Toadfish Thought of the Day

[Sibling Qwertyuiopasd]

Confused.

Say what exactly about the FSM? you're probably right, just wanted to check

~Qwerty

[Bluenose]

A person who is sure God exists is a regular religious person, an atheist who is sure God doesn't is an absolutist.

I guess it depends on what you mean by sure.

I am sure that god does not exist, but I use the word sure in this context as shorthand for not at all likely, or of dimishingly small probability.  I am absolutely not absolute about god's existence or nonexistence.

I doubt that many of those who are sure that God exists, however, make a similar distinction or concession.

The thing is that I do not believe in perfect knowledge.  IMHO, you can never be completely sure of anything at all with the sole exception of some branches of mathematics.

[The Meromorph]

Confused.

Say what exactly about the FSM? you're probably right, just wanted to check

~Qwerty

is responsible for everything...   

[Sibling Chatty]

A person who is, in their own objective opinion, sure that a god of some sort exists is a person of some sort of faith. A person who is quite sure no gods exist is an atheist.

Let's at least define the terms properly.

Unfortunately, in the atheist/agnostic playbook, the speaking of the "opposition" as superstitious, ignorant children listening to fairytales is considered fair.

I think it sucks. And it sure isn't very 'taddy'.

I'm not at all comfortable with the concept that any one person has the right (or responsibility, in the Fundamentalist POV) to tell any other person that they are WRONG WRONG WRONG for their beliefs.

===================

Now, as to the beauty of cancer cells.

Without the dyes to aid in their visualization, they're really usually not very pretty.

What you have is a misprinted piece of information that tells a cell to become a raging cannibal. It starts killing all the other cells around it, destroying them.

It's a little Jeffrey Dahmer inside your body.

Yep, really pretty...

Mero, here, in the Reef--where we're prone to touchy, feely, warmandfuzzy thoughts toward our Siblings, and sharing our lives and toughts with one another--it's just not the place where I want to encounter anyone telling me that If I think there's a god of any sort complicit in my life, then I have to believe that my deity is all about Jeffrey Dahmer as well.

[Bluenose]

Hmmm,  I think that the operative words are faith and belief.  These words convey much the same sort of meaning as that I intend when I used the word sure in my previous post.  Belief and faith by definition allow an element, however small, of doubt.  The intelligent religious person, I guess, takes that doubt into account but chooses his or her belief or faith despite it.  It may even be a virtue, I have certainly seen it described as such in some writings.

In a similar way my "sureness" about any god's or gods' nonexistence has a finite limit.  I allow that I may be wrong, I just think the chances of that are as close to zero as makes no nevermind.

I agree that the paternalistic depiction of believers Chatty describes is inappropriate, although some types of believers only have themselves to blame for such characterisation, nevertheless I agree that as Toadfish we should avoid that wherever possible.  However, the same point needs to be made in the other direction.  It annoys me intensely when certain, usually fundamentalist Christians, try to tell me that I don't really believe in the nonexistence of God, that it is just my childish rebellious nature and that if only I "opened my heart to Jesus" I would "see the light".  The arrogance of this is no less than that used by some to describe those of faith.  Both are wrong and indeed wrong headed - one will never convince anyone of anything with these approaches.

Perhaps if I have a deep conversation with someone face to face, or in a forum such as this, where tolerance and acceptance is the rule, a person may begin to think about some of the ideas I might raise.  However, whether that happens or not is not why I am here, and I am not trying to proselytise atheism.  Neither will I hide my atheism, just as I would not expect others to hide their beliefs whatever they may be, I will I continue to argue my point where appropriate and I just hope that I do not cause offence to any Sibling.  If I do, please let me know so that I may make amends.

Edit: fix spelling and other typos

[Sibling Chatty]

Bluenose, you're "the same kind" of atheist Dan is. I 'get' what you're saying because that's the same set of words and concepts he uses in explaining his 'lack of belief'.

[Darlica]

I'm not a believer. I lost my ability to believe when I was about 13 years old, that was when I realised how many atrocity had been done in the name of religion and that religion is politics and politics is religion, I'm 33 now I still haven't recovered the ability to faith. I need to see it to believe it, I'm a very science oriented person.

Every summer in my youth I went sailing with my parents, I loved to sit in shelter of a tree watching the waves crash with enormous and force into the rocks beneath me during a storm, I thought and still think it's a magnificent scenery. When back in the boat, hearing an SOS call from another family in distress did that change my view on the waves I just been watching? In a way yes, I could relate to their fear. But I was warm and dry sitting in a boat mooring in a calm cove where the only reminder of the storm was the rain on the deck and the wind howling in the mast.
I had the luxury to watch the storm from a safe spot, that's why I could find beautiful, I highly doubt the family that sent the distress call found the storm as beautiful as I did, because they where in the middle of it facing the risk of loosing their life's to the storm.

The meaning of a word as well of a occurrence is in IMHO in the context around it.
I doubt any one that survived the Big tsunami in the Indian Ocean almost three years ago would (or Katrina for that matter) describe those waves as beautiful. I might think waves are mesmerizing and beautiful in general but that particular wave has lost all allure due to the pain and suffering it caused.

I think of cancer as a personal tsunami which strike one person at the time affecting this persons family and friends.

The wave might be beautiful but the trail of human suffering in it's wake takes the beauty away for me. And I would never ever say in the presence of a tsunami (or Katarina) survivor or someone who have lost a family member to these waves, that I found those waves beautiful, not to provoke, not to discuss the existent of any deity, not even if I sincerely thought so. I guess one can chalk that up to either good manners or a sense of empathy, it doesn't really matter to me you just don't go around and poke at peoples most painful scars.   

Nature in my point of view isn't good or bad in it self, but that doesn't mean that it can't do bad or good things to an individual person, and I think we should respect that.

   

[The Meromorph]

Response after 'sleeping on it'...

Unfortunately, in the atheist/agnostic playbook, the speaking of the "opposition" as superstitious, ignorant children listening to fairytales is considered fair.

I think it sucks. And it sure isn't very 'taddy'.

I've re-read this thread looking specifically for anyone saying that. I can't find anything even close...

Mero, here, in the Reef--where we're prone to touchy, feely, warmandfuzzy thoughts toward our Siblings, and sharing our lives and toughts with one another--it's just not the place where I want to encounter anyone telling me that If I think there's a god of any sort complicit in my life, then I have to believe that my deity is all about Jeffrey Dahmer as well.

'if you want to claim your deity of choice is responsible for everything, then it has to take responsibility for everything..."

I quoted from a 16 years ago conversation with a person who actually said she believed that, and she agreed with that response when I made it.
If it matters, I'd probably say the same thing to you if you made that statement to me. I don't think you ever have, I don't think you ever would. When you quoted it in responding after I quoted it, you, in fact, said you didn't believe that! And the conversation in my view, and that of the person I had it with, was an elucidation of her beliefs for my understanding, not an attack on her beliefs.
How does my quotation from a sixteen year old conversation with someone else turn into an attack on your beliefs?

Meh! I'm out of here. I'll probably be back when I've cooled down - it might be a while...

[Opsa]

Okay, I've finally read this whole thing and what I'm seeing is a very interesting outline of what one of the big problems of spirituality: namely- what does it mean? Is spirituality religion? Is religion strictly about God? Is God strictly omniscient?

Believe me, I don't know what the answers are, but I am beginning to see through this very fiery discussion that there are places where we're not seeing eye to eye. And perhaps we don't have to.

Here's how I feel:

Firstly, that Darlica is right, this may have been the wrong thread for this discussion, mostly because is not a discussion thread. It is a thread for displaying quotes that seem to fit the general Toadfish ideas. No huge deal, we can always bust it off and move it elsewhere.

Secondly, maybe we need to understand that physical beauty is different from spiritual beauty. I do not believe cancer to be beautiful because it is destructive. A tsunami is also not beautiful when it is destructive. Jefffery Daumer is not beautiful because he was destructive. All cells are not cancerous though, nor are all waves tsunamis or all human beings Jeffrey Daumer. We as human beings have minds that ought to be able to differentiate between things like that. Just because Daumer was FUBAR doesn't mean we are all that way. That's where the line between what is good and what is bad should be drawn. Yes, we should kill cancer because it has been proven to be destructive millions of times. If someone suddenly discovers that it is somehow beneficial, then I may have to change my mind about that, but right now, all I see is destruction. To kill cancer is to save lives.

I am completely confounded about how generalized people seem to view  religion. To me, it's shocking, but revealing and maybe we need to work on this in orfder to be more tolerant of eachother's views. Here are my current views, see if you can tolerate them:

Religion is not God! To me this seems completely obvious, but I am seeing that this is not so for others. My sister quite rightly sees religion as causing a lot of problems, so she doesn't belive in God, but religion and God are not the same, in my mind. Religion is an invention of man to organize worship of God. God may be an invention of man as well, but if so, God must be as individual as every mind that has a concept of God. I am very upset with some religions which allow their followers to behave in ways that seem to lack compassion. However, I do not in any way equate these religions with God.

The Great Everything is not necessarily God. It is only everything. It is not omniscient and whatever else the five attributes that Zono mentioned were. It is simply all, right now. It is not rigid, it is not "warm and fuzzy" (I gotta say, the tone of that comment rubbed me the wrong way, but I understand that that was only my interpretation of it), and it doesn't need your belief to exist, it just is. That I wish to explore the p[ossibility of tapping into it to sort of feel my place and try to understand where I can be of help may look like form of religion to some people, but since it is personal and not an organized group I say it isn't. Maybe it's spiritual, but that word is just another inaccurate tool that doesn't express what I mean.

I am seeking something beautiful that is not destructive. I am looking to the Great Everything for connections to something good. I am glad for the connections I've made with everyone here. I am also glad to have spotted a bald eagle the other day. It was beautiful too. It may be a terror for the rodents around here, but in the great scheme, it is also balancing the population of rodents. Also, for decades we didn't see any in these parts. That they've returned is a reason to be glad. I feel like we ought to have a right to be glad (warm and fuzzy, even  ) whenever we can manage it. There are enough reasons to be upset. We need to balance them with reasons to be glad in order to find any equilibrium.

That's just my stupid opinion and does not reflect the opinions of anyone else unless by accident. I love you, Meri and hope you will come back soon.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

One quick comment on my previous comment. Re-reading it and the posts that followed, I want to clarify that it wasn't my intention by any measure to suggest that you have to be agnostic or atheist to 'enjoy'/validate the quote, much less that there is anything wrong with the theist position. I agree with Darlica's point that the quote itself isn't a nice one, in fact I would say that (in a similar way as the barber email somewhere else) it is a sneaky one: it seems to invalidate theist beliefs without saying so explicitly (in more or less the same way the barber thing seems to invalidate agnosticism/atheism without saying so explicitly).

In any case I offer my apologies if my previous comment offended anyone.

[Sibling Chatty]

will someone please tell Mero to come back.

I'm the one out of step.

I'm the one to leave.

[Opsa]

Please don't leave! It's only a discussion. It's okay. It's what we're here for.

[Sibling Chatty]

Response after 'sleeping on it'...

Unfortunately, in the atheist/agnostic playbook, the speaking of the "opposition" as superstitious, ignorant children listening to fairytales is considered fair.

I think it sucks. And it sure isn't very 'taddy'.

I've re-read this thread looking specifically for anyone saying that. I can't find anything even close...

Mero, here, in the Reef--where we're prone to touchy, feely, warmandfuzzy thoughts toward our Siblings, and sharing our lives and toughts with one another--it's just not the place where I want to encounter anyone telling me that If I think there's a god of any sort complicit in my life, then I have to believe that my deity is all about Jeffrey Dahmer as well.

'if you want to claim your deity of choice is responsible for everything, then it has to take responsibility for everything..."

I quoted from a 16 years ago conversation with a person who actually said she believed that, and she agreed with that response when I made it.
If it matters, I'd probably say the same thing to you if you made that statement to me. I don't think you ever have, I don't think you ever would. When you quoted it in responding after I quoted it, you, in fact, said you didn't believe that! And the conversation in my view, and that of the person I had it with, was an elucidation of her beliefs for my understanding, not an attack on her beliefs.
How does my quotation from a sixteen year old conversation with someone else turn into an attack on your beliefs?

Meh! I'm out of here. I'll probably be back when I've cooled down - it might be a while...

OK, I'm the one out of step.

After years of this same conversation, over and over and over, I jumped to the inevitable end.

Ingersoll's precis is that the believer is all those things.

The inevitable end of this discussion is ALWAYS the same. As the <ignorant, implied> person who persists in my beliefs, I am, for the purposes of this discussion--wrong.

I never realized until now HOW wrong I get to be.

someone tell Mero to come back.

I'm the one not in step, I'm the one to go.

[Sibling Chatty]

Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may
not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend.

[Sibling Chatty]

"Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world."

-- Buddha.