What Are The Building Blocks Of Our Faith ?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Waterfall said:
Absolutey. ...I see sacred literature...others see fairy tales.
Click to expand...

Why can't it be both?

And that literature, for you, spackles over rough spots of ignorance about the nature of the world around us. It's just that it fills it with stuff that some of us would like to be true, instead of what can be demonstrated.
 
chansen said:
Why can't it be both?

And that literature, for you, spackles over rough spots of ignorance about the nature of the world around us. It's just that it fills it with stuff that some of us would like to be true, instead of what can be demonstrated.
Click to expand...
Some of us dont need a demonstration for something to be true. eg. I cannot demonstrate life after death but I believe what has been told about it.
 
Myths and parables both use allegory and symbols, and almost always portray some kind of truism about life. Very often in myths we see some kind of hero, a fighter wrestling his way through the maya of life. Such a figure was Sampson, the Israeli sun-god* hero who was known for his legendary god-like strength. But like Hercules, Samson was not perfect and at times was very human in his learning. It's interesting that in the end he lost his strength to a woman (who always represents the mother of the world and form).

*in Hebrew Samson is "Shimshon", which means "man of the sun".
 
chansen said:
Why can't it be both?

And that literature, for you, spackles over rough spots of ignorance about the nature of the world around us. It's just that it fills it with stuff that some of us would like to be true, instead of what can be demonstrated.
Click to expand...
I know what you're trying to say here, but "truth" is not limited to only that which can be demonstrated.

As Hamlet said to Horatio:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

Of course that doesn't mean we should close our eyes to the obvious just because some man-made doctrine told us to.
 
Indeed
Myths may be how reality 'actually' works
Our world being made of stories
And we being characters in them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo
Waterfall said:
Some of us dont need a demonstration for something to be true. eg. I cannot demonstrate life after death but I believe what has been told about it.
Click to expand...
For me (and I realize it may only be for me), that completely obliterates the meaning of "true". You've expanded the meaning to include "those things you want to be real". It's not that I think "true" is restricted to boolean options of true/false, but in between are the unknowns, the things we think might be true, etc. Lots of things live between true and false, but to stomp your foot and say something is true because it would be better for you if it was, is actually closer to the sort of "truthiness" that Colbert talked about a few years ago.

So if you want to call life after death an example of truthiness, that makes sense, because that's what it is - you feel it is true, so the truthiness of it speaks to you. To me, it's make believe bulls**t of the sort that religion trades on to expand its appeal, and I won't be manipulated by what appears to be an ancient con game, and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I can not even be forced to believe it with a gun to my own head. I could lie, I suppose, but I couldn't actually believe it. For whatever reason, I can not bring myself to believe those things for which there is no evidence in favour, and plenty of reason for someone to lie.
 
chansen said:
For me (and I realize it may only be for me), that completely obliterates the meaning of "true". You've expanded the meaning to include "those things you want to be real". It's not that I think "true" is restricted to boolean options of true/false, but in between are the unknowns, the things we think might be true, etc. Lots of things live between true and false, but to stomp your foot and say something is true because it would be better for you if it was, is actually closer to the sort of "truthiness" that Colbert talked about a few years ago.

So if you want to call life after death an example of truthiness, that makes sense, because that's what it is - you feel it is true, so the truthiness of it speaks to you. To me, it's make believe bulls**t of the sort that religion trades on to expand its appeal, and I won't be manipulated by what appears to be an ancient con game, and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I can not even be forced to believe it with a gun to my own head. I could lie, I suppose, but I couldn't actually believe it. For whatever reason, I can not bring myself to believe those things for which there is no evidence in favour, and plenty of reason for someone to lie.
Click to expand...
It could just as easily be make believe bulls**t (or wishful thinking),that when we die, there is nothing. Which is where evidence, or lack of it, may fail us.
What is truthiness?
 
Waterfall said:
It could just as easily be make believe bulls**t (or wishful thinking),that when we die, there is nothing. Which is where evidence, or lack of it, may fail us.
Click to expand...
What it could be, is wrong. But all we know is that consciousness is a byproduct of a certain level of brain activity - that's it. Anything more, and you have to come with more than a book from 2000 years ago.

And I don't see how that's wishful thinking. Compared to your fantasy of life after death, the finality of death sucks. It really does, and I'd be the first to admit it. What I won't do, is sign on to some story because I prefer it to the more sobering, likely reality.

Waterfall said:
What is truthiness?
Click to expand...
Something you have a gut feeling is true, even if it isn't.
 
chansen said:
Something you have a gut feeling is true, even if it isn't.
Click to expand...

Does this also describe an athiests view of death?

I don't just have an ancient book...I also follow Jesus who IS truth. Which is a very unusual claim when you think about it. Attempts to define truth are often unsuccessful. What would it take to "BE truth"?
 
Even though humanity has been wildly unsuccessful at it so many times and in so many ways - is it true that if human beings cared for each other as much as themselves, if we cooperated instead of fought, if we healed instead of damaged, if we weren't greedy...the world would be better off? I believe that's the 'Truth' Jesus preached, that is not truthiness. It also hasn't been proven because the world we live in and all of us on it have never practiced that way of doing things 100%. Not even close. We've made strides but then we outdo ourselves with entirely unhelpful things, too, if you just take a look at the state of the world. Jesus is truth, personified in myth. He said - according to the authors - he wasn't from this world...maybe because the world, Kingdom, that he lived and died for does not exist except as an ideal vision that we believe 'can' happen if we have faith in it, and work on it...and if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes...time is infinite. It's a feeling (for me) of knowing the world does not have to be this way, even though it is.

And as for life after death...things like multiverse theory are getting closer to that...there's a closer relationship than ever between metaphysics and physics in that theory. If there are a billion 'you' and a billion 'me' and maybe in some other universe you ended up being somebody else instead of you - if for every possibility there's an alternate possibility - in the grand scheme of things we are all one humanity and maybe there is one perfect world in some other time/place where we live and will be conscious of our presence in.

Multiverse theory is not 'truthiness' so much, as it is a theory has come from the building blocks of other provable scientific theories - and it's a missing piece of the puzzle, but it is at this point very difficult to test, and that drives scientists batty because they've come this far and hit a wall. If they accept it without proof it's like saying "anything is possible so why do we even need to test any theory?"
 
Waterfall said:
Where is the evidence for "no life after death"?
Click to expand...

Again, it is not the job of the person negating a fact to provide the evidence. They merely have to refute the evidence presented by those trying to establish the fact. In court, for instance, you don't have to prove that you are not guilty, only establish that there is reasonable doubt that you are guilty by refuting the prosecution's case.

And keep in mind you not only have to prove there is an afterlife, you also have to prove your version of it. After all, there are alternatives to heaven/hell even within Christianity (e.g. the view that all the faithful will be raised to a new kingdom of God on Earth after the Apocalypse). I personally find reincarnation a much more compelling belief than heaven/hell for a variety of reasons that are off-topic here.

And the fact is, you can't prove it. It's a matter of subjective belief, not something that you are going to prove scientifically. And you really should not feel you have to regardless of what the anti-theist crowd says. If you feel your faith is justified, then follow it and leave the rest of us to ours. It is this ongoing need on the part of some believers to convince non-believers (and vice versa) that causes friction as much as anything else. We non-believers are doing quite well in our non-belief and if we thought the afterlife mattered, we would probably believe in it. Worry about your own faith, not that of others.

chansen said:
I won't be manipulated by what appears to be an ancient con game
Click to expand...

Belief in a supernatural dimension to existence (deities, spirits, afterlife) is not a "con game" but something that has been part of human consciousness and culture since at least Neanderthal times and there is archaeological evidence to support that. Yes, con men and institutions seeking means of control have misused and abused those beliefs, but the beliefs themselves are not a "con" but something that evolved naturally as part of the evolution of human thinking. In fact, other human beliefs and behaviours that are natural have been misused, too, even altruism. Now, the fact that belief in a supernatural dimension to the world exists does not mean or prove that there really is a supernatural dimension to existence, only that our human imagination and curiousity are the basis of the belief, not some scam artist. If you want to call it a redundant, outmoded means of thought that is open to manipulation, sure. But belief in and of itself is not a "con" save you want to argue that we as individuals and as a species are conning ourselves.
 
Mendalla said:
Again, it is not the job of the person negating a fact to provide the evidence. They merely have to refute the evidence presented by those trying to establish the fact. In court, for instance, you don't have to prove that you are not guilty, only establish that there is reasonable doubt that you are guilty by refuting the prosecution's case.

And keep in mind you not only have to prove there is an afterlife, you also have to prove your version of it. After all, there are alternatives to heaven/hell even within Christianity (e.g. the view that all the faithful will be raised to a new kingdom of God on Earth after the Apocalypse). I personally find reincarnation a much more compelling belief than heaven/hell for a variety of reasons that are off-topic here.

And the fact is, you can't prove it. It's a matter of subjective belief, not something that you are going to prove scientifically. And you really should not feel you have to regardless of what the anti-theist crowd says. If you feel your faith is justified, then follow it and leave the rest of us to ours. It is this ongoing need on the part of some believers to convince non-believers (and vice versa) that causes friction as much as anything else. We non-believers are doing quite well in our non-belief and if we thought the afterlife mattered, we would probably believe in it. Worry about your own faith, not that of others.
Click to expand...

I am participating in a discussion. It is my right to present my own views as it is yours. I find your last statement offensive.
 
Also a lifeless corpse...to me....only provides evidence that a body decays and rots in certain conditions.
 
Waterfall said:
I am participating in a discussion. It is my right to present my own views as it is yours. I find your last statement offensive.
Click to expand...

Read it again. I never said you can't present your view. You are quite welcome to. That's kind of the point. I just said (or meant) that, in the end, your view is your view and my view is my view and there is no need for either of us to be convincing the other of the objective rightness of our views.
 
Mendalla said:
Read it again. I never said you can't present your view. You are quite welcome to. That's kind of the point. I just said that, in the end, your view is your view and my view is my view and there is no need for either of us to be convincing the other of the objective rightness of our views.
Click to expand...
I am not here to convince anyone. I am participating in a discussion that often is one sided with atheistic viewpoints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top