Believe:

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@ Kyu

My wise Nana of revered memory once warned met that one of life's more infuriating experiences is being patronised by someone really ignorant and/or stupid.

That warning just popped into my head whilst trying to wade through a couple Pippy's posts.

I can't for the life of me work out why that would suddenly just spring unbidden to mind. Can you?

[Giff]

@ Kyu

My wise Nana of revered memory once warned met that one of life's more infuriating experiences is being patronised by someone really ignorant and/or stupid.

That warning just popped into my head whilst trying to wade through a couple Pippy's posts.

I can't for the life of me work out why that would suddenly just spring unbidden to mind. Can you?

Hmm... tough question. I trying to see a connection here, but I just can't! Maybe God could answer that question?

[g-mark]

Do I?

Do you?

[Pippy]

Hey all,

First and foremost, I really did not intend to hi-jack this thread so badly. This has to be the worst thread hi-jacking ever! I really meant my first post to be about the topic at hand (belief), but things have progressed.

Not much time this morning, and so much to say. I will try to be brief, as the posts seem to be getting longer and longer.

Kyu, I really enjoyed your response. I liked the like/dislike dichotomy in it, that was fun. I do not wish to assume you would be a friend of mine in real life, but that is what makes forums interesting, no?

I would like to clarify the 'assigning value to theological works' point if I may. I cannot offer you the system or process that I use to somehow rank one as better or more honest than another. I just read them, all of them, (I have read a lot of books by now) and judge them with my mind. I like to consider myself a poet, and so I try to figure out what the code is. Reading between the lines, the underlying moral or the 'why did they write this as such'. Then I compare the ideas and concepts being forwarded in any said theology to what I think is the best conception of a healthy state-of-mind. If the book teaches things that are in the best interests (a huge argument in it's own right) of people, I say it holds more relative truth than an opposite. If a book holds bad ideas (only in the sense that they are unnecessary and damaging, I am not very fond at all of it. I just tie in the wording from the theory that good equates to true and bad equates to untrue. The value of the works is in the learning of and expanding on the good ideas.

And I believe you are deluding yourself and/or attempting to deceive others ... I don't for one moment believe you are doing it maliciously but I still believe you are doing it. I base it on the fact that I have interacted/debated/discussed with thousands of theists online, and with many, many others very much like you and you might like to think, you’re different but you're really not and those experiences explain a lot of why I am as cynical towards you as I am.

I was very happy with the way you communicated this point. That, to me is the epitome of polite disagreement, and could not thank you more for being so respectful. I completely understand what you are saying, and almost agree. This is not something I have not heard before. I can only try to assure that you have only interacted with one person like me (I have only really interacted with one person like you). It is something you are not allowed to say in these times, in this culture, where we strive for manufactured individuality. I have never had a warm reception of the idea, but I am pretty sure I am a little bit different. I make that assumption as objectivley and honestly as I can. It will be difficult, and you will be driven to disagree, but I feel it has to be said. It is a lot like the 'i don't care what other people think', I don't want to be different, and I don't want to be normal. I don't really care what I think I want, I need to be honest and whoever I really am. I don't ever say 'I am special', please if you can, try not to come back with the 'delusions of grandeur' thing. Let me try to skip that and say that it is not a better than/worse than thing. It just is what it is. And (drum roll) I could be wrong. If it is thoughts like this that make you like me least, you might not enjoy these ones at all.

About Dawkins, he goes for the soft underbelly of religion mostly. I am in no way religious. I am almost in agreement with his tryade against religious control. It is his lack of clarification, his work against any form (even healthy) of spiritualism/mysticism and mostly the attitude he chooses. He is a genius, I don't discount his ability to write a good book. I pick very specific battles.

I will try not to accuse you of not listening any more. If you are trying your best to understand what I am saying (as you are saying), I will believe you and respect that. It's not that I have a problem with the scientific method at all. It is a great idea, but it has to be used properly. As in honestly. A lot of what passes for science nowadays does not do the part about amassing information about the results (after the fact) and changing the conclusion or hypothosis. It is a failure to use the scientific method properly, and yet often calls itself science. It also relates to dishonesty, because we take that what can be proven through the proper scientific method is at best guess 'true'.

No, we did invent the musical scales ... it's actually well documented because there is a precise mathematical relationship between each note but it s most certainly a human invention in the exact same way as species are a human invention.

I can only strongly disagree. I don't think that is correct at all. The precise mathematical relationships between each note are really there. We did not 'invent' them, and instead of evidence of our construction of it, I see it as clear evidence of the mathematical and systematical complexity of life. When you say that species are a human invention, I think I see a big problem with that. The word for species, and moreover the concept (to us) of species is an invention, yes. But it is naming something that is already real. By naming the animal groups into distinct species we cannot claim to have made them, or their configuration. We named the musical notes. Something vibrating at 440 is a perfect A. It wasn't a perfect A before humans, before language. It wasn't even 440hz. But it was there. Math is a better example. We put numbers to it, but it's fundamental truth is much older. This is an example of things that can be taken for more 'real' than, say, NASCAR.

I am also surprised that we disagree so strongly on the idea that some things are only in the realm of theory. Many, many things in fact, can have no, or more than one provable theories or conclusions. The catch word being 'provable'. I think I can rest assured that neither of us literally know what happened to form the universe. I have some pretty interesting ides myself, but they are only ideas. I am not foolish enough to claim to know things I clearly cannot, and I am sorry if it offended you, but I also still doubt you were there. It's an exaggerated statement to help prove a point.

Now ask YOURSELF this simple question, "Am I really so naïve that I believe that we have to see something with out own little twinkies to have evidence that it happened that way?"

How did you get that cool umlaut!? Neat. I looked on myself, and found no twinkies... No I'm kidding, I am getting tired now. <ahem> I think it's a little amusing (Remember, not in a self-superior way) that you have said a sentance that I feel is better suited to my side of this 'argument'. Isn't that the kind of thing I am supposed to be saying right now? I may be pretty naive, but I don't think so. (hmmmm)

Remember you are in an atheist forum, that here you must prove your view is worthwhile before anyone (except fellow theists) will truly respect it (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 'n all that)

No, not at all. I am not here to have my views respected. I was asking in the context of our conversation if you would stop calling my beliefs by things that are not necessarily offensive, just not apt descriptions. I don't care, but I dislike being misunderstood. As for the debating spirit, I am doing it for the ideas. To be as blunt and honest as possible, I think I am (somewhat) right, and I think you are wrong about a couple of these points herein, and I want to try to help explain/listen to your ideas until it is resolved. I may be incorrect about the things I am assuming I am right about, but I'm doing my best here, and my best takes more than a few assumptions. Socretes told me to admit what I do not know.

All in all, it wasn't a very short reply... I kind of wish this giant thing wasn't happening, as this is not at all why I came here. I can see that I garner very little respect from the crowd. I don't want to come here to test myself to see if I can out argue you all about my gods. I would like to politely take part in the same little discussions you are having, and only try to offer a different view, and learn from people with a different view. I do keep doing this with Kyu because it is a little fun. And I respect and admire him as a fellow human in Earth City.

To the two whispering in the back about me, but not too me... I hope I don't seem at all as patronizing as Kyu here, but you never know. I agree very much with your wise Nana, Padraic. The way you ended the challenge though, with a cutsey allusion instead of real statement (and how your talking to Kyu about me, right in front of me, very rude and weak) leads me to have concern for your own level ignorance. Just putting '@ Kyu' doesn't mean I can't hear you. Talk like a grown up please, if you would.

Thank you all for your time, and hopefully we can get over the 'new theist dummy' phase. I really just want to add a sentance of three to some of the discussions that interest me. This is not what I intended.

"I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right, I don't need to be forgiven",
-Pip

[fr0d0]

You speak the truth to me Pip, I'd like to say. Your posts are making a lot of sense and I can understand that you're exploring 'spirituality', for want of a better term, thoroughly and honestly (not to dismiss our atheist friends here, I think they do the same). I really hope that doesn't come across as pedantic, that really isn't my intention. You also make some great and interesting points. If my memory was up to it perhaps I could quote you to Kyu to break his duck of 'Christians' not quoting other theists I don't think I've said it yet, so a very warm welcome to the forum

[Pippy]

Hey again,

Reading over these last pages, what a barn-burner. This is a lot of fun, and I quite hope I am not causing too many waves. Greetings Frodo, and thank you kindly for the welcome. I have heard a lot about you, it seems we have been compared as similar. I doubt we are really any more or less similar overall than with an others here. We are all just people. I appreciate your thought that I am exploring thoroughly and honestly, and more so that we are all doing our best to do the same. I agree very much with that.

I hope my overall tone is still polite enough, I readily admit that I have gotten a little more cutting in my remarks. And to be clear on my little 'chew-out' at Padraic and Giff, I hope I was concise. I am not at all bothered by your assertions that I am ignorant, or thinking poorly. You are free to think that. I am only strongly admonishing your chosen behaviour. You can say what you want, but if you act rude or weak, I feel I have to call you on it.

Thank you all, and take care.

"All I am asking is the same as you, To be allowed to live what I believe to be true",
-Pip

[Giff]

I am in no way religious

But it says that you are a polytheist?

By the way what is your definition of religion?

[Pippy]

Hello,

I am a polytheist because I believe in the possibility of more than one god. This is as opposed to a monotheist or an atheist. A religion is a centralized and organized set of beliefs and mind-states that exist outside of the followers. It has to be based on theism of some sort, and is best functioning when un-questioned and considered in the whole.

You are not really supposed to pick and choose what truths you can, but to take it's entire teaching as true. I rather like to look at the places where the religions overlap, and what their intent and message was/is on the biggest scale. I do not accept any one religion as being perfectly correct. My relationship with god exists only on my terms. If I was religious, I would have written 'Buddhist' or 'Druidic', but chose what I think is the most appropriate and honest answer.

I think we all got the impression in our lives that we were being lied to about god. You all seem to have concluded that we were being lied to about his existence. I conclude that we are being lied to about his nature.

Thank you,
"What is that god damned noise!?!"
-Pip

[Edwardo Piet]

Well where IS God? Where do you think he is Pip?

I mean if he's EVERYWHERE, how do we tell the difference between a universe with a God inside (and possibly outside..?) everything but being invisible, immaterial and intangible and a universe simply without his existence! ?

I mean without any real evidence isn't it simply safe to assume he doesn't exist?

EvF

[Pippy]

Hey again,

Hello EvF, thank you for your post. I really quite appreciate the level of respect I assumed from it. You pose some valid and concise questions.

The unfortunate answer to 'Where is god?' has to be that she is everywhere. More literally, she is everything. I say it's unfortunate because I know that doesn't explain it, or I think hold much value for you. I wouldn't quite classify god as invisible or especially intangible. She doesn't really fit into 'visible/invisible', and is very, very tangible to many people other than you. They may be mistaken, but you may be as well. God is most certainly immaterial though, except for people who worship MoneyGod™. We tell the difference between a universe with god and one without by picking one. We either live in a universe with god, and we have no concept of one without, or vice versa. I kind of believe that whether or not we think there is or is not a god... There just is or is not god.

There, to me, is no 'real' evidence. The evidence of a god/godless world is all around us. Everything can be cast as evidence, but it is how we interpret the evidence that we see the world. I cannot offer some evidence you have not already seen (not completely), only suggest we have made different assumptions and conclusions.

I wouldn't call it 'safe' to assume his/her non-existence. It may be prudent, valid or realistic to you, but I can't sign off that it is necessarily safe. It isn't Pascal's Wager, I don't think belief in god is a big part of the judgement (if there is a judgement). My god wouldn't hold it against me if I denied her my whole life. She would laugh, and appreciate the irony of free-will. But my life is very much improved in quality by acknowledging that I am part of something far bigger than I dare imagine.

All of this is just my silly opinions and ideas, I am not trying to preach. I appreciate your questions, and wonder what your answers to them would be. Thank you for sharing.

"My father sold the second cow today",
-Pip