Personal Experiences with the Divine

[Meriweather]

But we don't claim to know everything. All we are doing is challenging a thought people have had for thousands of years. Why did they believe? Because they were lied to. Talking snakes, virgin births, etc. So now we have figured all that back then was just speculation. No facts, no proof, never did god come talk to anyone. So we remain open to the possibility but as far as we see there is no god. Your side takes that too personally. Don't. We have discovered that when we say we don't believe you guys get the same feeling in your heart that one gets when one is rejected by someone we are interested in. Realize we aren't rejecting this character at all. We don't believe it exists so there is no character to feel rejected. If he existed we would embrace him of course.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

When you read something today, do you call the use of metaphors, similes, and allegory to be someone lying to you? When someone says it is raining cats and dogs, do you get angry when you look out the window and see mere raindrops? Bible stories are filled with symbolic language--symbols that have been lost to us because culture and language have undergone great changes in six thousand years.

I always use the Book of Revelation as a prime example of what I mean. It can make me a little crazy when people lay a literal interpretation on it. But then, too, I can get a little crazy when I hear, "John must have been eating strange mushrooms."

My point is that now, even though science can tell us so much about the material world, we don't have to ignore that which is spiritual. Expecting physical science to bring us proof of God is rather like expecting a calculus problem to explain a line in Shakespeare. We can have both calculus and literature. It does not have to be one or the other.

Ever explain the birth of a solar system to young teenagers? That's pretty cool. But so is telling them about God. Let them hear both, properly explained. They do not need to give up God to understand science. They definitely should not give up science.

 

[sealybobo]

But we don't claim to know everything. All we are doing is challenging a thought people have had for thousands of years. Why did they believe? Because they were lied to. Talking snakes, virgin births, etc. So now we have figured all that back then was just speculation. No facts, no proof, never did god come talk to anyone. So we remain open to the possibility but as far as we see there is no god. Your side takes that too personally. Don't. We have discovered that when we say we don't believe you guys get the same feeling in your heart that one gets when one is rejected by someone we are interested in. Realize we aren't rejecting this character at all. We don't believe it exists so there is no character to feel rejected. If he existed we would embrace him of course.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

When you read something today, do you call the use of metaphors, similes, and allegory to be someone lying to you? When someone says it is raining cats and dogs, do you get angry when you look out the window and see mere raindrops? Bible stories are filled with symbolic language--symbols that have been lost to us because culture and language have undergone great changes in six thousand years.

I always use the Book of Revelation as a prime example of what I mean. It can make me a little crazy when people lay a literal interpretation on it. But then, too, I can get a little crazy when I hear, "John must have been eating strange mushrooms."

My point is that now, even though science can tell us so much about the material world, we don't have to ignore that which is spiritual. Expecting physical science to bring us proof of God is rather like expecting a calculus problem to explain a line in Shakespeare. We can have both calculus and literature. It does not have to be one or the other.

Ever explain the birth of a solar system to young teenagers? That's pretty cool. But so is telling them about God. Let them hear both, properly explained. They do not need to give up God to understand science. They definitely should not give up science.

Why for hundreds of years did they pass off those stories as facts not allegories? Why did it take science challenging those stories and the Age of Enlightenment for the churches to finally admit those are not real stories? And why do so many Christians still believe them to be real?

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

Also. How come when I watch a mock debate between theists and atheists on Christian tv, they never represent our sides points accurately?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It appears we may be on two different trains of thought. If it took a creator to create matter (as opposed to matter always being), I envision the Creator beginning with dust--and letting physics take over from there.

The next question is how did life come to innate matter, and we are told it was breathed into us from another living being. This makes sense as life begets life. Our bodies came from matter and will return to matter. What about our spirit?

Some believe it just blinks out. Others believe that much like the body returns to the earth from which it came, our spirit returns to the spirit from which it came. We believe this Spirit is knowable, and that people of all ages, down through the ages, can learn about the spiritual just as we have been able to learn about the material.

And so does the spirit in a frog.

Also, please tell me what created god. Why can't matter be eternal? And instead of admitting we just don't know, why say "must be a god"?

It/we/everything you see exist because we just do. Or I don't know. Great to wonder but to come up with "must be a god" is ignorant. Sorry.

And is it really necessary or does it matter if something created us? I'm not asking Christians, Muslims & Jews. I know they think it does. I'm asking people who believe in generic god. Do people who believe in generic god also think that people need to believe or else? I disagree and even if, a lie is a lie no matter how good you think it is or how good it makes you feel. And I know you guys aren't lying. You truly believe. I get that. So lets call it, from my standpoint an untruth.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

I already said matter could be eternal. At the moment, I don't think we know, but the possibility is certainly there. There is also the possibility that there was indeed a creator of dust, and what we see now is that dust forming many things, returning to dust, gathering together again to form--and then return to dust.

There is also the possibility that along with material, there is also spirit/life, again quite possibly from a creator. While I have had experiences of God, I have not been blessed by experiencing the creator aspects of God. My experience has been with a being of immense and tremendous love. I also take care to say that there are more than likely many aspects of God I did not/have not experienced. But I can testify to a being of magnificent love.

No...not material evidence, no proof, nothing you can see, no video, not tape recording. Just a testimony that God loves us all. Wish I could say I witnessed His creating power, but all I witnessed is His love.

I use to say things like this when I was a theist. Now I just know better. It was all in my head. No biggy.

There are some things that are "all in our head." And there are some things that are outside of it. I think one of the biggest errors we can make (especially now that our knowledge of science is so much greater) is to think because we now know more about science, we now know everything there is to know--both about science and spirit. We have pieces of a great puzzle, and a puzzle cannot be wholly pieced together if some of its pieces are swept aside or ignored. I still retain great interest in, "How/where does this piece fit in?"

But we don't claim to know everything. All we are doing is challenging a thought people have had for thousands of years. Why did they believe? Because they were lied to. Talking snakes, virgin births, etc. So now we have figured all that back then was just speculation. No facts, no proof, never did god come talk to anyone. So we remain open to the possibility but as far as we see there is no god. Your side takes that too personally. Don't. We have discovered that when we say we don't believe you guys get the same feeling in your heart that one gets when one is rejected by someone we are interested in. Realize we aren't rejecting this character at all. We don't believe it exists so there is no character to feel rejected. If he existed we would embrace him of course.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

As far as you see, that which CLEARLY, inarguably, INCONTROVERTIBLY deviates from the biological standard, established by no less an authority than Nature itself, is in perfect alignment with that standard.

This you conclude due to your subjective need. Therefore your judgement is recognized as horribly skewed, due to your inability to reason objectively.

While you're entitled to your opinion, the fact is that such invalid reasoning is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

ROFLMNAO!

Once again the argument is thoroughly fallacious; specifically this drivel is constructed of straw. As belief in God in NO WAY precludes the pursuit of ANY question, on any issue... anywhere or for any reason.

Yet the premise above, advanced as FACT requires that the belief in God somehow stifles inquiry, investigation and as a result quells the advancement of mankind.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance: The Fundamental Elements of Socialism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You could be right about there being "something" that created everything we see.

That's mighty white of ya.

Is that all you are saying is that "something" must have created all that we see? That may be true.

Yes, it may also be hot on the sun. Thank you for your assent.

I'm saying that the energy that created the universe is God. The same energy that established the laws by which the universe is governed.

You called it a 'being', or force... which from our perspective, we have named "GOD",

Yep... nice repeating of everything I said.

So are you saying this thing never talked to Adam, Noah, Moses, Mohammad or Joseph Smith?

Given that there's nothing in anything I said which could lead any reasonable person to such an inference, I must ask from what that I DID SAY, are you drawing such? To clarify it for you: I said no such thing.

It's not really generic god us atheists have a problem with.

There's nothing generic about the God who created the Universe and everything in it, through the laws he established by which the universe is governed; laws which also govern human behavior.

Why do you think people originally made up the stories?

I don't that the scriptures were contrived, or 'made up' by anyone. Specifically, what words that I offered, provided you with this disjointed inference? I ask, because you're drawing inferences which have no kinship with anything I've said. The concern of course, is that such behavior requires that you're either dishonest, thus pushing your own subjective needs through a species of fraudulent reasoning; producing deceit, through which you hope to influence those ignorant of your fraudulent intent.

OR... you're wholly delusional and believe in your own mind that that which did not happen, DID happen. And given that this is a text forum, such is not subject to 'misunderstandings' due to your having failed to hear what was said by virtue of having 'tuned out' of the discussion, while steeped in thought. So... you're either a liar or you're crazy.

Which is it?

 

[Meriweather]

Why for hundreds of years did they pass off those stories as facts not allegories? Why did it take science challenging those stories and the Age of Enlightenment for the churches to finally admit those are not real stories? And why do so many Christians still believe them to be real?

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

Also. How come when I watch a mock debate between theists and atheists on Christian tv, they never represent our sides points accurately?

I wasn't here hundreds of years ago, so I can't answer that. Why people still don't get it...I don't know.

Just because some elements of Genesis may be allegory, this does not mean all elements are allegory. The purpose of allegory is still to present great truths in a memorable fashion. The truth is that individuals have a choice. We do not need to choose what is evil--we can choose that which is good.

 

[sealybobo]

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

ROFLMNAO!

Once again the argument is thoroughly fallacious; specifically this drivel is constructed of straw. As belief in God in NO WAY precludes the pursuit of ANY question, on any issue... anywhere or for any reason.

Yet the premise above, advanced as FACT requires that the belief in God somehow stifles inquiry, investigation and as a result quells the advancement of mankind.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance: The Fundamental Elements of Socialism.

Listen dummy. We know the history of our universe. No god stories exist. No god ever visited Peter Paul or Mary. Men made that stuff up and you are dumb for still believing it.

 

[sealybobo]

Why for hundreds of years did they pass off those stories as facts not allegories? Why did it take science challenging those stories and the Age of Enlightenment for the churches to finally admit those are not real stories? And why do so many Christians still believe them to be real?

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

Also. How come when I watch a mock debate between theists and atheists on Christian tv, they never represent our sides points accurately?

I wasn't here hundreds of years ago, so I can't answer that. Why people still don't get it...I don't know.

Just because some elements of Genesis may be allegory, this does not mean all elements are allegory. The purpose of allegory is still to present great truths in a memorable fashion. The truth is that individuals have a choice. We do not need to choose what is evil--we can choose that which is good.

There is no truth in any organized religion. Best guesses at best or lies at the worse.

 

[sealybobo]

You could be right about there being "something" that created everything we see.

That's mighty white of ya.

Is that all you are saying is that "something" must have created all that we see? That may be true.

Yes, it may also be hot on the sun. Thank you for your assent.

I'm saying that the energy that created the universe is God. The same energy that established the laws by which the universe is governed.

You called it a 'being', or force... which from our perspective, we have named "GOD",

Yep... nice repeating of everything I said.

So are you saying this thing never talked to Adam, Noah, Moses, Mohammad or Joseph Smith?

Given that there's nothing in anything I said which could lead any reasonable person to such an inference, I must ask from what that I DID SAY, are you drawing such? To clarify it for you: I said no such thing.

It's not really generic god us atheists have a problem with.

There's nothing generic about the God who created the Universe and everything in it, through the laws he established by which the universe is governed; laws which also govern human behavior.

Why do you think people originally made up the stories?

I don't that the scriptures were contrived, or 'made up' by anyone. Specifically, what words that I offered, provided you with this disjointed inference? I ask, because you're drawing inferences which have no kinship with anything I've said. The concern of course, is that such behavior requires that you're either dishonest, thus pushing your own subjective needs through a species of fraudulent reasoning; producing deceit, through which you hope to influence those ignorant of your fraudulent intent.

OR... you're wholly delusional and believe in your own mind that that which did not happen, DID happen. And given that this is a text forum, such is not subject to 'misunderstandings' due to your having failed to hear what was said by virtue of having 'tuned out' of the discussion, while steeped in thought. So... you're either a liar or you're crazy.

Which is it?

Science hasn't the slightest bit of evidence a god created the universe. Some scientists may believe in god(s) but not based on any evidence or facts. They believe because they don't know. Belief isn't based on any factual evidence.

Hundreds of years ago we pointed to a lot of things and said, "that must be god". None of those things were god. Today you can't point to one thing and say, "that's god". So instead you say everything is because of god. You were wrong back then about lightening and glass being god and you are wrong today. Sorry.

And we have learned a lot about our universe in the last 60 years. Still no closer to proving a god exists.