“Why do atheists/others Deny God, Scriptures,

[joer]

Last week I came across something in reflection. Spirituality grows and develops as we do. There are three stages.

1. The first stage is discovering that God Exists. This usually takes place between 0-20 years of age.

2. The second stage is being led to God. You begin and develop learning about God’s purpose in your life. This happens about 20-40 years of age.

T3. he third stage is Living a Spirit led, God led Life. Now you know why you’re here and your ready for your fruits to be lived and seen. God is alive within you. Now you see yourself as Spirit within a body. This happens about 40 to forever.

So when I noticed this I thought about all my atheists friends here and I thought I may have found a cause of atheism.

Now on a normal world (The Vatican admitted last week aliens are our brothers and sisters in God) this would be our normal spiritual development. But on our world with so much error within it due to a messed up start with the negative influence of the Lucifer rebellion and the failure of Adam and Eve, our spiritual development can become jeopardized. So if we have a problem at any level of our spiritual development we can become spiritually stunted, become damaged, atrophy spiritually and suffer the consequences of our Spiritual malformation.

I further conceptualized that the level we were at when the spiritual trauma occurred might have specific symptoms or traits that are common to other atheists or non-believers

So my questions to atheists and/or non-believers are these:

1. At what age did your non-belief or denial of the existence of God begin.

2. Do you remember any specific incident or causes that precipitated that non-belief? Just use generalized descriptions if the authentic trauma to your loss of faith (if there was one) is too graphic or insidious to share here.

3. What was the course of development of your atheism?

I also think the participation in this discussion will help other Christians and believers better understand our atheist and non-believer brothers and sisters.

Peace and knowledge to all.

[Thought Criminal]

joer, please pick a single font and [strike]stick with it[/strike].

Thank you.

TC

[Fallibleone]

Hi, joer. Wecome back. I trust your trip was enjoyable.

I think I’ve found a way. In this thread most atheist have stated that they’ve found their truth based in science. So while science can NEVER prove the existence of God.

Or disprove it. God is unfalsifiable because he refuses to be pinned down for long enough. Big handicap.

Although both science and philosophy may assume the probability of God by their reason and logic, only the personal religious experience of a spirit-led man can affirm the certainty of such a supreme and personal Deity.

'Spirit-led man'? How does one go about identifying one of those? Is it a matter of self-identification?

By the technique of such an incarnation of living truth the philosophic hypothesis of the probability of God becomes a religious reality.

I'm afraid this sailed way over my head. I'll blame the pills I'm taking. What is a technique of incarnation of living truth?

So since God is only affirmed by personal experience, while science can’t confirm the existence of God it may encourage the atheist to examine their own personal experience.

Science is not big on personal experience.

Atheists do examine their own personal experience, joer. Atheists do sometimes do things without thinking about science first. It just so happens that their examination uncovers nothing which points to the existence of God. I've experienced some mild coincidences and eerie goings-on. But I've never had a religious experience. I can't examine something I haven't had. What sorts of experiences are supposed to be signs of God? Am I to be expected to examine myself into belief?

So far their personal experience has led them to trust in science. Now if science led them back to a question that cannot be solve scientifically but must be solved experientially perhaps they would trust that scientific leading to attempt an examination of a personal and experiential nature.

You trust in science too, joer. You are doing so right now. You do so every day. Likewise, I trust my own experience and self-examination every day.

Your personal experience apparently led you to place your trust more in self examination.* Why is it the atheist who should adjust their methods? If self-examination led you back to a question that cannot be solved experientially, perhaps you would trust that experience leading to attempt an examination of a scientific nature. Or do you really believe that every single question there is can be answered by personal experience?

The fact is that things are not so black and white. Theists trust in science and atheists undergo experiential learning. I think the difference may be to do with the areas in which we all apply these different methods of examination. As an atheist, I do not use science to inform every single part of my life. My understanding is that by contrast, theists do use personal experience and affirmation of God to inform every part of their lives. Please, theists, correct me if I have it wrong. Experiential learning, I believe, is very important in the realm of self-development, for example. I do not find it useful in attempting to determine objective truths about the universe. I find science much more useful for that. Notice I said 'much more useful'.

*Actually, I just re-read this, and did it really? Did you begin from a point of belief? If so, did that belief originate solely from personal experience, or did an outside agency alert you to the presence of God first? If so, your affirmation was not initally experiential.

Apologies if this is incoherent. I need a break. With any luck I'll do better when I return.

[Goat]

My current evidence is the statistical analysis about the Urantia Book by Dr. Philip Calabresse Ph.D. at UCLA that infers:

Exactly what gives Dr Philip Calabresse the expertise to make that determination? How does a computer jockey (although a PHD in computer sciences), have any expertise in religion, astronomy, or anything like that?

This sounds like a case of the logical fallacy of the "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY"

[JoeyKnothead]

For me at least, statistical analysis doesn't cut it. All it can do is estimate a probability, and this number never reaches 100%. Even if it could, I would be inclined to not accept it. I see how religion divides men, creates arrogant men, and creates murderous regimes in its name. Until religion can unite people, I want nothing to do with it.

'The spirit filled man' is yet one more example of religious arrogance I have seen displayed within these forums. It is a demeaning term akin to 'you're an idiot, I have the truth'. Regardless of whether that was the intent, and I trust joer is a good guy, the end result is still a casting down on someone.

'The spirit filled man' is no better than the 'poor' atheist who is trying to understand this world. However, the Christian religion has relied on demonizing others in order to spread its message of 'love'. What a crock.

That statement is no better than 'the fool says there is no God'. Seems the Christian religion has this unique ability within its adherents to insult people, and then try to teach itself as some kind of understanding guidance.

Until theists can remove from themselves the arrogance of an unprovable position, there will remain this discordant idea that because someone is different, or they disagree, they are somehow lacking. Until the Christian religion can say that people have value for being people, and not for believing something for which they find no proof, there can be no accepting of Christianity by this atheist.

[Thought Criminal]

I've experienced some mild coincidences and eerie goings-on. But I've never had a religious experience. I can't examine something I haven't had. What sorts of experiences are supposed to be signs of God? Am I to be expected to examine myself into belief?

There are no religious experience, just experiences that are interpreted as religious. This is precisely what we find when we induce such experiences under laboratory conditions by messing with people's brains. Everyone experiences the effects, but naturalists do not generate supernatural explanations for them.

In short, if you haven't had any "religious experiences" yet, you're probably never going to.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

Last week I came across something in reflection. Spirituality grows and develops as we do. There are three stages.

1. The first stage is discovering that God Exists. This usually takes place between 0-20 years of age.

2. The second stage is being led to God. You begin and develop learning about God�s purpose in your life. This happens about 20-40 years of age.

T3. he third stage is Living a Spirit led, God led Life. Now you know why you�re here and your ready for your fruits to be lived and seen. God is alive within you. Now you see yourself as Spirit within a body. This happens about 40 to forever.

So when I noticed this I thought about all my atheists friends here and I thought I may have found a cause of atheism.

Now on a normal world (The Vatican admitted last week aliens are our brothers and sisters in God) this would be our normal spiritual development. But on our world with so much error within it due to a messed up start with the negative influence of the Lucifer rebellion and the failure of Adam and Eve, our spiritual development can become jeopardized. So if we have a problem at any level of our spiritual development we can become spiritually stunted, become damaged, atrophy spiritually and suffer the consequences of our Spiritual malformation.

I further conceptualized that the level we were at when the spiritual trauma occurred might have specific symptoms or traits that are common to other atheists or non-believers

So my questions to atheists and/or non-believers are these:

1. At what age did your non-belief or denial of the existence of God begin.

2. Do you remember any specific incident or causes that precipitated that non-belief? Just use generalized descriptions if the authentic trauma to your loss of faith (if there was one) is too graphic or insidious to share here.

3. What was the course of development of your atheism?

I also think the participation in this discussion will help other Christians and believers better understand our atheist and non-believer brothers and sisters.

Peace and knowledge to all.

So in "God's Wisdom" he made it that people could live 40 years before being "godly"? That for 40 years people would be in their physical prime, filled with lust, anger, violence,, etc - and THEn they wise up?

Um, sorry if I don't put the cart before the horse, but if your hypothesis is even remotely true wouldn't it suggest that as a person gets older and more unable to defend themsleves from the 20 year old warriors of society, that it would be wise for them to find another way to protect themsleves... Um, say, threaten the young guys with eternal Hell if they do something wrong?

Its a way for the old to control the young, it seems.

[joer]

Hi Fallibleone! So great to hear from u again. Yes the trip was great. I hadn’t seen my family down there for nine years. It was quite enjoyable and quite contrasting culturally. You get a strange sense of “being� after returning. I have to return to my prior life. Let me see if I can expand on a couple of your questions.

'Spirit-led man'? How does one go about identifying one of those? Is it a matter of self-identification?

Well actually it’s a man or women either being of the human species. The “Spirit-led" part is personally known and ostensibly recognized by believers. Not all but many.

Quote:
By the technique of such an incarnation of living truth the philosophic hypothesis of the probability of God becomes a religious reality.

I'm afraid this sailed way over my head. I'll blame the pills I'm taking. What is a technique of incarnation of living truth?

Ok the incarnation of a living truth is much more simply expressed as “taking something to heart�. The meaning doesn’t really physically turn into heart muscle as a strictly scientific interpretation might imply. But actually metaphorically the meaning becomes part of the embodiment of a human “being�. So the “incarnation of living truth� is the incorporation (corp - body) of that truth within the “real being� of that person.

Hope that helped Fallibleone.

Science is not big on personal experience.

Exactly. So if you have a scientific analysis as I’ve presented that implies extraterrestrial authors to a book. How do you examine a book whose content is so uniquely unusual so that it may not be quite analytically contained within the parameters of earthly scientific methods? Is it possible that the same personal experiential inquiries that led us to base our faith on science, can be used to evaluate the extraterrestrial content of the book in question?

If that personal experiential inquiry was sufficient to establish our lifelong belief or non-belief in God, why wouldn’t it suffice to evaluate content that may be beyond earthly scientific parameters?

If aheists deny the science used to establish the extraterrestrial nature f the content of the book, then how can they trust in that science for other important positions that they hold “TRUE� in their life? I mean the science they trust in is trustworthy or it isn’t. Right?

You trust in science too, joer. You are doing so right now. You do so every day. Likewise, I trust my own experience and self-examination every day.

Your right Fallibleone. We do.

Why is it the atheist who should adjust their methods?

They don’t have to adjust. But at least I would think they would want to be consistent in their application of those methods. What good is it if you use science for proof for one purpose that suits you yet deny it’s validity when it’s proof doesn’t suit you?

Or do you really believe that every single question there is can be answered by personal experience?

I believe we personally evaluate the answers with or without science and we make choices based on that personal evaluation.

The fact is that things are not so black and white. Theists trust in science and atheists undergo experiential learning.

Exactly.

I think the difference may be to do with the areas in which we all apply these different methods of examination.

Exactly.

As an atheist, I do not use science to inform every single part of my life.

Exactly.

My understanding is that by contrast, theists do use personal experience and affirmation of God to inform every part of their lives.

Nope. They use science also just like atheists. As you correctly pointed out about me.

Please, theists, correct me if I have it wrong. Experiential learning, I believe, is very important in the realm of self-development, for example. I do not find it useful in attempting to determine objective truths about the universe. I find science much more useful for that. Notice I said 'much more useful'.

This is just the point Fallibleone. When you’ve found a book that has determined “objective truths about the universe� before the scientific discovery of those objective truths, How do you deal with that. As an atheist OR a theist?

Apologies if this is incoherent. I need a break. With any luck I'll do better when I return.

It‘s very good Fallible One. It deals with the current point I’ve raised exactly. So the question is: How do we deal with the statistically implied truth that the book’s content is beyond our current science?

I’m not claiming to have the answer. I’m just curious how an atheist will deal with that scientifically proven fact? Will they deny the scientific proof? Will they provide scientific evidence for that denial? Do we deny that truth because it doesn’t fit our current scientific conceptual frame of reference? If we did that as atheists wouldn’t we be doing the same thing as religionists whose antiquated Bible stories don’t stand up to today’s scientific examination?

I mean as atheists how do you deal with that; A scientific proof of non-earthly content. I mean even the Vatican has admitted to the probability of extraterrestrials and made the moral statement that they are our brothers and sisters in God. Is the Vatican now more advanced in it’s thinking than atheists by accepting the probability of extra-terrestrial beings?

What do we make of this book?

''It doesn''t have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.'' - Stephen Hawking

You can say that again Stephen.

''It doesn''t have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.''

[joer]

My current evidence is the statistical analysis about the Urantia Book by Dr. Philip Calabresse Ph.D. at UCLA that infers:

Exactly what gives Dr Philip Calabresse the expertise to make that determination? How does a computer jockey (although a PHD in computer sciences), have any expertise in religion, astronomy, or anything like that?

This sounds like a case of the logical fallacy of the "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY"

Is that your best scientific refutation of Calabresse's statistical argument?

It seems lacking to me.

[joer]

For me at least, statistical analysis doesn't cut it. All it can do is estimate a probability, and this number never reaches 100%. Even if it could, I would be inclined to not accept it. I see how religion divides men, creates arrogant men, and creates murderous regimes in its name. Until religion can unite people, I want nothing to do with it.

'The spirit filled man' is yet one more example of religious arrogance I have seen displayed within these forums. It is a demeaning term akin to 'you're an idiot, I have the truth'. Regardless of whether that was the intent, and I trust joer is a good guy, the end result is still a casting down on someone.

'The spirit filled man' is no better than the 'poor' atheist who is trying to understand this world. However, the Christian religion has relied on demonizing others in order to spread its message of 'love'. What a crock.

That statement is no better than 'the fool says there is no God'. Seems the Christian religion has this unique ability within its adherents to insult people, and then try to teach itself as some kind of understanding guidance.

Until theists can remove from themselves the arrogance of an unprovable position, there will remain this discordant idea that because someone is different, or they disagree, they are somehow lacking. Until the Christian religion can say that people have value for being people, and not for believing something for which they find no proof, there can be no accepting of Christianity by this atheist.

I can appreciate your arguments joey. They are loaded with a lot of common sense and a lot of truth about the errors of organized religion. But there is also lot of positive that has been done by religionists and non-religionists alike. And I believe the positive actions by both groups should recognized more than the negative are emphasized. "Write the good you do in stone and the bad in the sand."

As far as for the others here, I'm curious as to what they make of Calabresse's analysis, scientifically speaking.

[joer]

wouldn't it suggest that as a person gets older and more unable to defend themsleves from the 20 year old warriors of society,

daedalus 2.0 what if it caused them to change society so that the new youth would see themselves as creators of their reality and they created a society of mutual respect where old and young didn’t fear each other but enjoyed each other’s contribution towards making our mutual life more fulfilling?

How about the change Tookie Williams made in society by writing the books for young gangsters like he did when he was on death row? He took a few lives but he saved many more, by doing the right thing as he got older and changed in a positive way. I only wish society had changed sufficiently before his death to allow him to be alive and continuing his work today. But now others can take up his cause. We are not always Bad. We are Good too. And that’s what we should embrace.

Peace and respect brother.