Pastelland Forum

I just noticed that the Meditations topic hadn't been created yet, so here it is. Have fun meditating and writing your thoughts!

Original topic to be found in here: http://www.pastelforum.com/topic.php?id=893

It is of course interesting yet very strange having conversations with atheist as I have a hard time relating to a lack of a yearning for God, for that ultimate embodiment of Truth. So if I seem preachy (which some of you have said I'm not, so that is good) that would be why: just hard to imagine not having that deep desire in me.

We atheist usually have a strong yearning for Truth, too. We just don't think God or gods have anything to do with Truth, since we can't even be sure He or they even exist. And the stories we hear about them don't really convince us, they're just stories after all. They seem to strongly clash with all the other theories and evidence we have about this world. I mean, many people believe in unicorns, some say to have seen them, and there are many stories written about them. But there are no "real" evidence of their existence, so we can pretty safely say they're not real. Same goes for God.

Most atheists I know (myself included) have a very scientific way of thinking. At the moment there's no reason for us to believe in the existence of any supernatural beings. But if some new solid proof emerges, we'll reconsider. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll start worshiping these beings. I personally still don't feel the need to worship anyone or anything, real or imaginary. I'm doing just fine on my own.

There, let's continue from this, shall we? (I copied this, because of the relative length). I agree with Isobel in this respect, I too want to know true things. I will not say, however, that I believe there is some ultimate truth to everything.

I will not say, however, that I believe there is some ultimate truth to everything.

I think there is an "ultimate truth", but we'll never be able to fully reach or understand it. But we can get closer to it if we keep exploring and experimenting.

I'll state with my last statements on the old forum:

"crazy teenage years" of God, so to speak, in the old testament

Ha! Ok, as Ricky would say "you've some splainin to do!"

We atheist usually have a strong yearning for Truth, too.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply atheists weren't interested in truth or Truth, probably bad use of terms on my part.

In addition, I agree with Isobel's last comment about knowing absolute truth, or at least in confirming it. We may actually know several absolute truths but we have no methodology for confirming anything absolutely which, I think, would require something like absolute knowledge.

So, I could of course do the defense of my beliefs thing, but I don't know that is the most interesting topic at this point. What I really find interesting and would like to understand better is how different people come to their convictions. What I mean by conviction is the beliefs you decide to confirm.

For an example, I don't remember a time I didn't think there was a God. My family was nominally Christian (Christian on Sunday, identical to everyone else the rest of the week) until my parents divorced when I was 5ish, at which point my Dad left the church and began believing in something more like an impersonal supernatural force (for all I know identical with the laws of nature) rather than a personal god. Whether that might have influenced me one way or another or not, my conviction, for whatever reason, has always been that there was a God, and I intended to learn how to know, experience, and have a relationship with him, if that was at all possible. Now, I've heard you guys say things like "I have no reason to believe in God," and this is interesting, because I find myself in the opposite perspective of "I have no reason not to believe in God," and several reasons to do so. I've experienced something that I can best described as God. I've spent a great deal of time thinking and researching to discover if my beliefs are plausible and possible and I believe I have satisfied this for myself.

So, what I'm suggesting is that we begin to have our beliefs before we even begin testing. Does it matter where we start or why, so long as we are rational about the process?

Edit: in case this looks like a trick, I haven't decided about this yet. XD

(A while back Redafro asked what made Christianity less compelling to me than other religions.)

It isn't so much that I don't think Christianity has a compelling story, it's more that I don't see any reason to actually believe it over any other religion. The Bible has some really cool stories in it, and I know more of them than I know about any other religion. But the stories don't really confirm themselves in any way.

Redafro's mention of his father going to a "forces of the universe" belief system reminds me of one of the biggest things I have started to think about religion. In my opinion, God as the impassive forces of the universe and God as an active master of the universe are essentially the same. The only difference (as I see it) between the forces of the universe and God, in concept, is that God has a personality and can answer. A god who chooses not to answer cannot be percieved differently from causality and probability. Of course, whether or not there is a personality in control is something I can't say I know, but unless I can percieve direct action from God, I'm not likely to give Him credit for what occurs.

The Bible has some really cool stories in it

Too bad most of those stories are just copy-pasted together from earlier mythologies.
This was one of the things that turned me away from the book. The only "reliable" source of God is most likely just plagiarism.

If Bible was inspired by God, He could have at least made it more original

Ha! Ok, as Ricky would say "you've some splainin to do!"

Bible almost made me stop reading it when it explained, in exhaustive detail, how to make the tent for the ark of covenant - for the second time. That was more than just a bit arduous to read. There is all sorts of silly things like that in the beginning. Many of which have been copied from earlier religions as Isobel says, although a lot of it is just Jewish history. But because it is so old, the earlier books still reflect the monolatric (we believe in many gods, but worship only one) history of the religion and that is part of the reason they seem so weird.

I assume you got what I meant, but I felt like giving examples.

Redafro wrote:In addition, I agree with Isobel's last comment about knowing absolute truth, or at least in confirming it. We may actually know several absolute truths but we have no methodology for confirming anything absolutely which, I think, would require something like absolute knowledge.

I didn't mean absolute truths, I meant a metaphorical ultimate truth, an ultimate reason and fact of existence.

zombyrus wrote: In my opinion, God as the impassive forces of the universe and God as an active master of the universe are essentially the same. The only difference (as I see it) between the forces of the universe and God, in concept, is that God has a personality and can answer. A god who chooses not to answer cannot be percieved differently from causality and probability. Of course, whether or not there is a personality in control is something I can't say I know, but unless I can percieve direct action from God, I'm not likely to give Him credit for what occurs.

I think there is something to that. The question is who does he reveal himself to and why.

Too bad most of those stories are just copy-pasted together from earlier mythologies.
This was one of the things that turned me away from the book. The only "reliable" source of God is most likely just plagiarism.

If Bible was inspired by God, He could have at least made it more original

I'm always surprised by comments like this because, while there is plenty of circumstantial evidence (one story looks like another) the hard evidence that the bible actually IS copied from other stories is slim to none. Its a very strange assertion, imho. Plus there is, I think, a great deal of truth in the argument J. R. R. Tolkien gave to C. S. Lewis for just this issue and which helped Lewis become a Christian. Both of them studied ancient myths heavily, and the idea Tolkien proposed was that there was a truth that all myths are trying to reach, that there is truth written on our heart that must be expressed in our stories. The bible just happens to be the true one. (Actually, I might have that wrong in that there was a third friend [who's name I can't remember] with Tolkien and Lewis who might have given the lions share of that argument. Tolkien, according to the story, ran off before the discussion was done so his wife wouldn't be worried. )

Or, if you'd prefer to go for a more naturalistic explanation, I think Jung's theories have a lot of applicability here. He would say that there is something like a universal unconscious. He doesn't really explain how this is possible that I know of. I would argue it extends from the fact that we all share a human nature, so our unconscious is formed by similar experiences. So, the similarities of various myths and legends, rather than being some massive stretch of plagiarism.

I'm always surprised by comments like this because, while there is plenty of circumstantial evidence (one story looks like another) the hard evidence that the bible actually IS copied from other stories is slim to none.

Do you have a better explanation then, to the likeness of the stories? If it's not original, it's most likely copied.

Anyway, the stories of the Bible weren't written down immediately, but after hundreds of years of being told and retold countless times. People can't remember everything, and they make mistakes. Also, nobody likes to hear the same stories over and over, so they might change the stories to keep them interesting. Maybe mix in some cool stories they heard elsewhere. Plus, after being written down, the Bible has been heavily edited and (mis)translated over time.

I just can't believe that the current version(s) of the Bible is anyway original (or reliable). And since there are no original copies left, you have no way of telling that.

Plus there is, I think, a great deal of truth in the argument J. R. R. Tolkien gave to C. S. Lewis

As much as I appreciate both of them as writers, their personal opinions and discussions are hardly proof of anything.

I just logged on at work, which I'd rather not do, to make sure I didn't get missunderstood. That was really bugging me. Looks like I didn't. It has been 10 years or so since I've researched the whole issue of the acuracy of the Bible, so before I get into such a weighty discussion, I probably should do some more reasearch. So, thanks for the challenge, and I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can on that. XD