What I believe.....

[A Cup Of Tea]

I believe Nothingtoknows "questions are formed and answered within [his/her own] belief system" that has been created in his/her mind. Unfortunately all other belief systems seems to be excluded and considered incompatible with their own, and the role of interfaith questioned in my mind.

 

[Ceearewhy]

I believe there isn't as big a 'difference' between 'fantasy' and 'reality' as most of us seem to think.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Hello and Welcome, Cee. Your other posts I've agreed with. This one however, Not so much. It is my experience that there is a huge gap between most people's perceptions of fantasy versus reality.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"...there isn't as big a 'difference' between 'fantasy' and 'reality'..."

--> What do you mean?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Tthe question asked is why not, for the sake of discussion, accept that the material is divine. And proceed from there.

Part of me feels that accepting facts not in evidence and moving on from there is inappropriate. If the foundation is weak, anything one builds on top of it has little support.

But I have to admit that my facts are no more in evidence than are his. And therefor my suppositions are not built on any more solid a foundation than his. Yet I accept as valid the scenario from my point of view, where I do not from his point of view.

This rather smacks of being a bit unfair on my part. I need to ponder this some more…….

This is something I wrote a while back. And I have been pondering mightily ever since. For the sake of discussion is it not possible to accept the divine as real, even if I doe not believe it? This does not seem so unreasonable. My problem comes into the picture when I ask where does one draw the line?

For the sake of discussion should I accept the proposition that Bigfoot is real? That one is much harder for me to accept than divine beings. At what point does accepting an unreality (as far as I am concerned) reach the point of ludicrousness.

I have hit a road block. Any insights would be gratefully accepted.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Why would you want to accept the divine as real, even if you do not believe it? Where is the benefit?

Are you a theist or an atheist? Which way are you presently leaning on this?

 

[Thomas]

For the sake of discussion is it not possible to accept the divine as real, even if I do not believe it?

Yes ... there are many instances when we know something to be real, but do not act accordingly.

This does not seem so unreasonable.

But it could be irrational. If people were governed by reason, we'd be a lot closer to utopia.

For the sake of discussion should I accept the proposition that Bigfoot is real?

I think there are significant distinctions. You can't put 'God', 'Bigfoot', 'Unicorns' in the same category, and thereby argue that if you don't believe in one, it's the same reason for the others.

Here's one for you:
I don't believe in numbers. Numbers don't exist, they're entirely a construct in the mind. I do, however, have absolute faith in mathematics. Pythagoras' Theorem is always true.

So numbers are a construct which, so far, have carried us to the limits of the cosmos, and so far, I think, have never let us down.

But you can't show me a number.

That one is much harder for me to accept than divine beings. At what point does accepting an unreality (as far as I am concerned) reach the point of ludicrousness.

The first step is accepting that our 'accepting an unreality' is flawed.

The next step is asking why I should accept my understanding is flawed.

At this point, you begin to see the difference between arguing for or against the existence of Bigfoot, and arguing for or against the existence of God.

 

[donnann]

Yes ... there are many instances when we know something to be real, but do not act accordingly.


But it could be irrational. If people were governed by reason, we'd be a lot closer to utopia.


I think there are significant distinctions. You can't put 'God', 'Bigfoot', 'Unicorns' in the same category, and thereby argue that if you don't believe in one, it's the same reason for the others.

Here's one for you:
I don't believe in numbers. Numbers don't exist, they're entirely a construct in the mind. I do, however, have absolute faith in mathematics. Pythagoras' Theorem is always true.

So numbers are a construct which, so far, have carried us to the limits of the cosmos, and so far, I think, have never let us down.

But you can't show me a number.


The first step is accepting that our 'accepting an unreality' is flawed.

The next step is asking why I should accept my understanding is flawed.

At this point, you begin to see the difference between arguing for or against the existence of Bigfoot, and arguing for or against the existence of God.

Why is the existence of divine beings so hard to accept. People exist and there have been so many accounts over the years of the existence of divine beings. Divine beings existed before human beings did. They are much bigger and are made up of more light, spread out, than human beings are. These are angelic beings. To name some...Michael, Gabriel ect. Then there is god who always existed. Divine beings came into existence like human beings did being created by the creator but are much much older. I think because human beings have limited powers compared to human beings it can be difficult to understand.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

This is something I wrote a while back. And I have been pondering mightily ever since. For the sake of discussion is it not possible to accept the divine as real, even if I doe not believe it? This does not seem so unreasonable. My problem comes into the picture when I ask where does one draw the line?

For the sake of discussion should I accept the proposition that Bigfoot is real? That one is much harder for me to accept than divine beings. At what point does accepting an unreality (as far as I am concerned) reach the point of ludicrousness.

I have hit a road block. Any insights would be gratefully accepted.

I never really take a stand, if I discuss something with someone who believes that bigfoot likes vanilla ice cream I kind of just go with it. It won't effect me in any way go with the discussion, unless I glean some interesting insights into humanity, and that's all good.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Why would you want to accept the divine as real, even if you do not believe it? Where is the benefit?

Are you a theist or an atheist? Which way are you presently leaning on this?

Thank you all for your thoughts. Responses will be forthcoming as I have the time.

Nick I have always considered myself an agnostic. But since then I have heard a new term that more closely matches my opinion; this version taken from Wiki:

Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Now that most accurately defines my position. Since I apparently have a choice between apathetic and pragmatic, I believe I will go with the latter!

The reason for accepting something is for the sake of discussion. Someone on here said that every time we tried to talk about the Christian God, it always devolved into picking apart the accuracy of the Bible, Apostles, etc. He asked why couldn't we, for the sake of discussion on the subject, accept that the Bible has divine origins.

My response was that if one starts on shaky ground (accepting the divine) any structure built on top of it could not be supported. But I came to realize that my disbelief is on no more solid ground than someone who does have that belief. No one can prove or disprove the divinity of the Bible. We are all of us supposing. If I could justify a nonbelief based on no proof, what would be so wrong with accepting a belief on no proof?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"…since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic."
　
--> Do you think the deity is unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants?

"…why couldn't we, for the sake of discussion on the subject, accept that the Bible has divine origins."
　
--> Because the Bible may have been divine in its original form (which is how I see it), but it may have also been intentionally rewritten down through the centuries and now contain errors (which is also how I see it). The question is, which parts are still accurate to the original and which are not. I do not accept the possibility that the Bible has never been changed and intentionally falsified.

"If I could justify a nonbelief based on no proof, what would be so wrong with accepting a belief on no proof?"
　
--> Your logic is flawed. That's like saying, "When it rains, the ground becomes wet. The ground is not wet, so it must not have rained."

 

[Paladin]

　
--> Your logic is flawed. That's like saying, "When it rains, the ground becomes wet. The ground is not wet, so it must not have rained."

Well, technically it's a non-logical statement, but I think there is something deeper here to look at. I think GK was expressing a thought about how he is relating to others rather than expressing a thought about formal logic. And in that spirit, I must agree with him.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Paladin, I agree that one of the most important things we can do is to acknowledge the other person's point view. I think this is what GK is trying to do. The most important thing, and the most difficult thing we can do in an inter-faith discussion (or any discussion, for that matter) is to acknowledge the other person's point view. But many inter-faith discussions deteriorate into "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're a jerk for thinking that way." I agree that GK should be complimented in trying to break away from this way of having inter-faith discussions.

The trickiest part of all is acknowledging the other person's point view while still disagreeing with them. This is the tricky balance that I think GK is wrestling with.

Most people in this world have no idea of the difference between "I disagree with you" and "You are wrong."

 

[Gordian Knot]

To Thomas,
I think there are significant distinctions. You can't put 'God', 'Bigfoot', 'Unicorns' in the same category, and thereby argue that if you don't believe in one, it's the same reason for the others.

Oh I agree. I took two concepts very far apart on purpose to ask my question. At what point does the distinction become significant? My expectation is that such a point is going to be different for every person. Which is a problem for me.

I'm a little uncertain about your numbers versus theorems comment. How do you look at a theorem? Someone writes it down on a chalk board. Same way you can look at a number. I'm confused how you can believe in theorems but don't believe in numbers. Is not the theorem as much a theoretical construct as a number?

The first step is accepting that our 'accepting an unreality' is flawed.
The next step is asking why I should accept my understanding is flawed.

At this point, you begin to see the difference between arguing for or against the existence of Bigfoot, and arguing for or against the existence of God.

Sorry. You totally lost me with this last part! Clarification, please.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Why is the existence of divine beings so hard to accept. People exist and there have been so many accounts over the years of the existence of divine beings. Divine beings existed before human beings did. They are much bigger and are made up of more light, spread out, than human beings are. These are angelic beings. To name some...Michael, Gabriel ect. Then there is god who always existed. Divine beings came into existence like human beings did being created by the creator but are much much older. I think because human beings have limited powers compared to human beings it can be difficult to understand.

Donnann, from my point of view your logic is flawed. One could use your argument to prove aliens have visited our planet. People exist and there have been so many accounts over the years of the existence of aliens, etc. The number of accounts has no correlation to the accuracy of information.

 

[Gordian Knot]

I never really take a stand, if I discuss something with someone who believes that bigfoot likes vanilla ice cream I kind of just go with it. It won't effect me in any way go with the discussion, unless I glean some interesting insights into humanity, and that's all good.

Does not taking a stand mean you do not have an opinion of your own? Or does it mean that you simply keep your opinion to yourself. Either way it is an interesting concept. Something about it bothers me, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet....

 

[Aupmanyav]

When I am explaining Hindu theism, I do it as if I am a Hindu theist (I was a doubting Thomas at one time). I suppose that is valid and does not impinge on my atheism.

You can't put 'God', 'Bigfoot', 'Unicorns' in the same category, and thereby argue that if you don't believe in one, it's the same reason for the others.

Why? The reason is the same - lack of reliable evidence.

No one can prove or disprove the divinity of the Bible.

If true, it also proves that the Bible God is jealous, cruel, and vindictive.

Because the Bible may have been divine in its original form (which is how I see it), but it may have also been intentionally rewritten down through the centuries and now contain errors (which is also how I see it).

How do you decide what is true and what is false in it? What is the extent of interpolation?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does not taking a stand mean you do not have an opinion of your own? Or does it mean that you simply keep your opinion to yourself. Either way it is an interesting concept. Something about it bothers me, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet....

I never really take a stand, if I discuss something with someone who believes that bigfoot likes vanilla ice cream I kind of just go with it. It won't effect me in any way go with the discussion, unless I glean some interesting insights into humanity, and that's all good.

Replace 'bigfoot' by 'God' and see if you can understand it.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"How do you decide what is true and what is false in it? What is the extent of interpolation?"

--> I have a belief system which says what is true and what is false. I have looked at many different belief systems over several decades, and this is the best one I have found so far. Also, I feel that my present belief system answers questions that the other belief systems cannot answer. So, I believe its statements to be true.

I do extensively evaluate the ideas in my belief system in an ongoing process, and I still have yet to find one of my belief system's teachings that does not ring true to me.

I would say that this is the process that everyone uses to decide what is true and what is false.

I must qualify what I mean by "I have a belief system which says what is true and what is false." My belief system gives teachings that it says are true. It does not require that I believe them or not. It does require me to make my own critical analysis as to whether I should believe them or not. My belief system prohibits us from accepting things merely on faith. How many other belief systems can say that?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Does not taking a stand mean you do not have an opinion of your own? Or does it mean that you simply keep your opinion to yourself. Either way it is an interesting concept. Something about it bothers me, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet....

I...don't know, I don't think I come from perspective that it's and opinion, I simply do not know. If you put your finger on it please let me know, privately or publicly, I am very interested.

Aupmanyav, I think you're missing the discussion, but I don't know where to start the discussion about it with you.