Do you believe in fate?

Why can't dancing be prayer? I see your point about only being able to defend things with feelings which is useless in an argument cus you can't share. That's why it's belief I guess. It's also why I lose a lot of arguments.

Maybe that's just it though. You have to be able to take a leap of faith. To believe it even though there's no proof, no evidence. In spite of that. maybe that gives it meaning. ati, you'll rebut that too, I'm sure. ;)

Dancing could be prayer, but raindancing compared to prayer-there's a difference. [yes, there IS a difference, even if I'm unable to pinpoint what it is]

I know what you mean though I still think it depend son how the dance was meant. I don't think god would randomly stop rain for dancing people because then it'd never rain and we'd all die :( !
Faith by definition seems to imply no physical evidence and thta makes it hard to accept as proof in an arguement for a lot of people. I think it woould depend on whether you really trusted the person arguing through faith.

No matter what you believe, everything you see will justify it. People are incredibly narrow-minded. I see good things that happen as proof there must be a God, others would take it to be proof there isn't a God. We all think we're right; everyone else is wrong. I just want to share my perspective. I mean, I can see it from both sides, can't others?

I can. I'm entitled to my beliefs and others are entitled to theirs. We can disagree and discuss it but that doesn't mean I will change my mind necessarily or try to change theirs.

Just to throw in my two pennies...i think part of having a relationship with God is either one does or doesn't have that leap of faith. Yes, I wrote that before seeing your phrase up there, faye :). But, I think having taken it, one trusts/surrenders and lives life on the other side of where that leap has taken him/her. And if one hasn't, then it's more a matter of intellect.

Hm. One more cent. If one has experienced God's love, be it in the "real world," the dream state, heard God's sounds/seen God's lights, nothing can take that away. And if someone hasn't had it, or just has knowledge of it, they may refute it, and that's fine, too, where they're at with it. But when people go around poking at each other I think when we have to stop and say, wow, is this what I really want to do? Is this really how I want to treat and maybe even limit others/myself.

Amuse wrote:

<If one has experienced God's love, be it in the "real world," the dream state, heard God's sounds/seen God's lights, nothing can take that away>.

Time has already taken it from you I'm afraid. All you have left is a memory of it. You might have new experiences based upon your memories, but let's not confuse a continued presence of a past experience with a remembered, recreated, refashioned experience of a past experience.

<And if someone hasn't had it, or just has knowledge of it, they may refute it, and that's fine, too, where they're at with it. But when people go around poking at each other I think when we have to stop and say, wow, is this what I really want to do? Is this really how I want to treat and maybe even limit others/myself>

As I continually stress, there is a difference between attacking beliefs and attacking people. Most people who cannot see this, are those that cannot be at ease with their beliefs. Just let go and let your beliefs, ideas, etc breathe. If they are good enough, they can stand on their own. If they are bad, you don't have to fall with them.

You say that without writing about what your beliefs are. ie, you can write with complete impunity, whereas we cannot. It's a lot easier to stand there and criticize than to try to defend something.

Fayefaye,

Do you think I would be able to write anything without revealing a set of beliefs? You speak as if belief is concrete, instead of a transient thing. That is my whole point. We make beliefs. They serve a purpose for us. We are not made by them. But some people act as if they and their belief are the same thing.

When you criticise my beliefs or my views, I can step back and assess what you say. If I feel what you say is pertinent, then I may drop that particular belief. I don't feel that part of me is lost when a belief I once held is lost. On the contrary, part of my is free, or part of me may have grown. Look at Bertrand Russell, he changed his views and beliefs repeatedly, with good reason. And as he once said, no respectable physicist of his day would seek to hold onto views held by say Lord Kelvin or his contemporaries.

Some beliefs are set in stone for those that believe them, this gives people a firm place to stand if you will. Some beliefs should not be changed, especially if they're right. Beliefs are part of people AP, we base our lives on them and some you cannot stand back and look at objectively cus with the most basic beliefs there is no room for interpretation. Some beliefs should be dear enough to us that we are part of them. However one has to change or modify some of one's beliefs as it is through that that we can learn things and grow. My beliefs and perceptions change every day. You say all beliefs should be transient but some need to be concrete for stability and cus they're true.

(Yes I know that was somewhat rambleing.)

<Some beliefs should not be changed, especially if they're right.>

Who's to say what is right? My beliefs in my mind are right. To someone else they may be wrong or stupid.

Exactly, Lara.

I believe in athesim, but certainly would not recommend it to everyone (some people obviously can't handle it).

One cannot say what is right, one has to believe it. However something could be right so you have to look very carefully at your beliefs cus you don't want to keep wrong ones or change right ones.

I agree Cassandra, that it is okay to evaluate our own beliefs, but again I ask you, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What is right and wrong comes from our own opinions, beliefs and morals.