Community > Posts By > JohnDavidDavid

 
JohnDavidDavid's photo
Sun 01/12/14 08:17 AM

Does being non-thiest mean you are open to religion or that you are spiritual without the belief in god?


I use the term to indicate that I am not a worshiper of "gods"; however, I acknowledge that one or more of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY actually be more than human imagination.

Since there is no verifiable information about any of them, a reasoned decision to select a "god" to worship cannot be made. "Gods" are chosen by indoctrination, happenstance, social pressure, etc rather than reasoning based on verifiable information.

If one or more of the proposed "gods" can be SHOWN to influence human lives (or "afterlives"), I am open to some association. However, "shown" means to me information that is far more credible than testimonials, ancient tales, folklore, legends, fables and/or claims of special knowledge by promoters of religion.

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Sat 01/11/14 11:31 PM

I agree, why be bothered by that you don't personally believe,,,?

we each experience our own perceptions and come to our own conclusions


Those of us who reside in the infamous Bible Belt commonly encounter god talk from acquaintances (or strangers) who attempt to convince or coerce others to adopt the currently popular belief system.

Friends, at least in my case, are respectful of my Non-Theist position, but non-friends often don't understand when such comments are unwelcome (and are typically aghast when so informed).


JohnDavidDavid's photo
Sat 01/11/14 08:47 PM

As Carl Sagan stated "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof"


I agree with TBRich and Carl Sagan.

However, when those who make claims such as donkeys conversing with humans, water magically turning into wine, the Earth flooding to "the tops of mountains", dead bodies returning to life days after death, and various other "miracles", the "proof" offered is "The bible says so" (and any who do not believe the stories are threatened with being punished after they die, in an "afterlife")

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Sat 01/11/14 08:29 PM


Apparently it is difficult (impossible?) to distinguish between the invisible / undetectable and the imaginary / fictitious.

However, many seem convinced that they KNOW which of the proposed invisible / undetectable entities are NOT imaginary and which ones ARE imaginary or fictitious. The currently popular entities in a culture are deemed "true" and all others are deemed "false" even though there is no more validation for one than the others.


Tell me about your imaginary friends? Have u seen them lately? Did you see them when u were a child and they are still following you around? Was Santa good to you?


Is this asking for MY "imaginary friends?"

If so, that is 180 degrees out of kilter since I am Non-Theistic.

Many others, perhaps a majority of US citizens, indicate that they believe in (and often worship) various proposed supernatural entities.

Most acknowledge that they have not seen such things, though it is not uncommon to claim to have "felt" such a presence psychologically / emotionally. A few even claim direct personal interaction with supernaturals (and can become known as being "prophets" or become religious leaders, including Joseph Smith originator of LDS).

















JohnDavidDavid's photo
Sat 01/11/14 08:14 PM
Based on what I understood from my interpretation I would say this is false because if god is real then I don't see why it would matter that you believe in him or not.


Of course no one knows what a "god" may or may not require (though many profess to know after reading anonymously written ancient texts or listening to lectures by others who have read the text).

However, it is a common belief among religionists that their favorite "god" requires that any who have been told about "him" MUST believe and worship to avoid eternal damnation.

If you are a good person and you do good things that should be all that matters.


Although requiring belief and worship seems egocentric and irrational for a supposed omniscient being, many insist that no matter how wonderful a person may be, that isn't enough to get to "heaven."

It is all opinion because no one actually knows


JohnDavidDavid's photo
Sat 01/11/14 04:45 PM
Apparently it is difficult (impossible?) to distinguish between the invisible / undetectable and the imaginary / fictitious.

However, many seem convinced that they KNOW which of the proposed invisible / undetectable entities are NOT imaginary and which ones ARE imaginary or fictitious. The currently popular entities in a culture are deemed "true" and all others are deemed "false" even though there is no more validation for one than the others.

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Fri 01/10/14 06:03 PM
When I was a teenager (age sixteen or seventeen), I had a relationship with a woman of twenty-eight -- and learned a great deal about relationships and about sexuality. Now, at age seventy-four "everybody" is younger -- and many who are younger act older.

To me age is insignificant as compared to a person's mental, physical, and personal characteristics.

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Thu 01/09/14 08:25 PM

a creation would probably not be at the level of intelligence and ability of its creator,,

to understand what its creator could do,


Could an omnipotent (defined as: having unlimited power; able to do anything) creator produce a creation that was its equal?











JohnDavidDavid's photo
Thu 01/09/14 08:19 PM
How can one distinguish between an entity that is said to be:

"Invisible, undetectable, supernatural"

and one that is:

"Imaginary, fictitious, mythical"

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Thu 01/09/14 06:53 PM
a Creator who could create the world, could choose to do whatever it wished,,,


Also, an imaginary "creator" could be said to do whatever humans might imagine or fantasize.

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Wed 01/08/14 08:11 PM
How did they know this 3500 years ago?


They also "knew" 3500 years ago that sacrificing animals (and sometimes humans) pleased "gods", that diseases and infirmities were caused by displeasing "gods", that droughts and storms were punishment for "sins", that many different "gods" died and came back to life, that donkeys and snakes could converse with humans, that those who refused to worship a popular god should be stoned to death.

They evidently did not know (and/or were not informed by their "gods") the importance of washing hands, boiling questionable water, cooking food thoroughly.


JohnDavidDavid's photo
Wed 01/08/14 07:34 PM
When a claim is made (no matter the claim) it is the sole responsibility of the claimer to provide evidence as to why the claim should be believed, thus the claimer has the burden of proof. The other way around is simply illogical.


I agree that in a reasoned discussion or debate the party making a claim has the burden of proof.

However, in Christian theology the term "proof" means "scripture says" so what is regarded as sufficient verification of claims is to quote scripture. Of course, scripture is subject to thousands of different interpretations, many different versions, has been repeatedly edited or revised, etc – but that is another matter.

The bible is considered absolute authority (and often regarded as infallible or inerrant) and "written (or inspired) by god." That it is actually a compilation of writings by humans (usually unidentifiable), by churchmen at the direction of Roman emperors, centuries after the supposed events seems unfamiliar to all but scholars and theologians (or kept quiet by others).

If the non-theist does not accept biblical authority, testimonials, opinions and conjectures as proof -- but asks for verification of truth and accuracy of claims -- the situation is an impasse (and often reduces to emotionalism and sometimes hostility).

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Wed 01/08/14 07:12 PM
Hi Bret,

Thanks for being the first to reply and welcome to the forum.

I agree that belief can't be forced. Since childhood (which is a long time in my case) my question has been "How can I believe what I do not believe?"

Regarding the "sound argument": There are at least two major flaws in Pascal's Wager. Perhaps you or others will identify them (and maybe it will instigate uncommon thought patterns).


JohnDavidDavid's photo
Wed 01/08/14 06:30 PM


Blaise Pascal, a seventeenth century the mathematician, presented the following argument in favor of believing in god (that is widely accepted).

"If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."

Is that a sound argument. If so, why? If not, why?

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Wed 01/08/14 11:28 AM
A system that works for me (and is gender-neutral):

Give everyone a measure of trust and respect; allow them to earn more or less by their actions; adjust accordingly.

Trustworthiness can vary when the stakes increase or conditions become difficult. Someone who is scrupulously honest in the $100 range might well become dishonest in the millions range. Someone who is loyal in everyday life might become less so if presented with a remarkable opportunity to go in different directions.

We can never know 100% another person, no matter what we think we know. We may not even “know” (predict) our own actions in extreme situations. Even if we are “sure” how we would respond, we don't know until TSHTF.

I question the judgment and character of those who trust everyone (trust indiscriminately or naively) and those who trust no one.

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Wed 01/08/14 10:45 AM
What do you consider "red neck"?

If one showers regularly, has teeth, doesn't hang with buddies, respects women, uses words of more than two syllables, etc -- are they regarded as not red necked?

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Wed 01/08/14 08:42 AM
I am past the stage of caring what anyone thinks of me. What people think about me is their own business.


As a lifetime Maverick (defined as: unbranded animal, not of the herd -- somewhat similar to non-conformist), I reached that conclusion long ago and gained a great deal of personal freedom when I realized that it doesn't matter what "they" think, say or do unless it affects me directly and negatively.


JohnDavidDavid's photo
Tue 01/07/14 03:58 PM
Edited by JohnDavidDavid on Tue 01/07/14 04:01 PM
I agree partially with Jeannie --�� that there is not likely a "��god"�� in "heaven"�� controlling the universe and the events in human lives. That idea appeals to many religionists who promote the worship of their favored "god"�� (along with providing influence and income to those who identify themselves as "priests" and claim special knowledge or association with one of the proposed supernatural beings).

Perhaps it is good advice to look inward for "godliness"�� (however defined) rather than devoting one's self to one or more of the thousands of proposed invisible, undetectable, supernatural beings.

JohnDavidDavid's photo
Tue 01/07/14 03:45 PM
THE BIBLE SAYS . . . . . . etc, etc.


The bible says a lot of things -- some make sense, many do not -- some can be applied to the world and times in which we live, many cannot.

Shouting (typing all caps) does not validate your claims -- but alerts others that emotionalism rather than reasoning prevails.


JohnDavidDavid's photo
Sat 01/04/14 04:33 PM
Anyone is free to imagine that angels have wings, do not have wings, have wings sometimes but not others, are usually invisible / undetectable but become visible other times. Some believe that angels are real entities associated with one of the popular "gods", while others consider them imaginary creations of human imagination.

Whatever works for you.