Fed up of non believers

[ivanava]

= no belief in god. Q. E. D.

 

I might believe but just refer to it by a different name.

[RootsBooster]

If I recall correctly, when we had this discussion on another thread a while ago I stated that I was an agnostic. Instead of simply accepting this and thinking 'fair enough', you decided to challenge my definition.

I've accepted all along that you are agnostic, that's never been the issue.

Your problem is you refuse to accept that you are also an atheist, even though you have previously stated that you have no belief in any gods.

 

It's like somebody admitting that they walk on two legs but deny being bipedal, or being attracted to the opposite sex but refusing to admit that they are heterosexual.

And then going on to insult people who try to help them understand better, putting your fingers in your ears and going "NO, NOT LISTENING!"

 

In response I quoted the Oxford Dictionary definition 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.' Once again this did not satisfy your nit picking nature, and you supplied a load of further definitions none of which had any interest to me.

Once again, your position of agnosticism isn't an issue. The additional definitions (atheism and theism), whether you're interested in them or not, are relevant.

To me, the statement 'cannot know whether or not' allows for the possibility of either being true.

Of course it does

 

This does not equate with 'having no belief in Gods', it equates with not knowing either way, which is not the same.

I think this might be the part you get so confused about. In the sentence above, you're trying to synonymise belief and knowledge.

 

You say you don't know either way, cool. What do you believe (or not believe)?

In the past you've said that you don't have any beliefs in any gods. Along with not knowing either way, that makes you an agnostic atheist.

 

I later came to realise that you are totally obsessed with definitions and trying to fit people into boxes of your own construction.

 

Why you feel the need to behave in this manner is anyone's guess ,but it is somewhat irritating.

You can see it that way if you want, but surely you wouldn't want to fit into the agnostic box either then?

 

A long time ago, I was like you (with regards to my position on gods). I was and am still open to the possibility of the existence of gods, but didn't and don't actually have any belief in any. I denied being an atheist (back then) because I thought that to be an atheist you had to believe that there cannot be any gods, that there are definitely no gods. I thought it must be an arrogant thing to be, and regarded the word "atheist" almost like a dirty word.

 

My problem was that I couldn't see the difference between "believing there are no gods" and "not having any belief in gods". I thought they meant the same, but after much discussion it finally clicked and I realised the (small but important) difference. I think it may have been FlamingJimmy, SCCSUX and DosxUk who explained it.

[salsafan]

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what that means, or how it is any kind of reply to my post which you quoted before it.

 

Originally Posted by redwhine View Post

But at any one time, they either believe in or lack belief in god. They never both believe in and lack belief in god at the same time.

 

See it as a wave.

 

And that sometimes people are affected by what they see, hear, and experience in actual life even if they are a believer. These are the living facts or spiritualness as some people like to call it.

 

Some people quote from books and hold dearly what had been going on before, but others hold dearly what they experience now as facts and question things directly in front of them and not just from a book. It would be great and wonderful if both can exist in daily life. Of that absolute certainty and application.

So you wrote that, a person can either believe in, or lack belief in God. I said, a person can hold a belief in God until such a time that they experience life in front of them and change their validity of the existence of God. This kind of experience and testing of Godliness happens in a daily basis for many individuals. If you are one of these people who hold God and think and see God in one single way, then that is how you interpret God. BUT, I know that I myself, and a few others, test God or the existence of God in what we do daily.

 

The difference is:

1 - Strongly held belief in God, find everything related and that matches to this in life.

2 - Strongly held belief in God, let life randomly show when God exists and when it does not.

 

Most people will lose their faith at some point in time, and that is why I said that it is a "wave" and scenario 2 is what most people end up experiencing and believing. They may set out as scenario 1, but life happens by chance, and there is a randomness to it, so it ends up as 2.

 

Oh, there is a scenario 3.

3 - Non-believer in God. Experience something odd, and believe in the existence of God. Cos they cannot explain it with knowledge.

 

Just like the example I showed, because currently, there is less and lack of believe in molecular energy. The Dr Emoto research demonstrated this in its simplistic form. Which is actually brilliant by the way. The Atomic level research has not even shown in real life how this can be done. His demonstration of saying words, and (not proving but eluding to) that it was sound waves which caused the crystals of the water to change, and the electromagnetic energy that he exerted from the sound caused the water then to change the course of its life. It was almost like random chance. What happened was that he went and blessed a lake, came back to it, and showed how life then came back to this pool of still water. Organic growth occurred then, and when he showed the water in its crystal form. It showed perfect alignment of a shape which can also inhibit life to grow too.

[skinz]

Oh my God.

 

Maybe it is Janie and myself who is on the same wavelength as the OP. If you read what Janie wrote, and if you are able to "abstract" the principle information which she wrote, it boils down to the same logical deduction. (I think someone hit the nail on the head.) Of "what is life" ?

 

To me, I think that the OP had an absolute valid reason to write what she did. She is also in according to the forum rules justified in doing so too. (I also know that sometimes the forum rule catches certain people out, and people tend to follow it blindly, and communicate and write in a specific way.) Is it not obvious that SHE is the fact ? That she experienced seeing ghosts is the fact ? I also straight away wrote that I thought I saw ghostly images when I was a child. I actually believed in it. This was way before I went to school, and I learnt about science, which did do something with me, and it changed my brain, my spirituality and the rest is history. To me, I am the living fact. The forum rule states that either write about your experience, or quote where the factual content lies in a publication. (Experience versus knowledge.) I do not see why the two cannot co-exist when in discussing whether the premise of "ghost" exists or not.

 

I can also see that as much as those forum heavy weights use science and knowledge to stifle others, I have not seen any others ask the very plain question of "why did you see this, and what happened" to question the facts. Not to throw the assumption that there are no facts to begin with. Or that she was plugging something out of the sky.

 

 

I like Dr Emoto's words and how he phrased things. As a scientist, he knows how energy works, but the way he wrote his piece was from a very spiritual angle, which is actually very benefiting towards the Japanese culture overall. Cos they relate everything to humanity, and to humans. Whereas in the UK, we seem to pursuit knowledge for the sake of knowledge and we drop people behind. We drop spirituality, the spirit of kindness, empathy, and all the rest, in search of knowledge for knowledge sake such that, our children now in this generation has become addicts of information, and ADHD is actually more and more common. Basically we lost our morality. We lost that golden rule.

 

There is a price to pay for the pursuit of excellence. It does something to your brain. e.g. neurodegenerative diseases. To me, in spiritual term, it means that the person did not love themselves to back off and to switch off, and marvel at the simplicity of science and what it brings and offer to the world.

 

If you lose morality, then you lose yourself, and you lose yourself off the grid of humanity. Knowledge is just written words with no meaning and people standing behind it otherwise.

 

With regards to Dr Emoto's research, he is trying to raise the awareness of molecular bonding, which in itself is quite exciting because he has managed to prove some first principles and expanded in that area. He is raising more awareness by demonstrating some simple principles, of which it worked. There is no doubt about that. I do not question his understanding of molecular chemistry, or physical chemistry, and nor do I question his understanding of it. From a humanity angle, he is also trying to raise awareness because he wants research to be done in this specific area which is actually quite forefront too. It means raising quality of life overall if the search can reach a very good level.

 

I just teased those of you who do not seem to support ethics but has a brilliant knowledge and mind that, without ethics, and without morality and goals towards preservation of humanity and humans, science is nothing.

 

I'm not sure you're aware of the meaning "bang to rights" salsa. I wouldn't align yourself with the OP or janie considering their dogmatic and unmovable position either.

 

Non believers simply believe that there is no evidence to believe but open to evidence that's contrary. Empathy, morality and humanity have nothing to do with believing. I don't believe yet I posses all those facets. I also respect the beliefs that others hold until it encroaches and influences on how I live my life directly or indirectly.

 

I genuinely respect what you have to say even if I genuinely disagree with it simply because I feel you are genuine. Our resident troll on the other hand is a nutter.

[mjw47]

I see you've dropped all pretence of wishing to debate, as per usual.

 

Let me, therefore, steer you back to the discussion.

 

**Dons smoking jacket**

 

The answer is, of course, that, once the temperature had fallen enough it condensed and fell to the ground as water. What do you think happened next?

 

Oh, and it's KS3, 4 & 5 science, by the way - not primary.

 

Wonderful! You teach science all day and can't get enough so you post on here to massage your ego.

 

Now if you had posted originally that you taught science and explained things in a less condescending smartarse manner we might have proceeded a little more pleasantly.

 

However, now we have established your credentials you will no doubt be able to answer a couple of questions.

 

Firstly is it true that water is the only liquid that becomes lighter when frozen?

Obviously if it didn't we would have a major problem.

 

If it is true then why does it differ in that way?

 

Secondly, the chemicals that were present which together formed life, has this experiment been replicated in order to prove that's what happened? Obviously, if a couple of million years is an essential part of the process I suppose the answer is no.

 

What I mean is, is it proven beyond doubt, or is it assumed best solution to the question?

 

It is fifty years since I left school and the chemistry lessons which I vaguely recall were elementary to say the least, which is probably why I have little interest in the subject.

[RootsBooster]

The third dimension is I might believe in God, but until you tell me what it is, I can't say whether I believe or not.

 

Then you'd still have a belief or not have a belief, you just couldn't say which.

So it's still a binary "atheist" or "theist", along with any additional positions (agnostic, humanist, Christian, etc.)

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2014 at 16:59 ----------

 

Non believers simply believe that there is no evidence to believe but open to evidence that's contrary. Empathy, morality and humanity have nothing to do with believing. I don't believe yet I posses all those facets. I also respect the beliefs that others hold until it encroaches and influences on how I live my life directly or indirectly.

Actually, non believers simply don't believe. For whatever reason (it can vary) Edited February 28, 2014 by RootsBooster

[Lockjaw]

 

Ok, maybe this is knowledge bullying.

 

Was my answer not accepted mr lockjaw ? Am i going to get a f for my answer ?

 

eh?

 

............

[ivanava]

Then you'd still have a belief or not have a belief, you just couldn't say which.

So it's still a binary "atheist" or "theist", along with any additional positions (agnostic, humanist, Christian, etc.)

 

Good point, so they would be atheist or theist but no one would know which it is. I can live with that.

[RootsBooster]

Good point, so they would be atheist or theist but no one would know which it is. I can live with that.

 

Although, if you really had to come to a conclusion about it, the simplest way would be to ask yourself "do I believe in any powerful, supernatural beings?", seeing as the vast majority of gods are (supposedly) powerful, supernatural beings.

If the answer is no, then there's an extremely high probability that you're an atheist.

[salsafan]

I'm not sure you're aware of the meaning "bang to rights" salsa. I wouldn't align yourself with the OP or janie considering their dogmatic and unmovable position either.

 

Non believers simply believe that there is no evidence to believe but open to evidence that's contrary. Empathy, morality and humanity have nothing to do with believing. I don't believe yet I posses all those facets. I also respect the beliefs that others hold until it encroaches and influences on how I live my life directly or indirectly.

 

I genuinely respect what you have to say even if I genuinely disagree with it simply because I feel you are genuine. Our resident troll on the other hand is a nutter.

There is no alignment. I just know that what they said is believable. In doing so, there should not be a "them or me". It just "is". I know what I know cos of my own experience and when I was trained as a student. I also know that I like where the OP and Janie is now, and I would give anything to undo what I was taught, cos this heavy amount of knowledge is not good for me. I also know this. I also know that sometimes you cannot see something in its simplicity if you focused too heavily on the knowledge aspect of things.

 

Non-believers? That is generalising isn't it ? I am also certain that there is a lot of actual scientists out there in this big wide world who cannot even prove anything any more, and is residing to believe in the existence of God. Some of the research and knowledge coming out of the scientific communities are more commercially driven any way. It is quite rare to find research within fields which actually enhances, helps and enrich the live of people, humanity.

 

So ah... you are one of these "defend my area" type person. Hm. Empathy, morality, and humanity has everything to do with belief. It means that the existence of life, which includes you and it includes me, was made, done by somebody, from either an inspiration and so forth. Even in science, some thinks that "life is chance". Chance, and randomness is God. It really links together you know. OR the fact that when something happens, it links and ties in with another, and in a "cause and effect" way spirals and draws inspiration or as I call it in IT, "abstraction" to occur. Abstraction is finding patterns in things and write a basic set of constructs to make it fit.