Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The way I interpret it, is that one has to be careful to present those truths that are dearest to him to an audience that is not ready to hear them. 

Because some people in the audience will ridicule you and your truths, attack you verbally (and physically if they get the chance) and feel that they have the moral right and intellectual superiority to mock you at every turn.

 

I might be wrong though....

I think your interpretation is correct, the life and the passion of Jesus is the obvious example.

So if you feel that you are morally strong enough, you should not be afraid to speak the truth, while being aware that many people may not like it.

Even on this thread the same dynamics apply

[ThaiBunny]

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The way I interpret it

Interestingly the one salient characteristic on which all Biblical scholars agree about Jesus' parables is that they don't need "interpretation", they're like being hit over the head by a large block of wood, the meaning of the parable is so evident. Therefore if you need to interpret the statement "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces" it cannot be a parable, whatever other characteristics it may exhibit

[ThaiBunny]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I think your interpretation is correct, the life and the passion of Jesus is the obvious example.

So if you feel that you are morally strong enough, you should not be afraid to speak the truth, while being aware that many people may not like it.

Even on this thread the same dynamics apply

Or indeed to Saint Donald Trump?

[Tippaporn]

When it comes to attempting an understanding of this reality one requisite for me is that any explanation must be absolutely inclusive of everything.  In other words, it must account for every last stitch of reality.  It must all fit together without contradictions.  No holes.

 

For instance, atheism, in my view, is replete with major holes.  Not just little, insey winsey holes.  I'm talking about holes big enough to drive an entire universe through.

 

It would be interesting to hear an atheist's explanation of creation which ties it all together in a leak proof way, not just a bunch of disparate theories which don't jive with each other while completely ignoring aspects of reality which don't fit.  Personally, I have never come across a seamless explanation which even comes anywhere near to explaining how the whole fits together.

 

Any atheists out there who might be able to express an extensive, encompassing view which considers all aspects of reality and makes sense at the same time?  I know I'm asking a lot but I do believe there are a lot of bright bulbs out there.

 

O.K., the real reason I'm bringing this up is because oftentimes one comes across ridicule from people who dismiss ideas as, well, fantasy and yet they can't seem to explain much themselves.  And much of what they are able to explain does make sense to a degree . . . until you start to take a closer look and try to see how their ideas actually function.

 

For instance, I've had discussions with posters before on the subject of death.  When I brought up my belief in life after death all h3ll broke loose.  I was a accused of pedaling my religious beliefs (and even after stating multiple times that I'm not religious posters still insisted I was religious), it was demanded in unfriendly ways that I provide proof to my claim, I was slandered as an idiot and fool, ridiculed mercilessly, and on and on.

 

Some posters insisted that life after death did not exist, and proclaimed that once the lights were turned out that one's existence was completely and utterly extinguished.  End. Of. Story.  Yet ironically, and completely humourous to me, was the fact that not one of them had any working explanation for their "lights out" theory.  Funnier still, to me, was when it came to proof of life after death which they so rudely demanded I place in their hands so they could hold it, squeeze it, poke it, scrutinize it . . . they had none to offer me for their beliefs.

 

In other words, they so willingly believed in a theory which was devoid of the slightest evidence yet were so entirely emotionally (and they were emotional) aghast at the mere prospect of a countering theory due to the fact that there wasn't the slightest amount of evidence for it.  LOL

 

Anyway, my question above is serious and if any atheist out there would like to have a gander at it I'd be interested to hear the answer(s).  I hope I don't get ignored.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Or indeed to Saint Donald Trump?

I am a bit fed up with your trolling, didn't i ask you your definition of reality ?

...and not surprisingly, same as the other trolls, you cannot give a coherent answer, yet this inane post is evidence that my reality and your reality are 2 completely different things.

[luckyluke]

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The way I interpret it, is that one has to be careful to present those truths that are dearest to him to an audience that is not ready to hear them. 

Because some people in the audience will ridicule you and your truths, attack you verbally (and physically if they get the chance) and feel that they have the moral right and intellectual superiority to mock you at every turn.

 

I might be wrong though....

Correct,

of course raise the question what truth should be considered as plausible and which totally ridiculous, and who will  draw the line.

I refer again to my favourite example = tin foil hat believers.

Ok to mock them or not? 

Sure they consider their belief as truth and dearest to them, and are convinced that the non believers and mockers are not ready to hear them. 

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

i ask you your definition of reality

It's whatever the person experiencing it says it is. I've lost count of the number of times I've said that one way or another in this thread

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Anyway, my question above is serious and if any atheist out there would like to have a gander at it I'd be interested to hear the answer(s).  I hope I don't get ignored.

Having been on this thread since the very beginning, among the regular posters, the only "atheist" from whom you can expect an intelligent answer to your question, is @VincentRJ

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

It's whatever the person experiencing it says it is. I've lost count of the number of times I've said that one way or another in this thread

Thanks for the straight answer, so in fact we agree that there are infinite realities... Yet, in the post i am referring to, where you quote K.Popper, you are referring to "the" reality.

As far as i know, if there is only one reality which transcends time and space, is the Supreme Being, but, as you don't accept the existence of the Supreme Being, it must be logical to think that for you "the" reality doesn't exist.

[canuckamuck]

28 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Interestingly the one salient characteristic on which all Biblical scholars agree about Jesus' parables is that they don't need "interpretation", they're like being hit over the head by a large block of wood, the meaning of the parable is so evident. Therefore if you need to interpret the statement "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces" it cannot be a parable, whatever other characteristics it may exhibit

What?? The parables are endlessly discussed and argued over. Also, why would this discussion have taken place if they are obvious?

 

Matthew 13:10

The Purpose of the Parables
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

[luckyluke]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

an intelligent answer

I consider that, so far, there are no proof valuable for me to accept the belief of a superior "creator" and therefore consider myself actually as a atheist.

I perceive that's not at all sophisticated, and therefore not intelligent enough, for some.

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

A. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

B. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

Based on those criteria you are contending that the admonishment "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces" is a parable? Under which category (a) "an allegorical story", or (b) "comparison, analogy" does it qualify? It's not listed in any compendium of Jesus' parables eg http://ww3.haverford.edu/religion/courses/301F09/List of Parables.htm so presumably you have some special knowledge - or is that special needs?

I think B. fits.  It reads to me to be a lesson given where the meaning is indirectly conveyed using comparison and analogy.  I highly doubt it's meant in the literal sense.

 

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say, O.K., it's not a parable, especially since you went through all of the trouble to "fact check" it.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I consider that, so far, there are no proof valuable for me to accept the belief of a superior "creator" and therefore consider myself actually as a atheist.

I perceive that's not at all sophisticated, and therefore not intelligent enough, for some.

 

 

 

Oh well then, why don't you answer @Tippaporn's question ?

Of course i didn't mean to say that you are not intelligent enough, although you seem quite good at deflecting, but not as keen in answering questions.

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I refer again to my favourite example = tin foil hat believers.

The term "tin foil hat" include those who have unreasonable opinions (flat earth) and those who dare to think outside the box, and it's a sure way, accepted only by the intellectually obtuse, to throw away the baby with the dirty water, so to speak.

[luckyluke]

21 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

but not as keen in answering questions.

Sorry, I was not aware you asked me questions.

Can you please formulate them again or point me to the post number(s).

[ThaiBunny]

26 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh well then, why don't you answer @Tippaporn's question ?

Of course i didn't mean to say that you are not intelligent enough, although you seem quite good at deflecting, but not as keen in answering questions.

He has a question?

[ThaiBunny]

46 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

As far as i know, if there is only one reality which transcends time and space, is the Supreme Being, but, as you don't accept the existence of the Supreme Being, it must be logical to think that for you "the" reality doesn't exist.

So if you and I are standing on opposite sides of the road and a car passes between us, we both see exactly the same thing in exactly the same way?

[luckyluke]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

he term "tin foil hat" include those who have unreasonable opinions (flat earth) and those who dare to think outside the box,

Sorry again, I didn't know that.

For me it is those people = from Wikipedia

 

-A tin foil hat is a hat made from one or more sheets of aluminium foil, or a piece of conventional headgear lined with foil, worn in the belief or hope that it shields the brain from threats such as electromagnetic fields, mind control, and mind reading.-

 

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry again, I didn't know that.

You've obviously missed out that mauGR1 is a "Humpty Dumpty" - "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry, I was not aware you asked me questions.

Can you please formulate them again or point me to the post number(s).

It was @Tippaporn's questions to the dear atheists, pls try to keep up.

[luckyluke]

31 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh well then, why don't you answer @Tippaporn's question ?

Because I not understand it, and not able to answer in an academic way.

I just want to let know why I consider myself as an atheist ( Post 6491 )

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Any atheists out there who might be able to express an extensive, encompassing view which considers all aspects of reality and makes sense at the same time?  I know I'm asking a lot but I do believe there are a lot of bright bulbs out there.

There is your question @ThaiBunny.
Looking forward to the answer. 

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

pls try to keep up.

I saw it now, sorry, at 71+ I do my best.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry again, I didn't know that.

For me it is those people = from Wikipedia

 

-A tin foil hat is a hat made from one or more sheets of aluminium foil, or a piece of conventional headgear lined with foil, worn in the belief or hope that it shields the brain from threats such as electromagnetic fields, mind control, and mind reading.-

 

I am here on this thread because i love a little banter, if i want to read wiki's definitions, i go there, but i get you got my drift, and it doesn't sit well with you, never mind.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

The way I interpret it, is that one has to be careful to present those truths that are dearest to him to an audience that is not ready to hear them. 

Because some people in the audience will ridicule you and your truths, attack you verbally (and physically if they get the chance) and feel that they have the moral right and intellectual superiority to mock you at every turn.

 

I might be wrong though....

Never give an answer to a question that hasn't been asked.  Another way of phrasing it?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I saw it now, sorry, at 71+ I do my best.

Yes, my apologies if i sound a bit harsh sometimes, in fact i enjoy your contributions.

[ThaiBunny]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

There is your question @ThaiBunny. Looking forward to the answer. 

As I'm not an atheist the question does not apply to me. I'm an agnostic - it's simply not possible to know. It's the same position Gautama took

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

Or indeed to Saint Donald Trump?

Hey, now!!!  I have to admit I do like you in a strange fashion, ThaiBunny, but don't you dare start pickin' on Trump or the gloves will most definitely come off!!

 

5555555555555555

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

As I'm not an atheist the question does not apply to me. I'm an agnostic - it's simply not possible to know. It's the same position Gautama took

A bit defensive, but fair enough, you are safe (for now)

[ThaiBunny]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, now!!!  I have to admit I do like you in a strange fashion, ThaiBunny,

There are perverts everywhere