How do I hear/feel God?

by doinmypart 473 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  Deep down we are genetically the same stuff, psychologically we have the same potential and all that separates any of us from a suicide bomber, an Aztec priest ripping someone's heart out, a mob baying for someone to get stoned or an inquisitional thumb screw operator is our birthplace, our culture and the lack of opportunity. When a believer is in the minority they are humble, downtrodden and persecuted, when they reach a sufficient size they become accusatory, bold , demanding of rights and social privileges and litigious and when they get to be a ruling majority they cast away any pretence of gentleness and kill and torture , censor opposing thought and rule by fear. All religions, all faiths, all people.

  You do not have the right nor the evidence to say that all believers have the capacity to kill innocent people in the name of their God. When are you going to tone down your prejudice of faith? Sometimes, Q, your dehumanizing of real people here gets to me.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  I see why some of you like that statement. But i do not have faith because of my desire for an afterlife. I have faith in Him because I cannot deny Him, and because I love Him, and because He is true. A reward does not enter into the equation of why I follow Him, and certainly not why I have faith in Him.

  Isn't it so presumptuous of non believers to assert that faith is only cultivated because of an eternal personal reward? When miss America advocates for world peace she is not just saying it so she can live in a peaceful world. She wants the suffering to end. That's what religion is always founded upon: progress of the human race towards the direction of righting our wrongs and mitigating suffering. Of course to people like Dawkins and his disciples it's all just a vain and selfish pursuit of the afterlife. I struggle to understand anti-theists, I really do. They often come across as heartless and cruel and seem to relish in it. It's like they are baiting people to call them devilish so they can lash out and go on their hate faith rants. Just because Jehovah's Witnesses "keep their eye on the prize" doesn't mean that all believers are as shallow as that.

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  I don't know if it is presumptious, Sab... but i do think that it is a preferential belief of some who do not believe, because it makes the person of faith easier to scoff at or dismiss.

  The assertation is a false simplification (I dont' recall what debate fallacy technique that is). Assuming that all believer believe and follow only for a reward of an afterlife, due to a fear of death. Create the strawman, and then defeat the strawman, and so avoid the truth of the matter altogether.

  There are enough people on this forum (including those who no longer beleive) who have spoken against having believed out of desire for a reward, or fear of punishment. Dawkins statement is a nothing statment that might apply to some... but not most. It is a generalization based on an unproven premise, and it is kinda funny that it is praised by those who dislike this in general.

  Don't let it get to you, love. Dawkins assertation is pretty clear to see through.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  sab - did you see my own name on that list. There are two ideas here: faith and belief change and morph the more social power they obtain (and the more violent they become - no exceptions - religions when in the dominant position kill opposers and often by very torturous methods - history is a more powerful lesson than any modern day pretentions to free will.) The other idea is that we are NO DIFFERENT from any other human beings. Only a few years ago Jews put Jews in gas chambers, a few hundred years earlier Catholics burnt Protestants, more recently christians genocidally murdered muslims in Serbia and Christian militants massacred muslims in Karatina and had the favour returned in Damour. People of faith have an additional reason to kill and from the earliest sacrificial murders of pagans through the 80000 sacrifice temple opening ceremonies of the Aztecs onto the Mormon Danites religious groups in power kill. My prejudice against faith is honed over a bloody history of faith based crimes. Deep down humans have the ability to kill. Faith is a great enabler in that action.

  That you personally are (I guess) a moral person who would not kill is fine. That you cannot accept that in different circumstances, with different cultural upbringing and different worldviews you wouldn't utterly change your moral stance and could well be found ripping out a sacrifices heart is , may I suggest , simply naive. You are who you are because your culture allows you certain cognitive luxuries and bestowes upon you the fruits of eons of human experimental thought (and yet still you choose the blood soaked bible but I digress). To imagine that somehow you are not a culturally shaped individual and that you would consistenly be the moral you of now regardless of time, place, culture or prevailing worldviews is a triumph of your self regard over blunt reality. The heart ripping priest of South America could potentially be the care home assistant and after hours animal rescue volunteer of today. What I'm saying is our culture evolves but we as humans are lttle different over recorded history. History tells me that faith is utterly dangerous. You may choose to be offended - I choose to see one cause of the darkness in man. The huge surprise for me is that my faith filled life was far less moral than my humanist secular life, my capability for evil acts has reduced now that I owe no allegience to a higher being who is unconstrained by morality.
• 

  tec

  Hmm. Atheists are in the minority right now, Q. Following your own reasoning, once in the majority, it will be the same with them.

  I actually kinda agree with you on that.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  tec - atheists are always the majority - no one is a theist to all gods. I know what you are saying but I totally disagree. Atheism doesn't rely on faith and has no political motivation. Now when a worldview adopts atheism (such as Stalinist Communism) then all that happens is religious people join the ranks of those whom the ideology (Stalinism - NOT atheism which has no ideology) will destroy. Stalinist communism is faith without God. It is faith that I hate (Gods and faeries are not too important in the grand scheme of things - they come and go. )
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Isn't it so presumptuous of non believers to assert that faith is only cultivated because of an eternal personal reward?

  To paraphrase you, Sab, you have neither the right nor the evidence to say all non-beleivers are presumptuous.
• 

  tec

  Q, if as you said all people are the same in all places (same capabilities, not necessarily the same in their hearts/deeds), then atheists are no exception.

  The only reason we have no history to back anything up about atheists when they are in the majority is that they have never been in the majority (exception of Stalin... sweep it away as you might like... not a good example for atheism as a majority in charge). But I would state that when religion is placed into the hands of politicians to wield and enforce their chosen ideology, then you get what we have had in the exact same way as Stalin. Politics USING the faith of people and turning it to their own end.

  You can change the words around, but if people are people as you say, then the same people who want to hate others for being different (for believing) will simply be people who are atheists hating others for being different (having faith). You think atheists won't form a movement and seek to destroy people of faith? Who knows? But it is EASY for something like that to happen. Just create the fear of believers, make them into a threat. And many believers in religion (such as with Stalin) make that fear and that threat pretty easy to instill in others. Especially when they are creating wars over their different religions. Easy to see people standing up and saying "Enough... all of you are finished." Regardless of whether or not that has been justified or if any crime has been committed. Some already do that in their minds as it is. Makes no sense to me why some find annoying, the people of faith who are 'live and let live' and who would never want your rights to be intruded upon. So yeah, I can see the same thing happening, same rights being trampled upon, if someone like Dawkins was in charge... or in the majority. Not all at once. Little by little.

  And Q... if you believe in a god, even just one... you are not an atheist. That is another pet phrase of Dawkins' isn't it?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  Athesim isn't a worldview - surely you can see that! Secular humanism is a worldview, Catholicism is a worldview. Having no belief in Gods is not a worldview (it does not require any cognitive behaviour unlike say Stalinism.) The belief or not in Gods OR humans (worship of Mao for example) all make for very faulty decison making. Faith is a dangerous behaviour and even if an individual holds to a particular faith they are more likely to be in danger from other faith based worldviews than they are from democratic, secular rulers.

  Would you be happy to have your current country tec (I'm going to guess the US) handed over to the Taliban or to the evangelical right or to the Mormons or to Communists?

  tec - I will grant you that belief in a God means by a strict definition of atheism you do not qualify however, I'm trying to reinforce the reminder that you only believe in one God but you have rejected all other Gods just as all atheists have done. For a cultural reason you have accepted a God available to your mind (for example you wouldn't have believed in your Christ 5000 years ago and dare I say 100 years ago because your christ seems to be a reflection of modern sensibilities rather than the biblical Jesus who reflected 100-200AD culture.)
• 

  tec

  Would you be happy to have your current country tec (I'm going to guess the US) handed over to the Taliban or to the evangelical right or to the Mormons or to Communists?

  Canada... and no I would not be happy for any of those things. I am a firm believer in separation of church and state. 1) to keep the extremists out, 2) to keep people from stealing the rights of those who do not believe as they do, and 3) to keep religious people from bringing shame to God's name.

  I would also not want someone like Dawkins to be in power. Someone who thinks that all faith is mind rot, that all faith is equally culpable, that all faith should be destroyed. (even if he thinks the means to do this is through education... since many have education, intelligence AND faith)

  It is not atheism that concerns me. It is the person behind the atheist (or the religion/belief) who seeks to ostracize those who are different than them, by whatever means.

  Peace,

  tammy