RE: The honest truth of it?
May 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm
(This post was last modified: May 24, 2010 at 5:18 pm by Watson.)
I do not give money to any church in the first place, Min.
I like that comparison, actually, Darwinian. It is the same as what I am saying. Because how can you understand something you have not experienced? In fact, if we want to get into it for real...how do we know what death is like without experiencing death? We don't even know if death is an experience or not. Obviously, I would say it is and you would say it isn't, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant here is that we cannot know, and that only belief can give us even an inkling of understanding towards what we do not know. Belief, applied correctly, is completely logical.
Which actually sequeways easily and perfectly into my response to you, Paul. Yes, belief is the only way one can recognize their experiences as God. Yes, I believe in God and you do not. However, one need not name what they are recognizing 'God' at all. As I've stated numerous times, in my own change from atheism to belief, I encountered situations which I recognized as not logically explainable through any means but belief in God.
Belief is the prerequisite for understanding, but it does not automatically instill this understanding in someone. Look at fundamentalists. They believe, but they do not understand what it is they are believing in.
As for your above post, Paul, I can only say that it is reiddled with fallacy. You posit and you speculate, but you show no understanding. You merely demonstrate wishful thinking when you say "I'd like to think that one day..." You delve no further than your own understanding of the world, and make no attempt to see it in an unbiased light. You use condescending terms such as 'make-believe' and 'fairy tale', when you do not understand what it is you are condescending.
If ever I meet a true atheist, I will stop believing on the spot.
I like that comparison, actually, Darwinian. It is the same as what I am saying. Because how can you understand something you have not experienced? In fact, if we want to get into it for real...how do we know what death is like without experiencing death? We don't even know if death is an experience or not. Obviously, I would say it is and you would say it isn't, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant here is that we cannot know, and that only belief can give us even an inkling of understanding towards what we do not know. Belief, applied correctly, is completely logical.
Which actually sequeways easily and perfectly into my response to you, Paul. Yes, belief is the only way one can recognize their experiences as God. Yes, I believe in God and you do not. However, one need not name what they are recognizing 'God' at all. As I've stated numerous times, in my own change from atheism to belief, I encountered situations which I recognized as not logically explainable through any means but belief in God.
Belief is the prerequisite for understanding, but it does not automatically instill this understanding in someone. Look at fundamentalists. They believe, but they do not understand what it is they are believing in.
As for your above post, Paul, I can only say that it is reiddled with fallacy. You posit and you speculate, but you show no understanding. You merely demonstrate wishful thinking when you say "I'd like to think that one day..." You delve no further than your own understanding of the world, and make no attempt to see it in an unbiased light. You use condescending terms such as 'make-believe' and 'fairy tale', when you do not understand what it is you are condescending.
If ever I meet a true atheist, I will stop believing on the spot.
