A note that will pain most atheists

[MaddLlama]

If I said that I had actually seen a flying pink invisible unicorn, would you think I was crazy, or just making it up?

 

[Darkness]

At first I thought you were arrogant Chevalier Violet, but now I see your purpose more clearly. I misunderstood the point and purpose of your words. I think your wager is fair, pray and ask God to come into you, do all you can to reach God, and if you find nothing then consider the idea of there being no God.

 

[gnostic]

If I said that I had actually seen a flying pink invisible unicorn, would you think I was crazy, or just making it up?

First of all, if it was invisible, how can you tell it was pink? Again, if it was invisible, how can you tell it was flying unicorn?

So, what is invisible, then it can't be seen. :cover:

...Well, that's how I defines invisible.

I wasn't sure if you were asking me this question.

 

[MaddLlama]

First of all, if it was invisible, how can you tell it was pink? Again, if it was invisible, how can you tell it was flying unicorn?

So, what is invisible, then it can't be seen. :cover:

...Well, that's how I defines invisible.

I wasn't sure if you were asking me this question.

It's invisible to everyone who doesn't believe it exists.

 

[gnomon]

I prefer the belief that a troll on the planet Exodus 9 farted our existence into being. I have made this claim.

Do you believe me? If you don't then you are on a self-deluded path towards personal destruction.

To wonder why educated individuals cannot understand the difference between non-belief and the positive assertion of negative belief. It boggles the intellectual mind.

 

[gnostic]

It's invisible to everyone who doesn't believe it exists.

Well, I have not seen any pink, flying unicorn.

There could be several possibilities.

• You have been drinking.
• You are delusional.
• You have been on drug or medication.
• You were dreaming or daydreaming about a unicorn.
• You have active imagination.
• Or it is real.

Now, I can't say which category you are saying.

I have seen something that's only was only illusionary.

I saw tiny white stars floating before my eyes. It has happened a few times. It was probably due to sitting up or standing up too fast. Or at that time, I was sick, or I was feeling dehydrated. I don't know what's the real cause of me seeing stars.

Are they real? Well, I know these stars are not real, and yet I saw them.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

We do not know why there is something rather than nothing, neither do we know the deep why of an event. We can describe what happens, but not why it happens in the way that it does. Empirical “knowledge” is not knowledge at all, but the custom of our expectations and the discernment of patterns. Since we don’t why order comes about in the universe or why energy behaves the way it does, and since we can only describe the processes, we can just as easily say design comes from within the nature of world as from without. The universe could come about as the result of reality’s intrinsic nature, the same way a plant grows from a seed.

I love it.

But for the presence of consciousness in the world and the results of scientific inquiry, we could say this wins out over religion’s cosmological teleological arguments.

Would you say a bit more about this?

However, Bell’s theorem, the Aspect experiments and various forms of the double-slit experiment all point to a holistic worldview. If, as countless experiments suggest, the universe is holistic rather than composed of relatively isolated and interacting bits and pieces, the logical consequences are upsetting to both atheists and classical theists. A holistic universe coupled to the human ability to make a conscious decision to use the body to clip the body’s toenail, for example, compels us to understand the universe infused with units of free will so that all of them, together, make the universe what it is by acting upon it holistically and non-locally.

That sounds like pantheism/panentheism to me... am I off on this one?

In order to preserve the notion that matter-energy rather than consciousness is the dominant feature of the universe, atheists choose to ignore the science and assert that consciousness is an emergent property of matter acting locally rather than something that is intrinsic to the nature of reality. They have no choice. For if they were to admit to consciousness as intrinsic to reality, it would justify belief in a non-contingent and spacetime-transcending consciousness— God— and be seen as a justification for religious values.

Classical theism doesn’t like the idea any more than atheism. They see it as undermining God’s authority in the universe and therefore its own. It encourages people to find their own salvation and their own place in the universe, to go with what works for them rather than relying on an authority, whether it’s a preacher of some kind or a scripture.

Organized religion don't like that free-spirit thinking stuff, no sirree.

Atheists don't like calling God anything but an illusion.

Man, I loved that post.

RS, what did you think of the main thrust of my argument? I stole most of it from philosophy of science anyway. My thinking is that religion is a special epistemic case.. that's because most religious truths are perceived in the heart. This makes social demonstration next to impossible, but on the other hand makes social demonstration, hearsay, and pure logic (as opposed to a combination of logic and personal experience) completely unnecessary.

It seems to me that anyone can perceive this "God" (and therefore have personal evidence). If this is true then everyone should at least try to perceive God.

I am fine with agnosticism, or people who don't really care one way or the other to know the truth. It just bugs me when atheists declare that God is a delusion. It seems to me an "I'm sane so you're crazy" kind of argument, and that just strikes me as fundamentally arrogant.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

From what I understand about this, that no-one, not even believers (except perhaps a few prophets) can personally see God, with their own eyes.

Any Christian or Muslim, or whatever background, can see God must be delusional, because God is not likely to make visual appearance. Even majority of prophets don't actually see God, unless they are exceptionally special to God. Often prophets can hear God's messages or commandments, visions that are sent to the prophets. The visions may be sent by God, but that doesn't even mean God will appear in these visions.

It does not say anywhere that Noah actually saw God, but he did hear God's commandment.

Then the question become how do you have a personal experience without seeing God?

Ok this is going to sound mean to some of the other posters. When I read your post Gnostic, I was like, wow this guy appears to be an atheist/agnostic, he has apparently never had a vision of God before, yet he's saying something that I haven't heard 7,000 times already. I was amazed. I don't know, I feel like atheists pride themselves on free-thinking, and yet the ones I've met seem to say the same thing. In fact, I'm starting to equate atheism in my mind with "obsession with pointing out that it's theoretically possible that God is a delusion." Then again I've met Christians who simply cannot accept that any point of view but theirs could have any validity, so perhaps I am just standing the in the middle of a trench.

Anyway, I'm happy to have benefited from posting this.

You ask a question that I think is excellent: just who can see this vision of God?

I have to say that from my perspective it is rather ridiculous this notion that "only prophets can see God." Just about every Christian I know has seen God. Maybe I just assumed wrong about certain people, but I know my brother, my friend, another friend and a third have all personally seen God. I don't think we're prophets (not more than anybody else) and I don't believe we are delusional. I'll ask everyone again.

(just to be perfectly clear, we are not delusional but perhaps these visions were ultimately delusions. The skeptic's dictionary theorizes that we are biologically programmed for God to appear to people. This seems just a little bit outlandish to me, but it is certainly plausible. Those are the sorts of "delusions" we had).

I should also clarify that to call these "visions" is actually a bit of a metaphor. I would like once again to blame this all on the Christians and I will. They talk about seeing God as if God walked into the room and sat down on a chair. A vision of God is not the sort of thing we perceive with our literal eyes. It is like a dream but it feels real. Seeing God felt like the realization of something I had always known was true. Not to say that it is, it just feels really, really true. I suppose you would reduce this to wishful thinking.

Anyway, It is not a social observation or demonstration but a personal one.

This probably seems outlandish, but the notion that our hearts perceive reality is present in the idea of intuition.

God is simply a feeling, and in heightened religious moments a presence. "Visions of God" where we actually see "God" are like dreams in the sense that we choose visual imagery to express that feeling. It is like in a dream where the form of the dream can be almost anything but the content is my emotions.

So in short, I see this idea of "only prophets can see God" as more about social control in organized religions than truth. Personally, one of my strongest beliefs is that people should look and see for themselves when it comes to religious matters... because I believe we all can. I am a bit disgusted by people who insist we should believe in God based on faith alone. This seems like a ridiculous and twisted reasoning to me - and I believe in God.

I believe that people should believe in things based on their own personal experience. If atheists cannot perceive this God, I think it would be reasonable for them to stop assuming that God is a delusion, and take a more agnostic point of view.

When I lay down in bed seven years ago, I thought God was a delusion. Then as I lay awake, a most frightening and yet comforting vision came to me, and I didn't know what to think anymore.

So I would ask you to have a personal experience by seeing God.

Anyway, would you like to learn how to have a vision of God? I have no idea if I can teach you or not.

One thing that's very, very new with what I'm saying is this idea of teaching how to see God. This is unheard of. I mean the Christians obviously have no clue how to get people to do this, they just sort of assume that if people hear the "Good book" enough, people will magically agree with them. Personally, that cracks me up. Have you ever noticed that Christians cite that book as often as possible, 1) to show that there is a basis for what they believe, and 2) as if it were a magic charm.

Anyway, this whole idea of "teaching how to have a vision of God" is completely new, because according to the Christians it's not supposed to be possible, and besides, it's not supposed to be learnable. According to them, it's supposed to be self-evident that God exists.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

If I said that I had actually seen a flying pink invisible unicorn, would you think I was crazy, or just making it up?

Making it up to draw some sort of analogy between what I'm saying and Flying Pink Invisible Unicorns. Now I have mentioned earlier that I am a devout and infinitely faithful believer in FIU's but that they are pink, this pinkness is nothing but blasphemy.

I am not asking you to believe in FIU's or in God. I am asking you to look for yourself and try to find God for yourself.

That said, there is one big, huge difference between FIU's and God, and that's this.

FIU's, ok, I felt one float by my window, but I believe in God so I'm delusional right. I could see anything now.

But consider the fact that only you and I have ever experienced an FIU/FPIU. On the other hand, MILL-EE-UNS of people have reported perceiving God. Not just like loonybin people, people who are by all reports and even atheists agree that they are sane, rational, humble, level-headed people, and lots of people like this perceive God.

This means, to me at least, that we should at least take this claim seriously. Whereas our claim, it's just such a minority thing, and seems to be far from universal. Yes it's possible it's collective delusion, yes it's possible that we're biologically wired to perceive God. But the converse is equally possible. It's possible that atheists just haven't looked in the right way for this thing. Or maybe we're biologically wired to perceive reality.

Yes there are crazy, fundamentalist Christians. There are crazy fundamentalist atheists (they just aren't part of an organized religion, that's all). I think it's a basic matter of respect for atheists to ask themselves "am I missing something here? Why don't I see this."

On the other side of the aisle, oh man I can't stand how arrogant many Christians are too, who can't seem to ask themselves "might this be a delusion?" It's like you're both too afraid to really tangle with the other side.

At first I thought you were arrogant Chevalier Violet, but now I see your purpose more clearly. I misunderstood the point and purpose of your words. I think your wager is fair, pray and ask God to come into you, do all you can to reach God, and if you find nothing then consider the idea of there being no God.

Haha, well I am arrogant, but I'd like to think my ideas aren't too vain. Humility is my faith so I think it would be bad news if a bunch of arrogant inanities were flying out of my mouth. I think that means I'd be going straight to hell, but I haven't double checked that with the man upstairs (aka my "delusions") so don't quote me on that

I prefer the belief that a troll on the planet Exodus 9 farted our existence into being. I have made this claim.

Do you believe me? If you don't then you are on a self-deluded path towards personal destruction.

Whoa whoa whoa, ok mr. sarcasm, it's time for a time-out. You have been consorting with the wrong Christians bro, I'm serious. What is that crap, that's what you think religion is? I can see why you would be an atheist.

I am talking about perceiving "God" for yourself. Not "you're going to hell because I say so, no doomfilled threats, no fire and brimstone.

I am fine with non-belief in God. Once any atheist makes the claim that visions of God are a delusion, I say, "You may be right, but look and see for yourself, then decide." I'm going to say that, like a broken record, until the end of time.

Because 1.) It's possible for EVERYONE to perceive "God. 2.) It is the scientific and inquisitive thing to do. 3.) Everyone agrees that personal experience is better than speculation.

To wonder why educated individuals cannot understand the difference between non-belief and the positive assertion of negative belief. It boggles the intellectual mind.

I don't know who that is directed to. I just hope you understand that the dictionary definition of atheism is positive assertion of negative belief, and agnosticism tends to be "non-belief." Some guys accused me of misunderstanding atheism and then went ahead and misdefined it. Dictionary.com if you have any questions.

Well, I have not seen any pink, flying unicorn.

There could be several possibilities.

• You have been drinking.
• You are delusional.
• You have been on drug or medication.
• You were dreaming or daydreaming about a unicorn.
• You have active imagination.
• Or it is real.

Now, I can't say which category you are saying.

I have seen something that's only was only illusionary.

I saw tiny white stars floating before my eyes. It has happened a few times. It was probably due to sitting up or standing up too fast. Or at that time, I was sick, or I was feeling dehydrated. I don't know what's the real cause of me seeing stars.

Are they real? Well, I know these stars are not real, and yet I saw them.

I have covered the first half adequately. I think we could safely define atheism as an obsession, indeed a fundamental physical need to point out every four seconds that a vision of God could ultimately not have any fundament in reality.

Seriously, how many times did I mention in the OP that this vision could ultimately be irreal? It felt like every sentence. And yet how many times has someone said, through sarcasm or just directly, that a vision of God could ultimately be illusory?

I'm a bit frustrated. I can't think of a way to talk about visions of God without atheists saying, over and over, "it's theoretically possible that this vision of God is an illusion."

Then I say, well it's theoretically possible that this vision of God is based in something real. What is going on? I am being perfectly agnostic here, I have no idea what's true.

I say, you can and should see what you call a "delusion" for yourself. Because literally millions of sane, rational people have this "delusion" and believe it is based in reality. And people say, "yeah but it could be a delusion. Yeah but it could be a delusion."

Help me here, I just have no idea if it's even possible to get past this point with certain atheists.

CV

 

[Panda]

Well CV maybe im not an athiest then.

Perhaps if i sumed up what i believe would be best, this is kinda taken from another topic, but re-written.

Some guy has an invisible friend, lets call him Colin, his invisible friend is called lets say Steve. Ok now to this person Steve is 100% real, from Colin's point of view Steve influences and changes things for him. Steve listens to him and gives him guidance. However for the outside observer, lets take me, what i see is Colin doing things, i see Colin making the changes not Steve. I see Colin thinking about problems and solveing them for himself. I don't see Steve once, therefore to me Steve isn't real. So when Colin starts talking about Steve, and thanking Steve for helping him I get confused. I see the things that Colin has done, I watched him do it and admire his work, because from my point of view Colin, not Steve, done these things.

Now is we replace "Colin" with theist and "Steve" with God, we get how I see religion. People listening to themselves, and doing great things, yet claiming it was God. I don't see God doing these things, I see the theist doing these things for himself.
My point is I don't see Gods influence, I see humanity's influence. I see humanity doing great things, I never once see this "God" character. Who to me is just as fictional as Steve was.


So when you tell me to look inside myself for God, I only find me. I find my hopes, my dreams. I find my potential for good and my potential for evil. In essence i find everything that makes up me nothing more and nothing less.

 

[doppelganger]

I agree, the link between perception and deity is a subjective leap.

And I agree with every epistemic problem you raised. Perhaps it is environment, imagination etc. These are all very plausible.

One must have a "God" spot on one's interpretive template to have "God" experiences. An experience of "God" occurs in language. It is not direct experience of the divine. It is an interpretation. Atheists have direct experiences of the loss of the subject/object divide. Perhaps they just don't put a spot on their interpretive template called "God" into which it fits.

We have a tendency to imagine our subjective interpretations as having a reality outside of our thoughts. With regard to "God," atheists generally resist that tendency.

 

[MaddLlama]

I have covered the first half adequately. I think we could safely define atheism as an obsession, indeed a fundamental physical need to point out every four seconds that a vision of God could ultimately not have any fundament in reality.

Seriously, how many times did I mention in the OP that this vision could ultimately be irreal? It felt like every sentence. And yet how many times has someone said, through sarcasm or just directly, that a vision of God could ultimately be illusory?

I'm a bit frustrated. I can't think of a way to talk about visions of God without atheists saying, over and over, "it's theoretically possible that this vision of God is an illusion."

Then I say, well it's theoretically possible that this vision of God is based in something real. What is going on? I am being perfectly agnostic here, I have no idea what's true.

I say, you can and should see what you call a "delusion" for yourself. Because literally millions of sane, rational people have this "delusion" and believe it is based in reality. And people say, "yeah but it could be a delusion. Yeah but it could be a delusion."

Help me here, I just have no idea if it's even possible to get past this point with certain atheists.

If you can define atheism as an "obsession", why is it so frustrating that atheists can define theism as a "delusion"?

Atheists are not obsessed with pointing out that God doesn't exist. Really, most atheists are more interested in thinking about more important issues. You're the one that started this thread, insisting that atheists are wrong. If you hadn't, I'm sure that there would have been a precious few atheists here running around telling everyone who believed in god that they were delusional.

Personally, I look for the rational and logical explanation of something before I attribute it to something supernatural, and most atheists I know do too. If there is no guarantee that a "vision of God" isn't some sort of illusion or the effect of some bad shrimp, then there is no reason to assume right off the bat that it's actually a vision of god. There has to be a reason to discount the logical and rational explanation first. So far it doesn't look like you've provided an adequate reason to.

And, frankly, I don't understand how you expect an atheist to have a vision of something that person doesn't believe exists.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Now is we replace "Colin" with theist and "Steve" with God, we get how I see religion.

So when you tell me to look inside myself for God, I only find me. I find my hopes, my dreams. I find my potential for good and my potential for evil. In essence i find everything that makes up me nothing more and nothing less.

Yes I know, you didn't understand atheism.

Gee, calling God an imaginary friend - you might be right. Again, about 20 other atheists have said the same thing. Please look up one of the other 20 responses I've given to that reply.

So when you tell me to look inside myself for God, I only find me. I find my hopes, my dreams.

Yeah I know you do, that's because you haven't found God there before. Which is why this thread is for you.

There is a chasm dividing most atheists and some theists: evidence. The scientific, the inquisitive thing to do is to have the same evidence as the atheist, to run the same experiment and then judge upon the same grounds as the theist whether or not God exists. Theists perceive God, you don't.

And just to be clear, I had an imaginary friend when I was 7. He was great, I don't remember his name, but man was this imaginary friend powerful. He beat up my brother's imaginary friend pretty good, or so I thought.

I subscribed to this "imaginary friend" theory of God for years until one day, out of nowhere, I had a very real seeming vision that God's presence was there and had always been there, and all of a sudden my consciousness expanded to the ends of the universe and exploded in an orgasmic flame.

Moral of the story, if God is imaginary, then my imaginary friend is way cooler than yours. The other funny thing is that a vision of God feels like the revelation of something I had ALWAYS known, like a feeling I had denied.

It seems pretty self-evident to me that seeking that "feeling denied" is kind of the same thing as growing up. So if my experience is in any way universal, it would be a good idea for people to look for this thing.

One must have a "God" spot on one's interpretive template to have "God" experiences. An experience of "God" occurs in language. It is not direct experience of the divine. It is an interpretation. Atheists have direct experiences of the loss of the subject/object divide. Perhaps they just don't put a spot on their interpretive template called "God" into which it fits.

We have a tendency to imagine our subjective interpretations as having a reality outside of our thoughts. With regard to "God," atheists generally resist that tendency.

The first sentence is absolutely spot-on. Having visions of God is all about knowing where to find God in my heart. I could never perceive God until one day, I had a vision of God, and then from then on, I could meaningfully converse with this presence (real or imaginary, it did NOT feel imaginary, although for the millionth time I admit it could have been).

What I think you're missing here, and which you obviously could not understand if you're an atheist, is one of the properties of visions of God God is that they are like riding a bicycle. Once you learn you never forget how, but learning isn't always easy for everyone.

I would like to clarify that a vision of God does NOT occur in language. A vision of God is in fact one of the most wordless events a person will ever experience. I don't know if it is direct revelation of something, but it sure feels like it. I remember a few words being spoken during my first vision of God, but most of it involved direct communication of thought, instant understandings of things etc.

But you're right that once that vision was over, it was my thoughts that assigned causation to the experience. I thought, "wow so that's why people believe in God!" (one of my first thoughts after being released from the vision, for I had never fallen asleep) as opposed to "wow that was a great delusion!"

You're right that atheists resist a certain explanation of experience "that vision of God was actually some entity called God." But if you read this thread, you will see how many atheists have simply said, "God is a delusion" through sarcasm, analogy (Imaginary Friend) or just directly. So it seems to me that atheists are just as "stuck" on one explanation for that experience of God (delusion) as the Christians are stuck that this vision WAS God (credulity). Both are plausible.

So I don't see any evidence that most atheists resist any tendency at all, and in fact, I see atheists as very much like the Christians in their inability to let go in some concrete sense of their own convictions and have more humility.

If you can define atheism as an "obsession", why is it so frustrating that atheists can define theism as a "delusion"?

Wow, you amaze me. I must have said at least twenty times in my OP and then another hundred since, that atheists indeed CAN define theism as a delusion. This is plausible, possible, rational, and in their case logical.

It is frustrating because you insist on telling me what I already know and have already told you is true a thousand times.

So you ask me why is it frustrating. I will tell you why, it's like talking to somebody and I say "oh there's a stop sign over there" and they say, "well did you know, CV, that there's a stop sign over there?"

Me: "Look, a parking space."
Atheist: "Yeah, but you need to understand something. There's a parking space over there."
Me: "I just told you there's a parking space."
Atheist: "I know, but CV there's a parking space over there."

Frustrating right? I feel like I'm not being listened to... I don't like it.

You're the one that started this thread, insisting that atheists are wrong.

LOL have you read my thread. Have you even read it. Oh my goodness, no, go back to page one and actually friggin' read it. ok? read.

I do not call atheism wrong. Ever. I call it uninformed.

The difference between most atheists and some theists is simple evidence. Atheists have never had a vision of God. Some theists have.

So I am suggesting to atheists that since everybody can have this vision of God, that they actually have it before jumping to the conclusion that this vision of God is a delusion.

I am simply asking people to try. Try. If they don't want to, that's fine, but that just seems in the scientific and inquisitive spirit of testing things.

Again that's fine with me if you don't want to. I just wish there were more skeptical minds in the world who had seen God. If you want to know my motivation, I am feeling a bit lonely.

I feel like I'm in the middle of a bunch of atheists, with skeptical minds but no real experience with God who can only speculate about what it is. And on the other hand, there are a lot of Christians who are quite simply so overwhelmed by the power of the vision of God that they mistake that power for certainty.

Personally, I look for the rational and logical explanation of something before I attribute it to something supernatural, and most atheists I know do too.

Yes I know, I do too. And I have never maintained EVER that this vision of God is something real.

My problem with your "rational and logical explanations" is that you are rationalizing other people's experience, which is useless to me. What is useful and interesting to me is people who actually experience God then try to rationalize it. Now that would be interesting. As it is now, it is just speculation where you could have personal evidence.

If there is no guarantee that a "vision of God" isn't some sort of illusion or the effect of some bad shrimp, then there is no reason to assume right off the bat that it's actually a vision of god. There has to be a reason to discount the logical and rational explanation first. So far it doesn't look like you've provided an adequate reason to.

Absolutely. There is no reason to assume it's actually God.

On the other hand, there's no reason to assume it's a delusion.

Since thousands and perhaps millions of people have seen this "vision", I think that is reason enough to at least consider the former assumption. That's just me.

All this blah blah blah means nothing to you, because you've never experienced God. And yeah, you've had imaginary friends before. N'uh'uh, this feels completely different.

Basically, you don't understand a vision of God at all... because you've never had one... but you are so caught in the way you see the world right now that

1.) You don't hear me when I agree with you that God could theoretically be a delusion.
2.) You seem unable to acknowledge the real possibility that God is not a delusion.
3.) You seem to be taking an "I'm sane therefore they're crazy" attitude. Whereas an "I don't know because I've never seen God" attitude would be just a lot more pleasant for me to hear.
4.) You cannot seek personal evidence.

And, frankly, I don't understand how you expect an atheist to have a vision of something that person doesn't believe exists.

Seems like the scientific and inquisitive thing to do. I don't know, I guess I assumed atheists liked investigating things for themselves, and having the same evidence before them that the theists do (aka a vision of God).

I can try to teach you a simple technique for having one of these visions of God. Are you interested or not? If not, don't give me this "God is a delusion" because you refuse to look when you can at least try, without harm and with a reasonable effort.

You don't sound very interested. You sound more interested in arguing with me than in actually gaining personal experience. I'm sad to hear that.

CV

 

[MaddLlama]

Why would I want to try and see something that I don't believe exists? That's what I don't understand. Next should I go on a safari in Africa to look for a purple and pink polka-dotted giraffe, just so I can prove such a thing doesn't exist?

To experience god, one must first admit the existance of such a thing. And, really, I think that its all in the interpretation. Who knows, I could have had some sort of spiritual vision that I interpreted as something else because I don't believe in god. You interpreted it as a vision of god, but someone else may have the same experience and call it something else. Most atheists don't believe in the supernatural, or at least many things that fall under that umbrella. So, saying "trying to have an experience of god is like collecting evidence" doesn't wash. The results of any kind of experiment like that are going to be entirely subjective to every person, so the evidence is not worth anything. Evidence that is supposed to lend itself to some sort of proof can't be subjective. If there is no objectivity, then there's no proof.

Just because someone has a vision and calls it god doesn't mean that god must exist, all it means is that the person believes god exists. Saying "well, so many people believe in god so there must be some truth to it" is a logical fallacy. Christians sometimes argue that so many people are Christian, that Christianity must therefore be the one true religion. Lots of people don't believe in god either, so does that mean that god doesn't exist? Just because it's popular doesn't automatically make it correct.

And, if you just wanted atheists to say "ok, I'll go have a vision of god" and not have people debate your ideas, then the thread probably shouldn't be in the debate folder.

 

[Panda]

Really CV you crack me up.
Again you contradict yourself at every point of your posts. Athiesm is not an uninformed decision. You obviously don't understan an athiest point of view at all. From an athiest point of view it is impossible to have a vision of God because from an athiest point of view God does not exist. You don't understand that science is OBJECTIVE not SUBJECTIVE. A "vision of God" is subjective so can not be studied by science. You can not observe what it does, it can not be studied. Your posts are irational and irelavant.
You do understand that from an athiest point of view a vision of God is impossible right? When someone says they have a vision of God an athiest will think it is some sort of day dream, delusion caused by something scientific or just a pure lie. An athiest CAN NOT have a vision of God.

 

[Yerda]

Then like that other poster, you don't understand atheism either, apparently.

I have developed my understanding of the symbol 'atheism' in use, amongst atheists. Not only does it quite neatly fit with what Panda said, it's also compatible with etymology.

If you choose to define atheism as "lack of belief in God" for your own purposes, that's fine with me.

What's the problem then? This is the broadest definition of the word.

His definition is commonly referred to as agnosticism.

While it can be both, the "lack of belief in God" is most consistent with atheism.

This post is about atheists, not agnostics. I am an agnostic ...

Then you should know that agnosticism is about knowledge. It is an epistemological problem.

I don't believe that any definition or set of words could have any meaning for you before you see this 'God' yourself.

OK. What I am concerned with is whether you are trying to show me an actual entity, directly or indirectly, or trying to show me what theists see which is not necessarily an external object.

We know Fiji exists.

Not without good reason.

And again, just to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that "god" is real. I'm saying this perception is real. (let me know when I can stop repeating that, I just want to make sure that point is crystal clear).

No worries, I understand. I was trying to make that distinction myself above.

All right, I will formulate a step by step process different from the one I have already posted about how to see God (in a different thread).

I'll see you there.

 

[Willamena]

Atheists have direct experiences of the loss of the subject/object divide. Perhaps they just don't put a spot on their interpretive template called "God" into which it fits.

No... You worded that better once before --rather than "loss of the subject/object divide"--in one of your articles. In Tat Tvam Asi you said that "subject/object divide is an illusion" (and I thought, oh he's finally come around). Illusions are real and they exist. We're going to have to argue about this someday.

 

[Darkness]

You do understand that from an athiest point of view a vision of God is impossible right? When someone says they have a vision of God an athiest will think it is some sort of day dream, delusion caused by something scientific or just a pure lie. An athiest CAN NOT have a vision of God.

Unless the Atheist is wrong and there is a God. Then a vision of God is truly a vision of God. Seriously, science is not atheistic.

 

[doppelganger]

No... You worded that better once before --rather than "loss of the subject/object divide"--in one of your articles. In Tat Tvam Asi you said that "subject/object divide is an illusion" (and I thought, oh he's finally come around). Illusions are real and they exist. We're going to have to argue about this someday.

Yes. That is better. Though for the context here, the version I'm using is more appropriate.

 

[doppelganger]

I would like to clarify that a vision of God does NOT occur in language.

Oh, but it absolutely, positively does. For it to be a "vision of God" is to fashion the experience in language. A "vision of God" is not an experience. It is an interpretation of an experience. If you don't recognize the power of the words to fashion the experience, you cannot hear what atheists are saying when they talk about evolution and naturalism, CV.