Atheism is a faith

[Storm]

Not if the nonexistence of God is the result of the same reasoning as the nonexistance of unicorns, leprichauns, Zues, shoozawhatzits, or anything else 'conceived.' I believe it's 'factual' as much as I believe it's 'factual' that unicorns don't actually live anywhere on earth. (Which isn't 100%, it's possible.)

The difference being that countless people throughout human history, and across all cultural barriers report personal experience of God. With the exception of Zeus (who is but one culture's conceptualization of God) none of your examples can compare with that.

Throughout time, supernatural explanations have always turned into natural ones. Never the other way around. Why is this?

These are two main reasons, along with the overwhelming lack of evidence, that I non-believe in the supernatural.

Conflating belief in God with belief in the supernatural is an error on your part.

Faith? I call it reason.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, it's just that - an opinion, not a fact.

 

[gnomon]

The difference being that countless people throughout human history, and across all cultural barriers report personal experience of God. With the exception of Zeus (who is but one culture's conceptualization of God) none of your examples can compare with that.


Conflating belief in God with belief in the supernatural is an error on your part.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, it's just that - an opinion, not a fact.

They don't experience God.

They ascribe certain experiences to a concept of a God(s). There's a difference.

 

[meogi]

The difference being that countless people throughout human history, and across all cultural barriers report personal experience of God.

And yet not one of them can provide any shred of actual evidence. Many primitive cultures use psychadelics to enter the spirit realm. Others claim, "take my word for it," "it feels right," "he spoke to me in a dream." I don't trust people to interpret their emotions in any way other than their own. It is NOT useful in helping dictate the actual existance of a concept.

Why do people claim that they just have a special 'feeling' that they are correct. I've experienced that feeling (I love being in a full church with hundreds/thousands of believers... it's quite an uplifting experience.) but it's just that, a feeling. I've felt the same thing at sports games, cliff jumping, anything that gives me adrenaline usually. It's a natural reaction the body has to stimuli.

I've tripped balls before and had some crazy 'supernatural' experiences. But I know it's just a simple chemical changing the way other chemicals interact in my brain. Sure it could be some supernatural 'realm,' but if it's the result of natural (or created) chemicals then how is that supernatural?

Conflating belief in God with belief in the supernatural is an error on your part.

God is not supernatural? If one doesn't believe in the supernatural, then one doesn't believe in God, more than likely. Replace supernatural with God if you'd like.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, it's just that - an opinion, not a fact.

Yes, it's my assumption to ignore emotion/personal experience when looking for explanations. Why should I trust someone when they provide no reason?

 

[Storm]

They don't experience God.

How do you know?

They ascribe certain experiences to a concept of a God(s). There's a difference.

Not if they have no concept of God until the experience.

 

[rojse]

Considering how many different cultures experience God, you think that there would be more similarities in experience and the conceptualisation of God. There are gods that have different creator properties, "evil" gods, good gods, gods that do not care. These gods live in different places. Each of them are surrounded by different myths and legends. All of them are given different appearances - some have claws and wings, some have horns, some have bears, some are animal-like in their appearance.

If you wish to conclude that gods must exist because most cultures have had "god experiences," we would have to conclude that there are a multitude of gods, and all of these gods are just as great as the Christian god.

 

[Storm]

And yet not one of them can provide any shred of actual evidence.

We can prove that the experience is real. Neurotheology has shown that it correlates to a specific neurological pattern distinct from hallucination and malfunction.

It is NOT useful in helping dictate the actual existance of a concept.

Uncontested. God is thus far outside the scope of science. That leaves all set beliefs - atheism included - unsupported by objective evidence.

Why do people claim that they just have a special 'feeling' that they are correct. I've experienced that feeling (I love being in a full church with hundreds/thousands of believers... it's quite an uplifting experience.) but it's just that, a feeling. I've felt the same thing at sports games, cliff jumping, anything that gives me adrenaline usually. It's a natural reaction the body has to stimuli.

As someone who as experienced both, I assure you they are quite different.

I've tripped balls before and had some crazy 'supernatural' experiences. But I know it's just a simple chemical changing the way other chemicals interact in my brain. Sure it could be some supernatural 'realm,' but if it's the result of natural (or created) chemicals then how is that supernatural?

I don't believe in the supernatural, myself.

God is not supernatural? If one doesn't believe in the supernatural, then one doesn't believe in God, more than likely. Replace supernatural with God if you'd like.

Admittedly, most God-believers also believe in the supernatural, but not all do. Though I make no claims to objective proof, I'm as certain of God's existence as I am rocks', and I find "supernatural" to be an utterly nonsensical concept.

Yes, it's my assumption to ignore emotion/personal experience when looking for explanations. Why should I trust someone when they provide no reason?

You shouldn't put someone else's experience and conclusions before your own, of course. But neither should you ignore those different experiences to pronounce your own unsupportable conclusions as "fact."

 

[Jeremiah]

True it does not require faith to "Not care one lick" but it does require faith to believe that the nonexistence of God is "Factual".

Did I not also say -

Nor does it require faith not to care one lick about facts.

I am not sure….but..I..think….that is what I said.

Actualizing non-God is not a requirement of the atheistic title.

I remember the first day this God theory was formally introduced to me. I was in the 5th grade at the time and my grandmother wanted me to go to church with her. She placed me in a Sunday school classroom with about 10 other kids. The lady whatever her title may be told us about Jesus and God.

Now, because I was just a kid my manners not yet very happy; I started at her with utter disbelief apparent on my face, this seemed unnerving to her. As I sat there listening to her speak I thought to myself this is just about the craziest thing I have ever been told. I did not go around just believing in everything I was told. And I did not see any reason to treat this God theory differently. So I decided I should wait for them to present evidence before I accepted their strange God theory. Well, that was ...hmm...lets see…well that was almost two decades ago and I am still waiting for that evidence. Nor has there ever been any evidence presented that I could reject to. Just words, that’s all these God claims ever carry.

Yes you can and we never said that there was anything wrong with that

Apparently you missed the whole faith as force of will and the belief in the physical spiel. The former was brief and vague so I can see a misunderstanding there.

So you’re saying you have no faith in absolutely anything whatsoever? That's your purgative.

You got it doll face; I am completely 100% faithless. (Quick don't miss your chance to mince words)

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” – Socrates

Really MoonWater you are going to have to try allot harder if want to debate with a bunch of skeptics. Heck even I dread debating skeptics. They always disagree with you!! No matter what you say!

 

[gnomon]

How do you know?

Because they have told us so in the historical record.

Just because many people have experiences which they describe as spiritual does not make it the same experience described by others.

I'm talking about subjectivity.

 

[Storm]

Considering how many different cultures experience God, you think that there would be more similarities in experience and the conceptualisation of God. There are gods that have different creator properties, "evil" gods, good gods, gods that do not care. These gods live in different places. Each of them are surrounded by different myths and legends. All of them are given different appearances - some have claws and wings, some have horns, some have bears, some are animal-like in their appearance.

These things are cultural baggage. They're what happens when we attempt to communicate the incommunicable.

If you wish to conclude that gods must exist because most cultures have had "god experiences," we would have to conclude that there are a multitude of gods, and all of these gods are just as great as the Christian god.

I do not "wish to conclude that gods must exist because most cultures have had 'god experiences'". I merely point out that God-experiences are rife among humans, unlike experiences of unicorns, etc..

 

[rojse]

These things are cultural baggage. They're what happens when we attempt to communicate the incommunicable.


I do not "wish to conclude that gods must exist because most cultures have had 'god experiences'". I merely point out that God-experiences are rife among humans, unlike experiences of unicorns, etc..

Okay - what about dragons? Many cultures speak of dragons.

And these mythical creatures may have only had a smaller territory, limited by the environment, food sources, and population growth. Few animals have a worldwide territory, excepting humans and their associated pests.

 

[Storm]

Because they have told us so in the historical record.

Oh, they have not.

 

[gnomon]

Oh, they have not.

Yes, they have. On stone tablets found from ancient Sumerian and Babylonian sites. From the writings of Taoist followers, Shinto followers, Christian mystics, Humanists, Plato...and practically the entire written historical record.

edit: go to an AA meeting, then go to a Southern Baptist church in a predominantly white location and then attend a black spiritual.

People have different experiences and those three examples above are closer to each other than those given to us from the historical record.

 

[Jeremiah]

The difference being that countless people throughout human history, and across all cultural barriers report personal experience of God. With the exception of Zeus (who is but one culture's conceptualization of God) none of your examples can compare with that.

That is your compelling evidence? Sorry way to weak to support any factual belief in God.

Not but words.

 

[Storm]

That is your compelling evidence? Sorry way to weak to support any factual belief in God.

Not but words.

If you were paying a bit more attention, I wasn't claiming that God's non-existence is factual, much less attempting to provide compelling evidence for the idea. I was pointing out that atheism cannot support the idea that God's nonexistence is factual. Big difference.

 

[Storm]

Yes, they have. On stone tablets found from ancient Sumerian and Babylonian sites. From the writings of Taoist followers, Shinto followers, Christian mystics, Humanists, Plato...and practically the entire written historical record.

And where have any of those said, "OK, we were wrong, there is no God"? Where has history shown that there is no God?

Look, I'll state it clearly for everyone's benefit: I am not claiming that God's existence is factual. I am not attempting to provide proof. I'm not that foolish or arrogant. I'm saying that God's nonexistence isn't a fact, either. If you want to argue that point, please provide conclusive proof of GOd's nonexistence.

 

[gnomon]

And where have any of those said, "OK, we were wrong, there is no God"? Where has history shown that there is no God?

Look, I'll state it clearly for everyone's benefit: I am not claiming that God's existence is factual. I am not attempting to provide proof. I'm not that foolish or arrogant. I'm saying that God's nonexistence isn't a fact, either. If you want to argue that point, please provide conclusive proof of GOd's nonexistence.

I was never debating the non-existence of God. I'm stating that just because two individuals have a "spiritual" experience that it is not logical to conclude that those experiences lead to the same God.

 

[Jeremiah]

If you were paying a bit more attention, I wasn't claiming that God's non-existence is factual, much less attempting to provide compelling evidence for the idea. I was pointing out that atheism cannot support the idea that God's nonexistence is factual. Big difference.

I was paying attention. You were dragging the thread off course in pursuit of an irrelevant topic.

Now if maybe you paid a bit more attention and controlled that steam....

Actualizing non-God is not a requirement of the atheistic title.

The debate is not if God is real or not; it is if atheism is a faith or not.

 

[meogi]

We can prove that the experience is real. Neurotheology has shown that it correlates to a specific neurological pattern distinct from hallucination and malfunction.

Neurotheology, new one to me, gonna look it up, thanks. Is this evidence for the supernatural or that 'supernatural experiences' are handled in a different part of the brain? It's still just part of the way the brain works (natural), isn't it? Perhaps when I look into it I'll find out. (Just jotting down ideas here.)

Uncontested. God is thus far outside the scope of science. That leaves all set beliefs - atheism included - unsupported by objective evidence.

So you don't agree that the overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence of absence? Why make any claim outside the realm of testing at all? You must realize that it's at most 50/50 (exists or doesn't) chance when you can't have any sort of objective testing/reasoning. I'm not about to put my way of life in the hands of a coin toss.

If it's not 50/50, it's personal understanding vs. overwhelming lack of evidence, and determining which is more credible. This is what 'outside the realm of science' means to me.

As someone who as experienced both, I assure you they are quite different.

Since this supernatural experience happens in a separate part of the brain, due to a separate experience, how might one go about activating this area? Could there perhaps be a genetic deficiency that some people just can't experience the supernatural? What sort of stimuli must be presented to a person to activate this supernatural brain area?

I don't believe in the supernatural, myself.

Admittedly, most God-believers also believe in the supernatural, but not all do. Though I make no claims to objective proof, I'm as certain of God's existence as I am rocks', and I find "supernatural" to be an utterly nonsensical concept.

Gotcha.

You shouldn't put someone else's experience and conclusions before your own, of course. But neither should you ignore those different experiences to pronounce your own unsupportable conclusions as "fact."

I don't ignore them, I just don't trust them. I don't trust them because they can never seem to inform me how to experience what they do. (Asside from saying, you just have to believe, then you'll understand. How do you just believe?)

Do you (or anyone here) think there is a difference between non-belief through reasoning and just not believing? If yes, what would you constitute as 'reasoning' in the non-belief of a concept?

 

[meogi]

Okay - what about dragons? Many cultures speak of dragons.

And these mythical creatures may have only had a smaller territory, limited by the environment, food sources, and population growth. Few animals have a worldwide territory, excepting humans and their associated pests.

I can't imagine what I would have thought if I came across a complete/partial dinosaur fossil without any knowledge of dinosaurs! (That's the likely catalyst for dragon myths.)

I do not "wish to conclude that gods must exist because most cultures have had 'god experiences'". I merely point out that God-experiences are rife among humans, unlike experiences of unicorns, etc..

Ok, but what of the small number of people's unicorn and leprichaun experiences? Why discount them? Because it's not rife throughout humanity?

Lets look at it this way: Dino-fossils could be the catalyst for dragon myths, rainbows and small green animals could be the catalyst for leprichaun myths, and horses standing in front of a tree could be the catalyst for unicorn myths. Couldn't emotion be the catalyst for God-experiences? Emotion is far more prevalent in the world than the others though, of course there's going to be more experiences.

They're what happens when we attempt to communicate the incommunicable.

So God can be experienced but not communicated with? I wonder what our world would look like if our ancestors had stopped asking him questions then... I would surely hope its less of a hierarchical one presented to us by most religions.

 

[Storm]

Neurotheology, new one to me, gonna look it up, thanks.

You're quite welcome. I highly recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief

So you don't agree that the overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence of absence?

No. Furthermore, I don't believe there's an overwhelming lack of evidence. The widespread occurance of mystical experiences and the fact that every human civilization has believed in some form of GOd is evidence from where I sit. It's a far cry from conclusive evidence, in fact it's rather pathetic as evidence goes, but it does qualify.

Why make any claim outside the realm of testing at all?

For me personally? Personal experience. My catalytic theophany was indescribably intense and transformative, and disbelief is simply no longer an option for me.

You must realize that it's at most 50/50 (exists or doesn't) chance when you can't have any sort of objective testing/reasoning. I'm not about to put my way of life in the hands of a coin toss.

I can trust the evidence of my senses or not. FOr me, to doubt the existence of God would require doubting the existence of reality.

If it's not 50/50, it's personal understanding vs. overwhelming lack of evidence, and determining which is more credible. This is what 'outside the realm of science' means to me.

I've asked this elsewhere on the forum, and never received an answer: what would you consider to be evidence of God's existence, and how could science go about attaining it?

Since this supernatural experience happens in a separate part of the brain, due to a separate experience, how might one go about activating this area?

(I don't think it's supernatural ) Meditation works well for alot of people, you just have to keep at it. Self-inducing mystical states is a learned skill, and a difficult one. Like art, a gifted few know how to do it instinctively, but the vast majority of us have to study, try various techniques and practice our butts off to get it down. To make it even harder, teaching it is a crapshoot at best. There's no way to review a student's work, after all. I was lucky enough to have that incredibly intense theophany (spontaneous mystical state) to serve as a comparison, and it still took me years to self-induce.

Could there perhaps be a genetic deficiency that some people just can't experience the supernatural?

It's possible, but I think most of the time it's a simple lack of skill/ knowledge.

I don't ignore them, I just don't trust them.

Fair enough.

I don't trust them because they can never seem to inform me how to experience what they do. (Asside from saying, you just have to believe, then you'll understand. How do you just believe?)

Ugh, I hate it when people say that. It strikes me as an attempt to proselytize rather than teach self-inducement.

What works for me might not work for you, but I find no-thought works well when I'm in practice. To get into practice, I use a technique I developed myself that focuses on the rhythms of breath and heartbeat. If you like, you're welcom to PM me and I'll send you the details.

Do you (or anyone here) think there is a difference between non-belief through reasoning and just not believing?

Not really.

I can't imagine what I would have thought if I came across a complete/partial dinosaur fossil without any knowledge of dinosaurs! (That's the likely catalyst for dragon myths.)

You're probably right.

Ok, but what of the small number of people's unicorn and leprichaun experiences? Why discount them? Because it's not rife throughout humanity?

To my knowledge, we don't have accounts of such. We have myths, which I believe deserve respect in their own right, but are not comparable to God-belief.

Couldn't emotion be the catalyst for God-experiences?

Not by itself, I don't think, but I'm no authority.

So God can be experienced but not communicated with?

You misunderstand me. I meant that the experience is incommucnicable, but we are compelled to try anyway. That's when the cultural baggage starts to pile on.