"Atheists believe there is no God"

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Talishi
Guru
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

"Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #1

Post by Talishi »

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.


Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #81

Post by William »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 62 by William]
See? As my above answers verify, the demand for empirical evidence (that which can be scientifically verified) is fallacy. It is a false demand and meaningless for that.
Okay. Let's run with this. Let's say we're trying to find out if there actually is a god or not, whether this god has interacted with our world in some way.
Now let's say we take empirical evidence off the table. It's not an option.
What do we use then when someone comes up to us and says "There is a God X, who did things Y at some point in time Z, who has characteristics/attributes Q and desires P"?
We don't. There is no need whatsoever to believe them (in the sense of having faith in what they have faith in.)
I just take their story and add it to other stories and remain presently unconvinced either way in relation to the idea of GOD. I do lean toward the possibility there is but that we haven't been fully informed as to what that actually means. The idea needs tweaking in that department but so be it.


From that (and my own experiences) I can continue to examine notions such as 'what is meant by 'god' or 'is there a pattern to my overall experience of life which might show me something going on behind the more obvious things going on'. Stuff like that.

Basically the case stays open as the evidence isn't even all in anyway.


Do we just believe this person? How can we tell if this what this person is saying is true, if we don't look for empirical evidence?
See my last post for more on that.
This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know how I can tell that Yahweh is there, that he actually did incarnate as Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, that he is merciful and desires me to know that he exists...but if we're not using empirical evidence, how is any of that to be supported?
Every way is approached the same in relation to that. For me I have found ways which suit my quest for such answers and have worked for me.
In doing so I have found that Yahweh is an aspect of the "God of many names" who I attribute to being Gaia.

Gaia - as the entity consciousness inhabiting the planet and creating all the forms on the planet is the consciousness also experiencing all the forms on the planet. I speak more about that idea in this thread, but suffice to say, the idea is in itself rather complex and requires study :study:...

. . . Connecting the dots. Looking at all the circumstantial evidence and listening to/reading the stories told without undue concern for believing or not the validity of individual stories, but rather piecing things together. This helps if one has had such types of experience mind you. All I can say in that is 'ask and you shall receive' provided of course you are been genuine in the asking.

That's how it was (and is) for me.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Post #82

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 78 by William]




[center]
It's true because I say so mentality[/center]


William wrote:
Because of this, my initial experience through that enabled me to 'find my faith' without the addition of people within churches influencing me in any way.
So, you had a religion of "one".
Are you to be congratulated for that?


How do you know that your beliefs are any truer than other Christian beliefs?


:)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #83

Post by William »

Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 78 by William]




[center]
It's true because I say so mentality[/center]


William wrote:
Because of this, my initial experience through that enabled me to 'find my faith' without the addition of people within churches influencing me in any way.
So, you had a religion of "one".
Are you to be congratulated for that?


How do you know that your beliefs are any truer than other Christian beliefs?


:)
Why do you think it is a competition? The reason I mentioned it was to underline that I was not overly influenced by any particular sub-set of Christian belief in the initial stages of my conversion.

Is that important? Perhaps it is.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #84

Post by William »

Kenisaw wrote:
Except that god claims throughout human history are riddled with interactions with the universe, which leave evidence. So they can, in fact, be examined by science. And yet, there isn't even one shred of data from any god being, ever.

The silence is deafening...
What 'god facts' are you speaking about here?
First off, not all things in the universe are individually unique. Not sure why you would think that. Show me a unique hydrogen atom.
That it can be called a hydrogen atom distinguishes it from other atoms. It is unique in that.

Why wouldn't a god have fingerprints? People are supposedly made in the image of such creatures. These fingerprints should be all over the place. All that saving people from tornadoes and winning lottery tickets and so forth. Someone needs to dust the Powerballs LOL...
:-s

Yes, the problem is it should be all over the place and it isn't.
Why do you think this?

Since it came from a god, I suppose it would be perfect in every way. Got any perfect farts in a jar? A fart that is fully human and fully not human...
I just lost interest in reading and replying to the rest of your post.
:study:

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Post #85

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 83 by William]


[center]Not going to church on Sundays anymore.[/center]

William wrote:
Why do you think it is a competition? The reason I mentioned it was to underline that I was not overly influenced by any particular sub-set of Christian belief in the initial stages of my conversion.

Is that important? Perhaps it is.
I think that you make it a competition when you said that your kind of religion is better than another kind of religion.

What I see you doing is exchanging group bias for personal bias. It's still bias. It's still "influence". You have an idea of what a god belief should be like, and then you do that. Others just accept a group set of beliefs. But all Christians have to start off with the Bible... interpretations vary.

I don't see why you should be congratulated for exchanging belief systems. You seem to still be a Christian, but perhaps one that doesn't have to go to church on Sundays. As an agnostic and a theist, I'm not upset by that.. you might not be inclined to donate your hard earned money to that church as much. It helps with the decline of religiosity if the tax free club houses have to close due to lack of attendance.


I ask you again about the truth of your beliefs. In what way are they more TRUE than any other Christian's beliefs? Do you care about the truth of your beliefs at all?

It seems to me that too many apologists never talk about how to verify if what they believe in so much is true or not, or ever give outsiders a rigorous method to find out for ourselves.


:)

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7906
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Post #86

Post by Clownboat »

Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 83 by William]


[center]Not going to church on Sundays anymore.[/center]

William wrote:
Why do you think it is a competition? The reason I mentioned it was to underline that I was not overly influenced by any particular sub-set of Christian belief in the initial stages of my conversion.

Is that important? Perhaps it is.
I think that you make it a competition when you said that your kind of religion is better than another kind of religion.

What I see you doing is exchanging group bias for personal bias. It's still bias. It's still "influence". You have an idea of what a god belief should be like, and then you do that. Others just accept a group set of beliefs. But all Christians have to start off with the Bible... interpretations vary.

I don't see why you should be congratulated for exchanging belief systems. You seem to still be a Christian, but perhaps one that doesn't have to go to church on Sundays. As an agnostic and a theist, I'm not upset by that.. you might not be inclined to donate your hard earned money to that church as much. It helps with the decline of religiosity if the tax free club houses have to close due to lack of attendance.


I ask you again about the truth of your beliefs. In what way are they more TRUE than any other Christian's beliefs? Do you care about the truth of your beliefs at all?

It seems to me that too many apologists never talk about how to verify if what they believe in so much is true or not, or ever give outsiders a rigorous method to find out for ourselves.


:)
I don't think that truth has much to do with it.
Some people just invent or tweak existing beliefs to make them palatable for themselves it seems. Sure explains all the religious options we have available today.

Congratulations for imagining a belief system that you find palatable. Reminds me of preconception Christianity personally.

(Believer A) "I see that you have lots of issues with many of the Bible stories". "Have you looked into Christianity "X"? "This Christianity lets you justify not having to believe in the Garden of Eden, a Global flood and many of the other issues you have with the Bible".

(Believer B) "OMG! Christianity X works for me!" "Therefore it must be the correct Christianity".

(Outsider) "But you have not shown the truth of this belief, you just changed (or adapted) an existing belief into a form of it that works for you".

(Christian B) "If only you could understand. Pearls before swines".
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Post #87

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 86 by Clownboat]




[center]"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin[/center]

Clownboat wrote:
(Christian B) "If only you could understand. Pearls before swines".

In all too many cases, it's the Dunning–Kruger effect before skeptics.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect



:)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #88

Post by William »

Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 83 by William]


[center]Not going to church on Sundays anymore.[/center]

William wrote:
Why do you think it is a competition? The reason I mentioned it was to underline that I was not overly influenced by any particular sub-set of Christian belief in the initial stages of my conversion.

Is that important? Perhaps it is.
I think that you make it a competition when you said that your kind of religion is better than another kind of religion.
Well what you think about me or my agenda, is relevant how?
What I see you doing is exchanging group bias for personal bias. It's still bias. It's still "influence". You have an idea of what a god belief should be like, and then you do that. Others just accept a group set of beliefs. But all Christians have to start off with the Bible... interpretations vary.
But I wasn't arguing that Blastcat. I was simply giving a story of an experience. I agree that personal bias come into the mix. It does that with everything. It is what casued you to give up Christianity.
Should I accuse YOU of competing against Christians because you think your way of thinking, as someone who now lacks belief in any gods, is better than your way of thinking before, as a Christian?
I don't see why you should be congratulated for exchanging belief systems.


Good. Who needs to be congratulated for their chosen preferred position?
You seem to still be a Christian, but perhaps one that doesn't have to go to church on Sundays.
You seem to be an atheist, but perhaps one who prefers to say he isn't. What of it?
As an agnostic and a theist, I'm not upset by that..
Well that's data which might come in handy.
you might not be inclined to donate your hard earned money to that church as much.
I don't donate any money whatsoever to any organised religion.

It helps with the decline of religiosity if the tax free club houses have to close due to lack of attendance.
Your bias is leaking through Blastcat. :)
I ask you again about the truth of your beliefs.
What truth as you speaking about in relation to these supposed beliefs which you claim that I have?
In what way are they more TRUE than any other Christian's beliefs?


I am not a Christian so I have no particular way of answering that. Perhaps ask me again without the assumptions.
Do you care about the truth of your beliefs at all?
What beliefs?

I do care about the truth. It is one of those things which is very well hidden and requires a lifetime of getting to the bottom of - At least for me, that is the case. It is a work in progress.
It seems to me that too many apologists never talk about how to verify if what they believe in so much is true or not, or ever give outsiders a rigorous method to find out for ourselves.
Its been said oft enough. The nature of the particular god idea we are dealing with here is 'seek and you shall find.' Hide and seek really. Individually subjective and if anyone wants evidence, they have to make the effort.

You cannot try cheating and demand that those who say they have some kind of contact with 'the gods' need to prove it to you before you too can 'believe'. It doesn't work that way.

You tried it and found it did not deliver and so chose to depart from that.

Perhaps you were barking up the wrong tree? Did someone tell you to believe this? What convinced you to think that the God in question would work in that way, and just come out of hiding when you say "I give up, where are you hiding?"

The game is on.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6144
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #89

Post by William »

Clownboat wrote:

I don't think that truth has much to do with it.
Some people just invent or tweak existing beliefs to make them palatable for themselves it seems. Sure explains all the religious options we have available today.

Congratulations for imagining a belief system that you find palatable. Reminds me of preconception Christianity personally.

(Believer A) "I see that you have lots of issues with many of the Bible stories". "Have you looked into Christianity "X"? "This Christianity lets you justify not having to believe in the Garden of Eden, a Global flood and many of the other issues you have with the Bible".

(Believer B) "OMG! Christianity X works for me!" "Therefore it must be the correct Christianity".

(Outsider) "But you have not shown the truth of this belief, you just changed (or adapted) an existing belief into a form of it that works for you".

(Christian B) "If only you could understand. Pearls before swines".
Filling in the gaps based on such limited knowledge of the individual you are attempting to make a strawman out of Clownboat?

Assumption is the cart before the horse. You don't have enough data in which to make the positive claim that I am 'some kind of Christian'.

Who I am is right now, beyond your ability to know for certain. You don't have enough data I am not a Christian of any sort, Clownboat. That should help you to cease and desist in labeling me as such, yes?

You have the benefit of my doubt. Steer away from the need to label people so that you can then make assuptions about them. It is the old strawman fallacy thingy going on there, The partaking of pointless waffle between peers in order to show rudeness and ignorance to the subject of their mirth.

Step up a notch Clownboat.





8-)

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2052
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #90

Post by Kenisaw »

William wrote:
Kenisaw wrote:
William wrote:
I am not asserting anything IS the case, only that it might be the case, which is not the same thing.
Semantics.
No. Similar things which are argued as 'different' is semantics
Exactly. Thanks for making my point.
Of course science can answer it. Why would you think otherwise?
Because it hasn't answered anything (in relation to the subject being discussed) . What makes you think that it has?
Science can comment on the complete and utter lack of any data or empirical evidence supporting the concept, and how the concept's properties violates what has been verified by scientific inquiry.
Which is precisely why it is a useless endeavor to undertake.
Useless for science to explore, indeed.
Useless to explore because there is no data or evidence for it, but not useless to note the illogical paradoxes that exist in the claims.
Not confusion. Pure speculation. Unless, that is, you have some empirical data you want to present to confirm such claims...got any?
What claims are you specifically referring to?
Whatever claims are being made in relation to the supernatural.
Then there is no reason to consider supernatural claims as a plausible explanation, which I believe is the point being made.
What supernatural claims are those? You don't say.
Any of them.

Experiences are not empirical evidence. If they were then you would consider Big Foot, UFOs, Zeus, Odin, and leprechauns as "possible".
Sure. I would consider the existence of some of these as probable, given the volume of evidence science has made available to us so far.
That volume is zero.
Do the math. The universe is so vast that the chances of Big Foot, Zeus, Odin, leprechaun, unicorns and fairy-like forms do indeed exist and are indeed experienced consciously.
The size of the universe does not increase the chances that magical creatures exist (that would exclude Big Foot presumably). Not sure why someone would claim that.
UFOs? I have witnessed these on occasion myself...not as flying machines, but as non-ordinary lights in the sky.
Uh-huh.
As to such beings having so-called 'supernatural' powers? Not in this universe, apparently.
No supernatural powers in this universe I agree.
As to the existence of GODs? Oh yeah. Only, they are not supernatural. They are quite the natural thing.
So is delusion.
You would credit the claim of Vishnu as being on par with the Islamic god for example.
What I credit is that the source of all GODs is the One GOD.
That, related to this neighborhood of the galaxy, amounts to; "there is a source to all of the god-ideas human beings have experienced, given names to and attempted explanations for."
Great. Prove it.
Empirical evidence is the reaction that the universe experiences when a god creature takes an action.
I am aware of this. When a GOD creature takes action in this universe, time is involved. There is plenty of space in which to take action, and plenty of time to do it.
Not the point. There will always be evidence created as a result. Those reactions to the universe can't be found by anyone, anywhere.
Just like a beach reacts to your walking on it (footprint), a divine critter taking human form, speaking to people, causing natural disasters, making stuff, etc must leave evidence behind. And of course no one has any.
Here you are tending to superimpose concepts on top of each other. To explain...;
Just like a beach reacts to your walking on it (footprint),...
No. A GOD in this universe does not instantly manifest evidence, so the footprint analogy is misrepresenting the action.
The footprint in the sand is the action of GOD through human (or whatever made the footprint) form. That took a long time to manifest.
Nonsense. There are plenty of specific claims of specific god creatures doing specific things. That's the god itself doing it, not making a human do it. If such events did and do happen then evidence has to be created.
...a divine critter taking human form, speaking to people, causing natural disasters, making stuff, etc must leave evidence behind. And of course no one has any.
You are speaking about the stories of human beings relaying a witness of supernatural powers coming from 'special' human beings and it is in the very existence of such stories that the 'footprint' has been made.
Nonsense. There are plenty of specific claims of specific god creatures doing specific things. That's the god itself doing it, not making a human do it. If such events did and do happen then evidence has to be created.
We can complain that the stories are made up by liars, fools, cheaters, woo-slingers, et al, or we can leave those questions unanswered so's not to make out of them a barrier to any other possibly conclusion being made on the subject of GOD.
This is a fascinating comment on multiple levels. You want to ignore all manner of baseless claims we find in "stories" because you feel it keeps people from being open to other conclusions about a god. I can see why you'd want to do this, because you are smart enough to realize the devil is in the details, and the stories usually contain specifics which can be readily and easily challenged. The more people realize the logical paradox of supernatural claims, the less likely they are to buy into even the very generic nonspecific flavors.

Of course the vast majority of believers find out about the supernatural via such stories. I believe your friend you first talked to about your god was from a specific denomination with a specific brand of religion. Stories and claims were shared. Now such stories are an impediment to making conclusions about that god.

Problem is, which one of you is supposed to be right? There are thousands of sects of Christianity alone. I see believers telling each other that they don't truly understand and are "wrong" all the time, at this site and everywhere else too. And all those different understandings come from the same place too, the same stories.

The stories aren't a barrier, they are a window into the bigger problem.
GOD does not exist as a supernatural entity? If so, why refer to the idea of such a being as GOD?
I have no reason to think a god exists at all.
Well, how I do it is to understand that if there is a SOURCE for all these experiences which become stories - taking my own subjective experiences into consideration as well, what we may think of as 'supernatural' might have to be redefined a tad for that.
It is of course your right as a human to have that understanding. As there is zero data for such a source, I consider it conjecture.
The mind, by the way, is within the physical universe. There is no data that supports any notion that the human mind exists outside of the physical structure of your brain.
There is no data to say that the minds of everyone are connected to the mind of this GOD.
I don't hold much hope in science explaining consciousness in any other way that as you describe. Due to my own experiences I am not convinced. Add that to everyone else who share there experiences, I am even less convinced.

But on that note, I still agree that 'whatever the mind is' it is still within this physical universe, so no - no 'supernatural' there.
I hold out hope that science will explain consciousness precisely as it actually is, whatever that may be. I don't have an expected outcome as you do, I only seek the empirical truth of the phenomena.
Even my understanding of the Astral Realm is that it exists in the mind of the GOD hereabouts in this system of the galaxy. We are about as separate from the goings on of that mind as we are from each other.

Hardly at all. :)
That would be pure conjecture in my opinion, but you are welcome to it if it satisfies you.
There are several threads in this forum on the topic if you care to peruse them at your leisure...
Oh I have studied the 'brain is god-creator of consciousness' theories enough to know that they explain nothing to my satisfaction. Same goes for supernatural god theories.
Glad to see you've read up on it. It is interesting stuff.
Science isn't looking to eradicate anything. Not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.
If one supports getting rid of all ideas of god from the human mind, one can try to convert them with 'reason' and good luck with that. I think it superfluous myself, but each to their own.
If, however, the need was great and the support for it greater still, legalized ways could be explored toward that intent through science. Perhaps the brain could be manipulated enough to make that happen?
Again, this is not the agenda of anyone that I am aware of. I am for logic based, rational examinations of things, be it a phenomena or a political dispute or social ideal. If everyone approached life with reason and rational thought, baseless speculation like gods would disappear as a natural result, not through a forced effort or conspiracy.
Nonsense. What exists in the human mind is not representative of reality.
Depends upon the human.
To a small extent, true. But most of it is a hard wired result. Everyone experiences adjusted reality from what their sensory tools take in.
Watch a show like Brain Games for example. Your brain distorts and changes the data into the perception that you recognize.
To what degree? If it is happening to everyone, how is it that we can still focus in and acknowledge an overall reality we call 'the universe'? The answer has to be that our minds are together experiencing the universe and we then interpret things from that point.
There is no evidence that any person's mind is experiencing anything in conjunction with any other mind. From a common sense point of view, given the obvious statement that every single person is different, I don't see how anyone could think humans are experiencing the universe "together". That makes no sense whatsoever.

The reason we can still focus and acknowledge the reality of the universe is because of the scientific method and the fact that our brains are all similarly constructed. It's why verification and validation of claims is so damn important. It's also how we've come to realize that there are differences between the physical makeup of some people. Things like color blindness show that there are differences for example. That's why empirical data matters.
We are taught to see it in 'this' way or in 'that' way. Its existence though, does not in any way mean that it wasn't created by the purpose of Intelligent Design.
Some people perhaps are taught that way. Eventually though we are taught the scientific method way. We are taught to observe things and explain them as objectively as possible. Then we see how that compares to other explanations. No one is forced to conclude everything. Any conclusion is free to be retested and re-examined at anytime by anyone. That's the best way to do it in my opinion.

I agree with you regarding existence. Existence of the universe does not prove intent or lack of intent. it does not prove creation and it does not prove the Big Bang. The only thing the existence of the universe proves is that the universe does indeed exist.
Our understanding of consciousness is still very much in its infancy stage. We haven't yet altogether agreed as to what we are and what part we play in this unfolding reality.

We are still trying to understand ourselves in relation to consciousness.
Totally agree that we have a lot more to understand about consciousness.

I don't know what data would lead anyone to believe there is a part to "play", other than the biological drive to continue the species...
We are consciousness. Why did the brain have any need to invent us? The brain is a mindless organ without 'needs'.
"We" are not consciousness. Each individual has consciousness, and that extends to many species in the rest of the animal kingdom too. The brain evolved the way it did because the changes it experienced were either a selective advantage or at least neutral enough that they happened to survive. There was no guarantee that we would end up as we have.
"It was simply an accident of chemical reaction!"

That argument gets circular extremely quickly without GOD in the picture, which is precisely why the idea of GOD is (still) in the picture.
That's not really an accurate representation of abiogenesis, but let's run with your statement. Why is it circular?
Striping all ideas of gods of their supernatural abilities can still leave us with at least one idea of GOD, as I have already explained.
Why do we need even one idea of a god creature?
There's plenty of data on this, as well as gobs of research that shows how the "truth" of a situation varies greatly from person to person. The most famous example is having someone run into a classroom to "steal" something off the teacher's desk. The descriptions given by the students vary greatly, including even the race and gender of the perpetrator. That's why personal experience is useless in discussions such as these. It isn't empirical.
What I said. It is circular. The only way to deal with it which is even remotely 'scientific' is to study all the subjective stories of personal experience and through that, perhaps get a larger appreciation for what might just be be going on here.
Uh, it's not circular, but whatever. As far as dealing with it -There are people studying the brain to try to understand how it works.
As pointed out, subjective experience comes with its own problems. Even alternate experiences (associated with religion/woo) are interpreted by the one who has had the experience, thus different belief systems are created based on other data of experience the individual has - to do with the culturally social over-group that the individual is within.
These will influence the individual and this is why groups are formed as subsets of the over-group.
This is precisely why a more scientific approach to the question has to develop. Not easy, considering the subjectivity involved. We find ourselves in this universe.
Not easy, but worth the effort. Of course since any or all of them could just be lying, subjective experience is pretty useless as a study tool. Investigating the structure, reaction, and psych makeup of people's brains at least gives us a base line to start from.
William: I am not asserting anything IS the case, only that it might be the case, which is not the same thing.

What it amounts to is that the individual making the demand has to make the effort rather than the 'evidence' being given to the demanding on a silver platter so to speak.
Someone else's experiences are no substitute for your own, and all that can be said is to encourage the demanding to seek for themselves and see what might happen...

That's rather backwards. Someone wants to claim it is true, they get to prove it. If they can't then there is no logical reason to take their claim as plausible.
No it isn't backwards, given the subject being discussed.
I cannot prove GOD to you. All I can say is that GOD is proved to me, at least as a probability, but then again, what I refer to as 'GOD' might not be what YOU think a GOD should be.
Yes it is backwards, because you don't seem to understand why it isn't comparable. Since no one can have the same experience as you, there is no way to establish a baseline of comparison. Can you delineate what you ate that day, what the atmospheric conditions were, how much sleep you got, what your fitness level was, what allergens were present, what your blood toxicology was? How can you be sure what did and did not affect how your input systems received information and how your brain processed that data? You can't. In fact, I'll guarantee you don't have the first clue.

And of course the big elephant that is always in the room is that you could be lying to us. We wouldn't have any way to know. Why should anyone try to repeat something that they can't even say for sure actually happened to you? What folly.

And yet other people also claim to have a god proven to them. They claim to have personal experience of some godly creature. Of course their conclusions are always different than everyone else's. Amazingly, they are just as sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

How do you know that they aren't right and you just had a weird case of heartburn combined with a reaction to grass pollen?

Which is why your claim is your responsibility to support. You don't have to tell me you can't prove a god exists, I already know you can't. That's why you want to push the onus onto others. You aren't the first believer to try that slant. Meanwhile, I will continue to question such claims and demand for an accounting of anyone who proposes to have knowledge of something baseless like god creatures...
But that is a minor point.
It's the whole point, William.
You can't possibly know either way.


Exactly. All I have is my own experiences. I acknowledge that YOU cannot have MY experiences, so how are YOU to know I actually have them, or that I am lying about having them or telling the truth, or interpreting them as something supernatural when 'the brain' can explain everything without having to mention ideas of GOD (supernatural or not).

For me, the explanation 'the brain did it' is too inadequate as it presumes too much about the brain as it hand-waves away Intelligent Design in order for the presumption to have affect.
It doesn't presume anything. We know brains are real. We know they act as the central processing area for our input systems. We know that part of the brain stores information. There are things that we know about the brain.

We do not know everything about the brain. One thing we don't know is the limits of the human brain. You, however, presume that the brain is inadequate. A baseless claim you cannot base on evidence. You assume something like ID is real, a baseless claim you cannot base on evidence. All, of course, in support of your assertion that there is a god creature that you've experienced, yet another baseless claim that you cannot base on evidence.

It's up to you to support your claims William....
William: Another reason why someone might want to speak of their experiences and subsequent beliefs regarding those experiences is that they wish to test them out in the face of opposition to see if the opposition can come up with reasonable arguments which may, at the very least, separate beliefs that have attached themselves to the experience(s) from the experiences themselves.
Let's hope that is the case. I'd like to think at least some people come in here with an open mind.
You seem to imply that this is not so far the case.
I imply that I'd like to think at least some people come in here with an open mind.
I apologize if I am wrong here, but I have seen this tactic by cultists in the past, but don't know if this is your end game. They want to make their god creature claims but don't want anyone challenging them. That way some wayward person can visit this site and read their unsupported conjecture and possibly think it is true. To let any such speculation go unchallenged, regardless of the topic, is irresponsible of a society. Ideas should always be debated and discussed. Not all ideas are of equal value, and the better ones should win out over the lesser ones. Letting bad ideas go unchecked is itself a really bad idea...
I have no 'end game' that I am aware of. I am propelled by a number of reasons which could be considered agenda, but specifically not really my agenda, or my idea.

One of those reasons is that I see the human potential to transform the present systems of disparity inherited down the line, into a system of parity.

Given the systems of disparity currently honed to near perfection in this day and age, it can be logically argued that they can be sourced at a cult-like initial position and have and thus will continue to have a negative affect on the majority of humanity.
Such systems are taught to be protected, invested in, fought for, and die for by the very population controlled by said systems.

Why? Because it is the result of letting bad ideas go unchecked and thus, yes - a really bad idea overall.
There's a lot in that last statement. I don't think it can all be broken down here as you have opened several new topics. All I will say is that equality is my ideal as well. All individuals have the same value. All individuals deserve the same basic rights. Equality of success, however, is not guaranteed, nor should it be. If you would like to discuss anything in particular I'm sure we can do so in another thread.
From your perspective the topics are separate, From mine they are intricately integrated.

My idea of GOD (through personal subjective experience) has taught me that GOD in action, requires parity. Anything else is a path to disaster.
Said another way, consciousness (to be specific) human consciousness requires parity.
This can be seen in the formation of subsets related to survival, but zoom out and what is found is that these pockets of party rely on systems of disparity to even function as pockets of parity.
This is not to assume therefore that systems of disparity create the opportunity for pockets of parity. These pockets of parity are actually what allow for the systems of disparity to exist - even that their existence is not permanent and subject to the fickle winds of fate.

Survival in a nutshell, but one historically proven to end badly for the majority (losers), time and again.

Rather these pockets of parity have to utilize their positions by seeing the logic in getting together to design a system of parity to replace the systems of disparity currently governing them. (Winners, one and all).
No such thing as everyone being a winner. It's a fine ideal, and cannot possibly exist in reality.
I don't agree that it is anyone's responsibility to build a shared system of parity. You get guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, not the achievement of it.
That's just prison talk.
Which is precisely why there is so much unhappiness. Theism allows for subsets to be happy in unhappy circumstances. To be free to at least that degree, whilst incarcerated.
Atheism allows for subsets to say that happiness is to be found in disparity and too bad if you don't succeed in making it happen for yourself using the materials available, which are governed over by systems of disparity.

However, it is undeniable that without the poor, the rich would not exist. Tell that to the poor and see why they turn to ideas of GOD as a source of happiness, (among other things) when material happiness is beyond their reach, because systems of disparity make it that way.

♪"Give me that Old Time System of Disparity" ♫
*sung it gospel tradition*
Disparity is the reality of the universe William.
I'll fully admit right here and now that I am probably more hardline on this matter than most people in here. Life has winners and losers. It is impossible to create a utopia.
Did I not mention already that utopias are presently being built by those who can afford them? So no - the concept is not only imaginable, it is also possible to make real. The evidence is there to observe in the lifestyles of the rich and famous 'winners'.

Even the losers can acknowledge that the evidence exists.
Those are attempted utopias perhaps. There are no true utopias. Name 1 person that is completely happy and satisfied with their life as it currently stands. The definition of utopia is - "1.an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect." Good luck finding an utopia...There aren't any.
'Winners and losers" are what make those micro utopias a reality for those who can afford them.
Better off doesn't necessarily equal utopia. I'm sure you know about the studies relating to money and happiness. Just because the rich are more satisfied with life than the poor doesn't mean they've achieved perfection. It even matters what day you ask the question about happiness. As University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers, who has done studies on this type of thing, has said: "The affective measure raises a puzzle. “No one has resolved that puzzle. It’s an interesting, open question"...
But I hear what you are saying. You like things the way they are, thank you very much.
No, I'm saying I understand and accept the reality of the universe, and don't pretend imaginary beings can alter that reality.
And furthermore you will continue to live for, invest in, and protect your interests in the present systems of disparity which makes you at least a potential winner.

But at least you are trying, right?
Wrong again. You assume you know how I live my life, how I treat other humans, animals, and the planet itself, and how I judge my happiness and self worth just because I understand how life really works? Your presumptiveness is off the charts.....

Post Reply