Desperate religion I was part of went as far as stated that "It means nothing if you believe in the existence of God, what matters is you willingness to follow the bitter but positive God's will". I think, the problem starts when the happy "marketing" phase of religious experience ends and you are offered a bitter idea of "bitter service to the God's will or potential torture in afterlife". All those positive newbie ideas which were designed to attract you are replaced with the world view where you are a "hostage" of God, where he can bring you endless nightmare for sins.

Given convincing and testable evidence I would have to change my beliefs, that's what convincing means. Never seen anything convincing in 62 years and don't expect to, but it could happen. (then again, I could become a millionaire over night, but that's not likely either!)

(April 29, 2017 at 12:32 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: Desperate religion I was part of went as far as stated that "It means nothing if you believe in the existence of God, what matters is you willingness to follow the bitter but positive God's will".

Since religions don't talk, I assume that was either an interpretation of scripture or some person or persons' personal viewpoint. It sounds like "nothing" is being used as a hyperbole, and not an absolute. Obviously, your willingness to do something is diminished considerably if you don't believe in the very thing for which you're doing it. But yes, I agree in the sense that ultimately, if your faith doesn't help you to do good, it's useless. Doesn't mean you can get rid of it.

Quote:the problem starts when the happy "marketing" phase of religious experience ends and you are offered a bitter idea of "bitter service to the God's will or potential torture in afterlife". All those positive newbie ideas which were designed to attract you are replaced with the world view where you are a "hostage" of God, where he can bring you endless nightmare for sins.

Yeah, but that's like any other commitment. Consider how positive the dating experience is compared to the problems that come during the actual marriage. It isn't necessarily some person or group trying to trap us, it's just the simple fact that commitment always puts us through hell. Learning how to persevere through that kind of hell is what strengthens and defines us.

(April 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Given convincing and testable evidence I would have to change my beliefs, that's what convincing means.

Likewise. I've never seen any convincing and testable evidence that there's no source of everything (one of my beliefs), nor can I even conceive of anything that could qualify.

---

I'm willing make this proposition: I believe in a central source of all things. I will grant that this belief may or may not be true. If someone can posit even an imaginary situation that would count as evidence against the truth of this belief and I can't reasonably conclude that it wouldn't actually count as such evidence, I will admit that I have a problem. Otherwise, I see no issue with believing what I believe.

(April 29, 2017 at 11:10 am)Valyza1 Wrote: What you see me doing, in my "openness", is trying to limit the scope of the conversation to things that aren't inflammatory to either side.  It doesn't mean I don't have any dogmas to which I hold.  I do, however, constantly reinterpret dogmas.

Well I appreciate the gesture at any rate. Nice to cyber meet you.

(April 29, 2017 at 1:20 pm)Valyza1 Wrote:

---

I'm willing make this proposition:  I believe in a central source of all things.  I will grant that this belief may or may not be true.  If someone can posit even an imaginary situation that would count as evidence against the truth of this belief and I can't reasonably conclude that it wouldn't actually count as such evidence, I will admit that I have a problem.  Otherwise, I see no issue with believing what I believe.

Hi Val.

So exactly what is this "central source of all things"? I saw you state before that "The best way I know how to define God is, very, very basically, as a central, singular source of all things." 

This does not give me/us much to go on. Does this singular source have any characteristics, qualities or identifications that you can tell us about? You say it's a source of all things, does that mean that it is a creator?

To this point, with out more to go on, and in comparison to reality, all you've provided is a fantasy. A product of the mind with nothing to substantiate it. Fantasies are not in accord with reality, there is no more evidence that I need.

If you require a belief in a fantasy for a meaningful life, be my guest. It's not up to me to provide you with an evidence against it. With the limited details I doubt there could be any. However, if you would like me or others to consider that your belief has any validity then you're going to have to step up and tell us more than "it's this thing that provides everything". (not stating that those are your words)

Edit: I did notice that you mentioned eternal happiness at one point. Is this one of the reasons for your belief?

Gaaah! Just wrote a detailed response and accidentally erased it! Will write another one when I have the time....

(April 29, 2017 at 4:29 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: [edit]

In what way is it a fantasy?  It's an operative assumption that the mind is ill-equipped to demonstrate, like the assumption that we aren't just imagining our entire lives.  

[edit]

It is a fantasy because it's your unsubstantiated mental construction. As far as I'm concerned it is an invalid operating belief because either you can't or lack the ability to demonstrate that it is anything other than fantasy. 
Tell me in what way it this belief not a fantasy.

(April 29, 2017 at 2:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: So exactly what is this "central source of all things"? I saw you state before that "The best way I know how to define God is, very, very basically, as a central, singular source of all things." 

This does not give me/us much to go on.

Likely because it is very basic.

Quote:Does this singular source have any characteristics, qualities or identifications that you can tell us about?

Not without incurring some malleable assumptions. The reason I kept it so basic in here was because it seems the only aspect of my faith about which I can't find reason or ability to doubt. I have no issue with changing the sort of beliefs that I can actually change. The reason I created this thread was because I don't think I can change this particular one.

Quote:You say it's a source of all things, does that mean that it is a creator?

could you define "creator" in a way that's distinct from "origin", which is implied by the definition?

(April 29, 2017 at 4:59 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 29, 2017 at 4:29 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: [edit]

In what way is it a fantasy?  It's an operative assumption that the mind is ill-equipped to demonstrate, like the assumption that we aren't just imagining our entire lives.  

[edit]

It is a fantasy because it's your unsubstantiated mental construction. As far as I'm concerned it is an invalid operating belief because either you can't or lack the ability to demonstrate that it is anything other than fantasy. 
Tell me in what way it this belief not a fantasy.

In the same way believing that I'm not imagining my entire life is not a fantasy. Is that somehow more validated than believing there's an origin to everything? If so, how?

Quote:However, if you would like me or others to consider that your belief has any validity then you're going to have to step up and tell us more than "it's this thing that provides everything". (not stating that those are your words)

. Though it would be certainly nice if other people considered my belief to be "valid", I don't honestly think that's what I'm aiming for. I just want to see what other people think. Maybe learn something, maybe teach something, maybe refine something. I just want to communicate. It isn't more complicated than that.

Quote:Edit: I did notice that you mentioned eternal happiness at one point. Is this one of the reasons for your belief?

No. That was a slightly off-topic speculation about Christian zealousness

---

Sorry I had to re-write my responses from earlier because I had accidentally deleted them whilst trying to edit them

Valyza1 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:It's like that story about the two wolves. You can't just believe anything you want instantly, but if you feed a belief it will grow stronger and if you starve it, it will grow weaker. It would take a lot of effort, maybe years worth, to get myself to believe one of the various versions of God is real, but if I was determined enough, I'm sure I could convince myself eventually. It would be much easier if instead of getting out of Christianity entirely I was just sort of 'lapsed' but still broadly and weakly a believer. I have a hurdle of overcoming all the things that combined to convince me that God is probably not real.

I suppose at a certain level of belief, it's more important to be true to what you believe than to make any serious effort to get into it or out of the state of believing it.  

Not without a good reason...if you're already convinced that something is true, there's not much motivation to convince yourself that it's false. Something has to change to prompt you to take the journey of trying to convince yourself of something you don't think is true.

Frankly, I've seen it happen most often due to the influence of one's significant other, which means there's an emotional motivation to resolve basic differences if one or both are very serious about the belief in question and about having a harmonious relationship.

---

There may well be an 'origin of all things'. I think it's probable that if there is, it will turn out to be natural causes, like everything else so far, and not a person, let alone a deity.

I recommend you add something to your definition to distinguish it from quantum foam or string theory hypotheses about the origin of the cosmos. Unless you're cool with worshipping an impersonal natural phenomenon, but I guarantee that quantum foam is not reaching out to give you the good feels.

(May 1, 2017 at 12:36 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: There may well be an 'origin of all things'. I think it's probable that if there is, it will turn out to be natural causes, like everything else so far, and not a person, let alone a deity.

If nature is all that exists, I have no problem with this idea. Leaving aside the usual baggage that most associate with the supernatural, I'm not even sure what supernatural means, other than that it's been used interchangeably with "mysterious" which only means "beyond our current understanding". Scientists have theorized about higher dimensions beyond the third. Sometimes going as high as eleven. I wouldn't have the faintest idea what the difference, if any, would be between a higher dimension and a supernatural realm. If those are also considered nature, then there's no discernible difference and it just becomes a game of words.

Quote:I recommend you add something to your definition to distinguish it from quantum foam or string theory hypotheses about the origin of the cosmos. Unless you're cool with worshipping an impersonal natural phenomenon, but I guarantee that quantum foam is not reaching out to give you the good feels.

I'm not concerned with supplying an emotionally gratifying description of God in the definition. The definition I supplied is the only thing I believe to be incontrovertible. (And I don't think I chose to find it incontrovertible). If I add anything to it, I'm just decorating it with description for my own purpose. I don't know anything about quantum foam or string theory, so I don't feel a need to distinguish it from those concepts. They may be one and the same thing, but unless it's some sort of proven fact that these concepts represent the actual origin of all things (I would think it isn't) then the belief is already distinguished from the theories. I don't require them to necessarily be describing two different things.