A note that will pain most atheists

[Chevalier Violet]

FYI, every atheist I have met HAS gone through this step-by-step procedure called the deconversion process, which frankly, I'm not convinced you understand or appreciate.

I don't think you understand or appreciate how atheists are deconverted to theists.

As to whether or not I understand deconverts, both my parents are deconverts from Christianity, I love them dearly, they had excellent reasons to deconvert. Oh yeah and I'm a deconvert from Christianity (after deconverting from atheism )

That said, and think about this, every deconvert from Christianity I have ever met, besides myself, had never had a vision of God. My parents included, of course.

So I have to say I actively congratulate and applaud a person who deconverts from any belief based on a lack of personal experience.

Besides, even if this vision or whatever you had was real, how do you know it wasn't the Goddess, the Tri-force, Krishnu, Lucifer, or whatever?

Please find me the exact place, or even general square mile where I ever even implied that I know what a vision of God is.

For the record, of course I don't know what this vision ultimately is. If I did, I wouldn't feel much need to run experiments, would I?

Right. Visions from God are what I thought we were referring to.

That's my carelessness, I didn't define a vision of God. Definitely not your fault.

No no, see, this is the entire point of my argument. You've been saying all this time that an atheist has no right to cite the lack of a vision of God as lack of evidence of God. Which I reply, the atheist has every right, so long as this is only one piece of the puzzle and not the entire basis for lack of belief. However, I know of no case where an atheist doesn't believe solely because of a lack of vision; as I mentioned earlier, there are usually a host of reasons for lack of belief.

No no, see, this is the entire point of my argument. An atheist has every right to cite lack of a vision of God as evidence that God doesn't exist.

What an atheist has no right to do is cite lack of a vision of God as proof that this vision is a delusion.

I agree, this lack of vision raises very interesting epistemic problems, and basically disproves a literal reading of the Bible. I am not a Christian, I say cast that book aside. I don't think it follows, however, that since an atheist is sane, a theist is insane.

That strikes me as suspicious reasoning.

You're right that there are a lot of other good reasons an atheist has for disbelieving. Ever read the quotable atheist? I love that book.

Please see my Beethoven symphony analogy above. As a researcher, I am simply interested in people's personal experiences with these "visions of God."

You know, it's funny; I watched Jesus Camp for the first time about a week ago. Of course, if that means basically discarding half of one's mind, then it's not worth the price of admission. And I hope that that is precisely what does not go on during an experience of a vision--sacrificing reason and intelligence for an emotional and spiritual experience. Because they are to be avoided at all costs if so.

I'm not a Christian, so meh. The Christians I know are very nice, and create a loving atmosphere for people around them. I am friends with a lot of Christians just because they are sweet and have some experience with visions of God which is what I find a bit more interesting.


LOL discarding half of one's mind. So is that what you think of me, CV the big half wit. Well, I believe and like to think that even though there are some insane religious folk out there, that not all people who see God are crazy.

For instance, if as Carlos Castaneda surmises, a vision of God is a vision of a part of ourselves that we don't normally see, "the human form." Or some say it is a higher self.

I agree with you that God might be a delusion but not that the people who see it are delusional, or any less capable of discerning reality than you or any atheist. Even if God is ultimately a delusion, which neither you nor I know, I don't think I or anybody who sees a vision of God is delusional. I have never heard of any psychiatric or psychological evidence that theists are delusional.

I don't know, I dislike this reasoning of "I don't see God therefore they're crazy." I just see it as "I don't see God therefore the Bible is wrong." On that point, I say

Bingo!

Christian agnostics

I am in love with people like that. They make my day. I still haven't met one in person, though I've met two online.

CV

 

[doppelganger]

What method? Sorry? I just read something about wrists lol.

Your pray for a week method. I didn't reproduce it completely because I assumed you knew what you wrote.

You mean praying to God as an entity distances yourself from the divine? Or asking for things?

Both.

I think the best way to make contact with the presence I feel is to apologize for your shortcomings (the Christian recommendation, sorry about that )

What "shortcomings" are those?

 

[Panda]

*still hitting my head against the wall*

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, damn it I'm going to have to post more about what a vision of God is. This is my fault, but yeah, you'd have to perceive it while awake. Dreams don't count. As a general rule, if you have to ask: "was this a vision of God" it wasn't.

Unless you are prophets, most visions found in the Bible, which come to ordinary people are found in dreams.

 

[EtuMalku]

Perhaps God exists simply as the collective conscience of Man?
The creation of God and religion merely as another built in survival mechanism we have?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Unless you are prophets, most visions found in the Bible, which come to ordinary people are found in dreams.

I think the Bible is misleading here.

I mean, look at what people posted in the other thread of mine, "would you please help me..." I mean, do you think we're all of us prophets? That's ridiculous, anyone can see God. To my mind this is just exclusionary thinking which atheists think of as typical of organized religion.

I think people should believe what they believe based on personal experience found while awake. For research purposes, I discount dreams.

But at the same time, I think it benefits us all to seek to expand our experience.

CV

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Those all sound like what I would call "anti-Christian" reasons, but that's ok with me.

That's evidence against Christianity. Not anti-Christianism.

Please explain.

Alright. From what I understand, the Problem of Evil is the dilemma of how to reconcile one's personal beliefs with the ongoing evil in the world that is showing no end in sight. As applied to the Christianity debate, it deals with the Christian's need to explain how an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God allows evil to go on when more docile methods would get the job done at least as well.

Yeah, this is the Christian's fault. The visions of God I experience, I experience entirely in my heart. So "documentation" and "peer-review" and "observation" are strictly impossible. Which is not to say that God doesn't exist, and isn't to say that God does exist either. It just means that certain types of evidence do not exist.

So Christians who haven't seen visions should fault themselves? :sarcastic

Carpel tunnel syndrome. I am feeling a little better today, but I will soon have to stop.

Ah, gotcha. CTS is no fun.

The last word has 5 asterisks, not 4.

Dude...***** **** *************** ****** ******** **** * ****!!!

(J/K!! )

Sorry.

lol. Is a heart a rose? No it's just an image, a metaphor, an analogy. A transfer of traits from unlike objects to illuminate.

I see atheists who claim a vision of God is a delusion as being like a person who's never heard Beethoven's fourth symphony and says it's terrible.

If they don't like Beethoven, of course they have every reason to believe that they won't like this symphony. And maybe they won't.

My point is that I just don't see much reason to listen to people's opinions on visions of God who have never had one (whether they're theists or atheists). I don't know, that might seem kind of snobby or something. Don't get me wrong, I've heard lots of plausible and logically coherent speculations as to why it's a delusion.

So yes I'm looking for a certain type of evidence, personal evidence. Atheists have "I have no evidence." and that is perfectly valid. I've kind of heard it before, that's all.

There's a world of difference between not liking God and not believing in God.

Somebody might absolutely despise Beethoven's 5th, but by mere virtue of citing the composer, he or she would be noting that Beethoven was indeed a real person.

Atheists dislike dilusions of God because they believe them to be precisely that. Keep in mind that the human mind is capable of believing in some rather strange things--that all the gods live on Mount Olympus, that the most physically fit child should be sacrificed to appease the gods, that doing the right dance will convince the skies to bring forth rain, etc. And in their opinion, "visions of God" are nothing more than that.

 

[gnostic]

I think the Bible is misleading here.

How so?

You will find several reference to dreams or in these case visions were received when non-prophets are asleep and dream what was to become true. Eg. The Egyptian king who was host to Abraham and Sarah. And there are several examples with Joseph who had dream of him become greater his brothers. And he interpreted dreams of Egyptian slave and the Egyptian king, which eventually got him released from slavery.

In Daniel, the Babylonian king had dream of being reduced to an animal. Of course, there was waking vision in which everyone saw the hand.

The thing is that the dream required proper interpretation, and usually that required a prophet for ordinary people to understand their dreams/visions.

But at the same time, I think it benefits us all to seek to expand our experience.

How people expand their experience, is really none of your business. If atheists said that they have no visions, then there are none. I don't know why keep hammering people to experience God. Why should it matter to you they should or want to experience god?

You contradict yourself by saying that they should have vision of God, but then you say that it is okay to remain atheists. Having such vision would immediately disqualify them of being atheists in the first place.

Second of all, the last statement actually lead to this one. You say it is okay for atheists to remain "atheists" and yet, you argue with atheists when they say that visions are nothing more than delusion, dreams or daydreams.

You are entitled to view your own visions or experiences come from God, but they (atheists) are equally reject these experiences as being nothing more than delusions.

Just accept them the way it is with atheists, because you are not going to win this argument by pushing your experiences on them. You want them to expand their experience, well just say it and leave at that, instead of keep pushing them and pushing them.

You said that you are agnostic. Then you should know better than to keep pushing at either theists or atheists.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

How so?

You will find several reference to dreams or in these case visions were received when non-prophets are asleep and dream what was to become true. Eg. The Egyptian king who was host to Abraham and Sarah. And there are several examples with Joseph who had dream of him become greater his brothers. And he interpreted dreams of Egyptian slave and the Egyptian king, which eventually got him released from slavery.

In Daniel, the Babylonian king had dream of being reduced to an animal. Of course, there was waking vision in which everyone saw the hand.

The thing is that the dream required proper interpretation, and usually that required a prophet for ordinary people to understand their dreams/visions.

You're going off my topic, which is why you're having a hard time understanding what I say.

For the second time, visions of God while asleep don't count for my epistemology, because they could be "just dreams." That is why when I say "vision of God" I am not talking about one had during dreams.

The reason the Bible is misleading is for the simple reason that lots of people, who clearly aren't prophets, see God. And not in dreams. The Bible indicates otherwise, therefore it is misleading. I am not sure how you didn't glean that from my last post, and although it may be my fault I suspect it is yours. If so, please read more carefully.

How people expand their experience, is really none of your business.

How I express my philosophy is none of your business.

This is a public forum. I will post suggestions for how to expand personal experience anywhere and anyplace I want.

And if I think many atheists are being uninquisitive, judgmental by calling theists delusional, and downright unscientific, I am going to post that right here, anytime I want.

This is about posting opinions and discussing them. That's what discussion boards are for. If you don't like that, you are the one who needs to leave. I am not forcing you to be here.

I have no problem with inquisitive atheism. It is a plausible belief system. In fact, I want people to remain atheists. Or do what feels right. This is not about changing people's beliefs.

This post is about research.

If atheists said that they have no visions, then there are none.

Ok, once again I'm going to be saying things that may go about ten miles over your head. It's not because you're dumb or anything like that, it is just that words are a very limited medium and there are better writers out there.

I agree, I believe most atheists have never had a vision that some attribute to God. That is why they are atheists, after all. Makes sense to me.

I think it's unfortunate that most atheists are convinced that theists are delusional. This is a belief based in fear of going crazy. I am not saying that God exists. What I'm saying is that visions of God are perfectly harmless, as normal as dreams. In my experience and in the experience of everyone I know, they are profoundly healing and beneficial.

Seen in this light, visions of God, even if God doesn't exist, are sorely misunderstood among atheists. And rightly so, because I cannot think of any atheists who have ever had one before.

The reason I am posting is because Christians speak about God as if God is just talking to us all the time. This is false, and is a large reason for a lot of atheism. Atheists say, 'I've never seen the deity that Christians say is ubiquitous, therefore it must not exist."

The truth is, "God" is not evident to everyone, and it takes effort to see it for those who can't.

I don't know why keep hammering people to experience God. Why should it matter to you they should or want to experience god?

Because I'm doing research about visions of God, trying to outline the form of these visions. I can't do research if atheists refuse to try, and simply say "I'm right and they're wrong."

You contradict yourself by saying that they should have vision of God, but then you say that it is okay to remain atheists. Having such vision would immediately disqualify them of being atheists in the first place.

That's amazing. Really what you just said is quite remarkable. Think about this.

I say, "atheists, I would recommend you have a vision of God."
They say, "it's a delusion, it's a delusion, it's a delusion."

Right? They can't stop saying it's a delusion.

Let's think about the definition of atheism, it is the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, the claim is that when people see God, it is a delusion.

And now you're saying, an atheist cannot have a vision of God? No! An atheist can have infinitely many visions of God, so long as that person still believes those visions are delusions, that person is still an atheist.

One definition of "vision" is hallucination. Think about that. If a person has a vision of God, but afterwards says, that was a delusion, and still believes God doesn't exist, that person is an atheist. Period. And as far as I'm concerned, that person may very possibly be right. Or that person may very possibly be wrong. I don't know.

My point is, that person HAS the personal experience of visions of God to make the most informed judgment possible.

So no, the "contradiction" is in your misunderstanding.

Second of all, the last statement actually lead to this one. You say it is okay for atheists to remain "atheists" and yet, you argue with atheists when they say that visions are nothing more than delusion, dreams or daydreams.

I don't argue with them. This is due again to your lack of careful reading, which I regret. What I say, time and time again, is that I don't know and neither do they if these visions are delusions or real. Nobody knows. There is a lot of controversy on this point.

If there is anybody who is qualified to say what these visions are, it is people who have them. Atheists are underinformed about the nature of these visions. All atheists can say about God is that God is not self-evident to everyone, which I think is a very, very important point. A point that I raise with Christians just about every conversation.

You are entitled to view your own visions or experiences come from God, but they (atheists) are equally reject these experiences as being nothing more than delusions.

Of course we are all entitled to our beliefs. My point is that nobody knows for certain. My other point is that atheists could very reasonably be more informed about visions of God. My criticism about atheists is one of hypocrisy. They claim to be more scientific yet they refuse to investigate visions of God personally. I suppose they are afraid of going crazy, which is normal. I am just supplying a different point of view. If it's not for them, it's not for them and I'm ok with that. That's what discussions boards are all about.

Just accept them the way it is with atheists,

Just accept me the way it is with me.

because you are not going to win this argument by pushing your experiences on them.

I'm not trying to win anything. If I were trying to win something I would be trying to change people, which I'm not.

I am much more interested in collecting data.

You want them to expand their experience, well just say it and leave at that, instead of keep pushing them and pushing them.

No, I want data.

They ask me questions so I answer them. Why do you keep pushing me and pushing me. Do I frighten you?

You said that you are agnostic. Then you should know better than to keep pushing at either theists or atheists.

Again, through a lack of careful reading you have once again arrived at the conclusion that I want to change what people believe. You seem unable to come to terms or accept the fact that I don't want to convert anybody. Perhaps you have misread my posts in this way.

If someone says, God exists, I say maybe so, maybe not. If someone says God is a delusion, I say maybe so, maybe not.

I don't call that pushing.

CV

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My other point is that atheists could very reasonably be more informed about visions of God.

I favor becoming more informed about visions of God. Please direct me to whatever intersubjectively verifiable evidence you feel of worth.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

That's evidence against Christianity. Not anti-Christianism.

Ok, that's fine. I call that anti-Christianism, but I am using the word to mean "evidence against Christianity."

The point is, the question of whether or not God exists is distinct from the question of whether or not Christianity is true. Theism and Christianity, as you well know, are not the same thing. And yet search this thread for remarks against Christianity as remarks against theism, and you will find a lot of "evidence for" my theory that atheists conflate Christianity and theism.

In this light, the list you presented showed no shortage of evidence that you view the question of "reasons to be an atheist" as "reasons to not be a Christian." (yeah, scroll up, you'll see what happened. You got tricked.)

Also, yes, the problem is with my wording. Anti-Christian could mean, for instance, against the people as opposed to the beliefs. I am coming to see that what I meant was a conflation of Christianity and theism. Please see my post called "Please read this before uttering the word religion again."

Alright. From what I understand, the Problem of Evil is the dilemma of how to reconcile one's personal beliefs with the ongoing evil in the world that is showing no end in sight. As applied to the Christianity debate, it deals with the Christian's need to explain how an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God allows evil to go on when more docile methods would get the job done at least as well.

Oh. Ok, thanks for the explanation.

You know what I'm going to say about this "Problem of Evil" as evidence against theism right? I don't think I have to say it.

So Christians who haven't seen visions should fault themselves? :sarcastic

Um, I'm not sure what you mean. But I simply cannot understand why a person would be a Christian, Muslim, or Jew or any theistic religion with a deity, without having encountered, seen, or felt that deity before. It makes no sense to me.

Ah, gotcha. CTS is no fun.

I HATE it!

Dude...***** **** *************** ****** ******** **** * ****!!!

(J/K!! )

Hahaha.

There's a world of difference between not liking God and not believing in God.

Somebody might absolutely despise Beethoven's 5th, but by mere virtue of citing the composer, he or she would be noting that Beethoven was indeed a real person.

Atheists dislike dilusions of God because they believe them to be precisely that. Keep in mind that the human mind is capable of believing in some rather strange things--that all the gods live on Mount Olympus, that the most physically fit child should be sacrificed to appease the gods, that doing the right dance will convince the skies to bring forth rain, etc. And in their opinion, "visions of God" are nothing more than that.

No, no, no that's not what I mean. Remember how I said metaphors transfer certain properties. You are transferring the wrong properties. I have shown you which properties to transfer, but you insist on transferring different ones. No, when I use an analogy, you can't just transfer any properties you want, you need to listen. They are designed to illuminate my argument, not prove it.

I read a book recently on analogies, and it said there is no such thing as a "false analogy" because they are heuristic, and are not designed to be logically sound. I am not trying to prove what I say by this analogy, I am trying to illuminate it. So you need to focus on the point I am making, and not just start pointing out that "Beethoven exists", which is not part of what I'm saying. Ok, I'm going to give you an analogy, and I want you to explain to me what I'm getting at in your own words, without overextrapolating. Ready?

For me, I see atheists who claim a vision of God is a delusion as being like a person who's never heard Beethoven's fourth symphony and says it's terrible.

For me, people who say a vision of God is a delusion is like an art critic who writes an article about a Botticelli painting saying, "it's ugly."

(hint it's not about liking or disliking, it's about the fact of making a judgment of something one has never experienced.)

(PS the same analogy holds true in reverse for the Christian who has never seen God, and yet believes.)

CV

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I simply cannot understand why a person would be a Christian, Muslim, or Jew or any theistic religion with a deity, without having encountered, seen, or felt that deity before. It makes no sense to me.

People encounter, see, and feel all manner of things, which takes us back to ...

My other point is that atheists could very reasonably be more informed about visions of God.

I favor becoming more informed about visions of God. Please direct me to whatever intersubjectively verifiable evidence you feel of worth.

... and I'm still eagerly awaiting your evidence.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I favor becoming more informed about visions of God. Please direct me to whatever intersubjectively verifiable evidence you feel of worth.

I favor becoming more informed about sublimity, please direct me to whatever intersubjectively verifiable evidence you feel of worth.

And if you are using sarcasm (not the first in this thread) to imply that an epistemology of religion is as not as precise a study as what one can do with tennis balls, that I suggest that you leave the forum and study mechanical physics.

It's funny that in your supposedly witty sarcasm that you mentioned intersubjectivity. Because the only way to verify whether or not God actually exists is to have objectively minded people actually look and compare notes. Studying God is like studying dreams, because, as Freud observed, dreams are highly personal, just like visions of God.

So your evidence, just like mine, is in your heart. And the only way to know if we're seeing the same thing is if we both look. If I say "this chair is red" and you have your eyes closed, there's not much intersubjectivity to be had.

If our march of empirical knowledge in religion must choose between going forward on suspicious ground or grinding to a halt, I for one say we go forward.

One way to go forward, is to scroll back up and be the first atheist to try the step by step process for seeing God that I proposed, which would require only half an hour of your time over a week.

Also, I do not appreciate sarcasm, so if you have something to say, say it with maturity. Unless I have misread you, in which case, I do apologize.

CV

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I favor becoming more informed about sublimity, ...

You apparently favor avoiding the question. That is perfectly understandable.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

You apparently favor avoiding the question. That is perfectly understandable.

Apparently you favor not reading. Or not thinking. That is perfectly understandable.

Scroll up, find my step by step process for having a vision of God. You may find your intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

Or, read what I just posted about the nature of religious experiences.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Apparently you favor not reading. Or not thinking.

Or not believing unevidenced claims. When you have such evidence, please feel free to share it.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Or not believing unevidenced claims. When you have such evidence, please feel free to share it.

I agree, which is why I don't listen to atheists who say that visions of God are delusions. They have no evidence.

The evidence they have is that God doesn't go around talking to everybody all the time, as the Christians say. Aka, they carry proof that the Bible is wrong.

If you would like evidence about whether visions of God are delusions or not, follow the step by step above.

You may continue to point out that the evidence I am talking about is less concrete than tennis balls. Although I have acknowledged this already ten times in this thread, and again just a second ago in response to your post. And yet for some reason you keep repeating yourself.

I assume you will repeat yourself again, but that's perfectly understandable.

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Avoid making personal attacks in this thread. If you cannot avoid making personal attacks, get out of this thread now.
​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You may continue to point out that the evidence I am talking about is less concrete than tennis balls.

What is "less than concrete evidence"? By less than concrete, do you mean "less than verifiable"?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Jay, You are defining "less concrete evidence" as "no evidence." You have the right to do this for your own purposes, and for your own research. But philosophically speaking, they are not the same.