a post that people are arguing in but when simply asked about your personal experience you clam up.

Huh.

====

Thanks Leo. That is a very interesting concept. In fact so interesting I need to come back after thinking about it some.
 
MagiAwen
It is very good way to keep the scum off the discussion board ...most of questions invite Bible quoting Koran thumping zealots who have traded their logical part of their brain to install a un realistic protocol called religion...
I was watching PBS couple of weeks back and they had the latest theory in creation of life on our planet and it is so clear how we have more water than was present on this planet ...it kind of proves Zecharia Setchin's theory of creation of life. According to this documentary if we take 24 hours = 4.5 Billion years(earth's age) ..then humans were created in the last 2-5 minutes ....**it seems Humans were the last priority of our almighty God...and then if you try to measure when Bible/koran was revealed to humans it falls in last few seconds ...
 
TheERK

One of these statements false.
Click to expand...

I didn't phrase it the way I should have.

By dictionary definition an atheist is : One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I do not deny the existence of a god or gods, however, I believe they exist only in the mind....not as omnipotent beings that created you, I, and everything. SO, technically I am not an atheist as people perceive them to be. I suppose you could say that I am, however then people would assume I do not believe in anything. Not that everyone thinks that an atheist has no belief system whatsoever, but I find the majority of people associate an atheist with the assumed definition rather than the dictionary definition.

I am Wiccan but I am not a traditional practitioner. This is to say I follow most of the Wiccan way with exception to the god and/or god(s)/goddess part. I have no ineradicable feeling of dependence upon a deity of any sort. I describe myself as Wiccan simply because it is the only religion in which I feel comfortable in and can make it conform to me and my beliefs as I grow as a person. In fact I do not even think of it as a religion, it is more the way I choose to life my life. And as a person who grows constantly with everything I learn, I change my mind and perpectives upon life, the world and the universe. To me it is not rational to prescribe (if you are going to) to a religion or set of beliefs that will not let you change as your grow.
 
Guru

Thanks for posting :)

I just wanted to note the object of this thread is not to debate the existence of anything or refute/put down what people believe. I just want to know why they believe...meaning...not what they were taught in their religious texts but what they really feel.

I started thinking about this today while I was at a clients who happens to have a chapel in their building and I went to speak to the in house minister. I asked him if he could tell me, without quoting from the bible and without giving me some sort of flimsy answer like "I just do"...why he believed in god.

And this is what he said, "I think god embodies everything I would like to be, not a god myself, but his wisdom, knowledge and love. I think he represents the ideal of humanity."

Personally, I disagree but at least he gave me his own personal feelings. Again, without trying to convince me he exists or trying to convert me. And apparently he has thought about it before so I assume other people have as well.

I also made a statement about the dinosaurs of course and then man appeared...and then we hear of god you know, sometime when humans were already here. I asked him why we don't see god arrive earlier. This one he thought about for a few minutes first. Then he said, "Man did not need god until then. He was not open to receive a god until that time. That is my belief."

I thought it was interesting.
 
*1. How would you explain (I said YOU not a book) the fact that there were animals on this planet before man and god does not show up until man is obviously well into his evolution? I have read many theories and would like yours. and not "because the bible tells me so"

Simple it's called evolution!

*2. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?

Religious leaders of the past were politicians, they controlled the ingnorant masses, and punished, killed, or stoned to death those who opposed them!.

You din't specify for "only" theist to answer these questions.

Godless.
 
MagiAwen said:
wow.
How sad Adstar. No wonder everyone fights all the time, they think that is what everyone else wants. So I guess people really are afraid to voice their own personal thoughts without being able to site the bible.

I think it is hilarious that you would intervene in a post that people are arguing in but when simply asked about your personal experience you clam up.

Huh.
Click to expand...

Its infuriating when he gets all puffed up like that and ends up contributing squat, isn't it? :)
 
MagiAwen said:
I didn't phrase it the way I should have.

By dictionary definition an atheist is : One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I do not deny the existence of a god or gods, however, I believe they exist only in the mind....not as omnipotent beings that created you, I, and everything.
Click to expand...

Saying you think Gods exists only in the mind is saying that they do not exist in reality. If that were not the case, you would have a hard time thinking of *anything* that did not exist, because everything we can possibly think of at least exists in the form of a conception. Tell me, how exactly is what you believe different than what an atheist believes? I'm sure atheists, and indeed any person, would agree that Gods exist at *least* in the mind.

SO, technically I am not an atheist as people perceive them to be. I suppose you could say that I am, however then people would assume I do not believe in anything.
Click to expand...

That is their mistake, not yours, and it shouldn't cause you to refrain from calling yourself what you are.
 
1. How would you explain (I said YOU not a book) the fact that there were animals on this planet before man and god does not show up until man is obviously well into his evolution? I have read many theories and would like yours. and not "because the bible tells me so"
Click to expand...
Because the bible tells me so:) Honestly, I don't think it matters that animals were here first... but I'm not a Bible believer and don't have to deal with the contradiction.
. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?
Click to expand...
It's a way to retain power. Religion always changes when participation wanes.
 
Thanks erk, you're right. Maybe I try to think for people too much or possibly underestimate what it is they perceive when I write. Someone recently pointed out to me that I often try to explain myself so many times in different ways that I confuse people and even sometimes...contradict myself. :D

I'm an atheist wiccan then.

:)
 
Persol
Honestly, I don't think it matters that animals were here first
Click to expand...

As TheErk pointed out, I did not do very well with my word choices and structure when I posted this.

I am more concerned with how one would explain it, within their faith. Such as..if they believe man was created first despite the fossil record, I would like to know what about their faith or thought process let's them overlook that fact. I don't care to argue whether or not what was created first.

or

if you are not a bible believer, why would you suspect that man came up with it when he did and not earlier....thus ensuing a possible lesson in anthropology from someone on the forum.

Gosh. I guess I really do write some confusing stuff. Trust me...I'm trying to work on it.
 
Leo Volont said:
Ever read the Historian Arnold Toynbee. The way he sees it Religion is the only Institution that survives the collapse of civilization. Religion becomes the crysalis or nucleus for the next civilization. Then, typically, as civilization again takes hold, religion declines. It declines against several competing influences -- Government, Business, the Military, the Universities. But when everything starts collapsing again, Religion becomes, again, the last thing left.

Toynbee poses the question of whether Civilization would ever collapse if there were a Religion that could ride with the competition and remain influential as a Civilized Institution. There has never been a Civilization that collapsed because it was TOO Religious. Typically Civilization collapse because of complications involving Concentration of Wealth -- narrow greed and special interests divert wealth away from necessary social infrastructures. It would be expected that Religion would teach against such runaway selfishness, but at this point in Civilization, Religion is set aside as a non-factor and is only appreciated by what has become counter-cultural proletariatis.

So the problem is not that Religions try to be controlling. It is that they lose control. Just look at our own Civilization. It is obvious that secular governments do not have the moral authority to prevent what is becoming an avalanche of social, economic and even environmental collapse of the Social Order.

Islamic Civilization's collapse is far advanced. Here we can see Toynbee's vision being proved in fact. As their societies unravel into chaos and disorder we find that the last surviving organizations are the Religious Schools and the Mullahs. For Western Civilization to subsume and incorporate what used to be Islamic Civilization, it will have to neutralize the Mullahs in order to circumvent the rise of a resurrected Islam.

Notice in America, that as more of the populous decides to doubt the legitimacy of government and other social institutions -- corporate globalization, for instance -- Religious Organizations are more and more resorted to.

A significant problem regarding the factionalization of Religion, and the inability of Religion to retain influence, is the innate quality of the particular Religion. If a Religion alienates large sections of the demographic, or can't achieve a wide concensus of acceptance within a Society, then the Civilization it generates will be inherently weak at its moral core.

Toynbee would have liked to see the 4 Higher Religions of the World arrive at a commonality and a consensus. Without a comprehensive Religious Reconciliation at the Global Level, a Global Civilization will simply be too tenuous from the very getgo.
Click to expand...

Leo,

That's a great answer! In fact it answers a long standing question that
was asked of me by a 'believer'... something that I did not have an answer
for yet.
 
glaucon said:
Not necessarily.... she could be taking an agnostic position.
Click to expand...

Agnosticism concerns knowledge. Atheism concerns belief. She said she was not God-believing, therefore she is atheistic.

Agnosticism is not the 'middle-way' between theism and atheism, the two are not mutua--oh, screw it. Please do some background reading--this has been discussed to death hundreds of times here.

Atheism does not imply belief in the statement 'There is no God'.
 
MagiAwen said:
1. How would you explain (I said YOU not a book) the fact that there were animals on this planet before man and god does not show up until man is obviously well into his evolution?
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous and uneducated question. "God shows up" at a time from which there are first preserved artifacts or documents mentioning God. These artifacts and documents were made by people, and could be made only after people have evolved so far as to be able to make them. Crocodiles or trees usually don't draw or write.

We can't say that before man, God wasn't here -- we simply have no man-written documents from before that time, as, simply, there were no men (in the sense of homo sapiens) there yet to make them.

It is most unscientific to make claims of certainty about things we have no evidence for.


MagiAwen said:
2. How would you explain how the faiths that believe in this same god are also structured like government and run like government? Is it not simply a way to control people?
Click to expand...

People are social beings, and as such there exists a certain "tribal mentality" that keeps the group together and organizes the life in this group, including the hiearchy within said group. This "tribal mentality" usually answers the questions "Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going to?", and sets up laws and a value system in accordance with this "tribal mentality". As such, this is a form of "social control", and "social control" is innate to social organizations. "Religion" is probably the earliest form of this "tribal mentality".


MagiAwen said:
I asked him if he could tell me, without quoting from the bible and without giving me some sort of flimsy answer like "I just do"...why he believed in god.
Click to expand...

"Why do you believe in God?" is a non-question.
It suggests that the belief in God is some sort of a business transaction (like "I believe because I want to be saved" or "I believe because it is tradition"), or at best, Pascal's wager.

The way I see it, the only true answer to this question is "Because I do", as everything else would be a more or less sophisticated betrayal of one's own faith.
The "reason" for my belief lies in a long line of events and experiences, which at some point came together in a complex holistic causality that can not be analytically explained.

I suppose that my answer may seem evasive or useless to you, but do keep in mind that it is not in my interest to persuade you of my belief.

If you want to believe in God, you will feel so. But you cannot make yourself want to believe, neither can you fully rationally and analytically come to the decision to believe in God (or to disbelieve in God, for that matter). Once more, the best you can rationally and analytically come to, is Pascal's wager.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top