A note that will pain most atheists

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, You are defining "less concrete evidence" as "no evidence."

Actually, I was asking you a question. Where do you believe that I suggested such a definition?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

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

You need to read more carefully, I said "less concrete than tennis balls."

And no, although you are being sarcastic, I mean exactly what I say: I mean evidence less concrete than tennis balls or bricks or, well, concrete.

"Verification" is easier or harder depending on what you're studying. If you want to verify that bricks are hard, we can all do that. If you want to verify that government's collapse when the major newspapers write editorials against them, that is more difficult. If you want to prove that humans tend to be attracted to women based on pheremones, that is probably even more difficult.

With religion, verification is difficult because there is no concrete object. But just because there is no concrete object that we can all touch, does NOT mean that God doesn't exist. And I'm not saying God actually exists either. I'm simply saying a type of evidence does not exist.

So if you're actually interested in evidence, which from your tone, you do not appear to be, you may try the step by step process I posted. Actually have you even read it?

If you're not comfortable with it, that's fine.

I'm not interested in abstract debates about different types of evidence. I am just telling you things I learned in philosophy of science in preparation for an "epistemology of religion." If you want more info, do your own research.

I am interested in personal experiences. It sounds as though your personal experience is "I have none." Fine with me, if you have any more, please feel free to share.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Actually, I was asking you a question. Where do you believe that I suggested such a definition?

"unevidenced claims"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And no, although you are being sarcastic, I mean exactly what I say: I mean evidence less concrete than tennis balls or bricks or, well, concrete. ... With religion, verification is difficult because there is no concrete object. But just because there is no concrete object that we can all touch, does NOT mean that God doesn't exist.

So, by "less concrete than tennis balls or bricks or, well, concrete" you mean to suggest unverifiable because, apparently, "verification is difficult because there is no concrete object". Very well, but on what grounds should we then accept it as evidence?

And, of course, "just because there is no concrete object that we can all touch, does NOT mean that God doesn't exist". Much the same might be said of ghosts and invisible faeries. I'm not at all clear why you felt it to be an important or, for that matter, useful assertion.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

So, by "less concrete than tennis balls or bricks or, well, concrete" you mean to suggest unverifiable because, apparently, "verification is difficult because there is no concrete object". Very well, but on what grounds should we then accept it as evidence?

And, of course, "just because there is no concrete object that we can all touch, does NOT mean that God doesn't exist". Much the same might be said of ghosts and invisible faeries. I'm not at all clear why you felt it to be an important or, for that matter, useful assertion.

These are really important questions, I'm going to start a thread about them.

I want to be careful to word them correctly. I'm definitely not saying that I have all the answers, because the big project I'm working on right now is finding those answers. I'll share some preliminary thoughts with you though.

So, by "less concrete than tennis balls or bricks or, well, concrete" you mean to suggest unverifiable because, apparently, "verification is difficult because there is no concrete object".

As for this quote, I would suggest you stop changing my words, because usually I choose them carefully (you saw that 'usually' in there? ) When I say verification is difficult, I do not mean or mean to suggest "unverifiable." I mean exactly what I said, verification is fraught with problems. In a word, difficult.

Good point about the ghosts, I will cover that in a the thread.

CV

 

[gnostic]

My criticism about atheists is one of hypocrisy. They claim to be more scientific yet they refuse to investigate visions of God personally.

There is no way to investigate it. How do you expect it to be investigated? It can't be measured. It can't be filmed. You can't even visions in which people believed in them, because there is nothing tangible about the visions. The only way to investigate it is ask the person what they saw or heard (in their vision), but how reliable is that? This is not real evidence that can be verified. It is mostly testimony of one's experience, and most likely unrepeatable.

Science is based on what can be measured, observed, tested and verified. How do you do all this with visions. You can't. Without verifiable evidences, visions will remain unscientific.

I still think you should stop insisting that atheists should have visions. It also doesn't help your cause, calling them "uninformed" or "underinformed".

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?

No, it doesn't frighten me. It just annoys the hell out of me.

Have any atheists share their "visions" with you? No? Then you should be happy if they answer in the negative. If they answer "yes", then fair enough; you would have one testimony of vision. But why keep pushing it, when atheists have already told you so.

Isn't it enough that say it nothing more than delusions? Surely the number that says that they are delusions are good enough for your research.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for this quote, I would suggest you stop changing my words, because usually I choose them carefully (you saw that 'usually' in there? ) When I say verification is difficult, I do not mean or mean to suggest "unverifiable." I mean exactly what I said, verification is fraught with problems. In a word, difficult.

My apologies. It was certainly not my intent to distort your words but to understand their implications.

So, verification is 'difficult'. OK. What evidence do you have that can, with difficulty, be verified, and what is the precondition and nature of that verification? Actually, it might be helpful if you first suggest what you mean by 'verification', and how one might distinguish between 'verified knowledge of the supernatural' and delusion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

In reference back to the Original Title of this thread, have any atheists felt any "pain" yet? I am guessing not.

 

[Nanda]

In reference back to the Original Title of this thread, have any atheists felt any "pain" yet? I am guessing not.

There was a pain somewhere in my a** region...

(lol, sorry, I couldn't resist. I kid, I kid!)

 

[Panda]

In reference back to the Original Title of this thread, have any atheists felt any "pain" yet? I am guessing not.

Must have missed my banging my head against a wall

 

[Scuba Pete]

Must have missed my banging my head against a wall

But was it the initial "note" or the subsequent dialog that made you bang your head?

More importantly, was your pain a result of having the absolute proof that your thought process was inconsistent with someone's version of reality, or that it did not appear to be very well thought out?

 

[Panda]

The dialog caused my head to make a series of impacts against the wall closest to me. It was because it did not apear thought out and didn't grasp the concept of what anyone was saying no matter how often me reitarated it.

 

[doppelganger]

Seems like this note pained its author more than it did anyone else. :cover:

 

[EtuMalku]

In keeping with the original thread question : does God exist?
Allow me to reiterate what I posted earlier

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?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More importantly, was your pain a result of having the absolute proof that your thought process was inconsistent with someone's version of reality, or that it did not appear to be very well thought out?

:clap There is clearly nothing about being a theist that prevents one from being a brilliant wordsmith! :clap​

 

[Chevalier Violet]

:clap There is clearly nothing about being a theist that prevents one from being a brilliant wordsmith! :clap​

Scuba Pete is a theist? No way!! (I mean I see those words Christian Only, I just assumed he was being ironic somehow.)

I don't know, your posts don't sound very theistic, SP, but ok...

CV

PS Last time I checked Panda was in a lot of pain, and yes I would not word my post the same way had I written it today, so this post has been paining me as I try to reword what I said... and the CTS hurts too, but whatever, that's getting a bit better.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scuba Pete is a theist? No way!!

Way. Now think of all those OTHER fallacious assumptions you have made when the truth is right there in front of you!

Too often people see a search for truth as an "us vs them" proposition. When I see a theist make a fallacious assumption/statement I will gladly point that out and hopefully someone will do the same for me.

 

[elwedriddsche]

In reference back to the Original Title of this thread, have any atheists felt any "pain" yet? I am guessing not.

Not in the sense the OP alludes to.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CV
My criticism about atheists is one of hypocrisy. They claim to be more scientific yet they refuse to investigate visions of God personally.

There is no way to investigate it. How do you expect it to be investigated?

It can't be measured. It can't be filmed.

You can't even ??? visions in which people believed in them, because there is nothing tangible about the visions. The only way to investigate it is ask the person what they saw or heard (in their vision), but how reliable is that?

That's your problem right there. You're right, there is no tangible object, so you cannot watch someone have a vision, because it is a non-ordinary perception.

But your problem comes when you say "the only way to investigate is to hear other people talk about their visions." Then you go on to say that these visions are not reproducible. Unrepeatable.

And you're missing the most important way, that I have said from the beginning, of investigating those visions, and that is to have one for yourself.

That is the entire point of the thread, and yet you do not grasp this point.

Then what did I do, I posted a step-by-step process for having one. Apparently you do not read it, well I cannot help you if you're not going to read.

Now why would someone who doesn't believe this vision is of something real, want to try a step-by-step process to have a vision of God?

This is an excellent question. Do you have any idea what I'm going to say to you, or not? Why would I, an agnostic, one day post a step-by-step process for having a vision of God (alongside a process that asks nothing less of Christians, in forcing them to test their beliefs as well).

I'll give you a hint, I didn't just wake up one morning and decide I would try to get atheists to have one of the "delusions" they talk about. Of course, an atheist doesn't know what a vision of God is, it's as if I said Gobbeldy-goo, an atheist can only imagine what this would be like based on paltry and inadequate Biblical metaphors, and metaphors from other religions as well. A ball of light, blah blah blah, this means nothing to you because you have no experience of it yourself.

This is not real evidence that can be verified. It is mostly testimony of one's experience, and most likely unrepeatable.

It is absolutely repeatable. I don't know if the step-by-step will get you there, but I am trying to devise something better with your feedback.

Science is based on what can be measured, observed, tested and verified. How do you do all this with visions. You can't.

You can. You have one yourself.

Without verifiable evidences, visions will remain unscientific.

You're right. I never said visions of God were as concrete as playing with tennis balls. So it isn't a very precise study, but then again neither is political science, sociology, sexology, particle physics, psychology, psychiatry, history...

I still think you should stop insisting that atheists should have visions. It also doesn't help your cause, calling them "uninformed" or "underinformed".

I still think you should actually try the step-by-step. But that's ok that you don't want to.

You don't understand the global importance of an atheist having a vision of God.

The fact of the matter is, when I say vision of God, a person who has never had one can only imagine what I mean, because this is something so different from dreams, daydreaming, optical illusions... and of something so different from the material world, that really, it is just words on a page to someone who has never had one.

So yes, when you say they are "delusions" this is a plausible and important theory. For the past few months I was of the exact same opinion, I probably will be again. It doesn't mean that you actually know what this experience is, because there's no way words can express it to you. Words are too limited.

So yes, you are underinformed because you haven't experienced this for yourself, and yet you think you understand and know what Gobbedly-grin is.

Or you just dismiss the sane, rational people with as good discernment as yourself as delusional.

Quote:
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?

No, it doesn't frighten me. It just annoys the hell out of me.

Why does it annoy the hell out of you? What annoys the hell out of me is that atheists believe they understand what experiencing God is like when they don't.

Have any atheists share their "visions" with you?

Have any atheists actually tried the step by step. No.

Then you should be happy if they answer in the negative.

You should be happy, since you are so certain that God is an illusion, and yet here you are.

If they answer "yes", then fair enough; you would have one testimony of vision. But why keep pushing it, when atheists have already told you so.

If they're not interested in trying the step-by-step, they're not interested. And I say, ok. I don't call that pushing.

What many atheists keep doing is insisting over and over that this experience they don't understand and have never experienced is a delusion, simply because they haven't had it.

So I say, over and over and over, that they may be right that it's a delusion, but on the other hand they don't know what they're talking about, since they've never experienced it. And note how many atheists there are here who have actually had this "delusion."

Zero.

Isn't it enough that say it nothing more than delusions? Surely the number that says that they are delusions are good enough for your research.

Worldwide population had far more theists than atheists. US population is split I believe. The point is, there are enough people in every group that each group should be taken very seriously.

I just want to meet atheists who have actually seen a waking vision of God, and remain atheists.

That is possible, I know because I have done it. So anybody else, or am I alone?

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Way. Now think of all those OTHER fallacious assumptions you have made when the truth is right there in front of you!

Too often people see a search for truth as an "us vs them" proposition. When I see a theist make a fallacious assumption/statement I will gladly point that out and hopefully someone will do the same for me.

Exactly, the truth is not us vs. them. Excellent point. I hate how everybody's truth is us vs. them. Nobody is any different, it drives me insane.

Yeah, I saw a lot of your fallacious assumptions, but I was just way too nice. Sorry

Now it's time for you to drop your fallacious assumption, namely that you understand my agnosticism. It can happen to both of us, now it's time for you to confess. I speak plain English, yet you never understand.

Have you ever had a vision of God SP?

Not in the sense the OP alludes to.

Speak for yourself.