Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[infrabenji]

What if atheists have a spiritual awakening but it's not god related?

Is there a default spiritual experience and everything is based on that?

That’s a good question. I’ve had s

I'm speaking of atheists who have spiritual awakening not theists. People who believe no deities exist still have spiritual awakenings.

Unless they are lying or its fake or something?

I've never had a spiritual experience. I've had epiphanies which may be similar. I'm honestly not sure it's even possible to have a spiritual experience. If I had an experience I couldn't explain I think I would scrutinize it pretty severely to rule out natural causes. If I couldn't find a method to bespeak the event. I wouldn't rule out a natural explanation and presuppose a supernatural one. I would also look at the event subjectively to determine if it's just my head playing tricks on me. I would try not to let myself get lost in mental gymnastics trying to parse out an explanation that I cannot demonstrate or let my opinions about what happened outweigh the facts. It would help if someone was present when I had the spiritual experience and I could draw on their objectivity and/or subjectivity to help paint a clearer picture of the facts about the event. Sorry I don't have something better for you. I can't imagine we'll find many atheists who have had spiritual experiences but, we're never absolutely certain.

 

[Tiberius]

@infrabenji, real life is bugging me, so it will have to be short.

The problem is that "I accept" is not real as "can be measured and corroborated by different people", because the first one is subjective and the other is objective.
In all its absurdity it is a self-referring self-refuting rule: I have a subjective rule that only the objective is real, so my rule as subjective, is not real and thus not valid as real.

I think you meant to tag me, not Infrabenji.

None the less, I think it is quite clear what I was saying. If many people can measure and corroborate some particular fact, then I accept it as true. I will conclude that what has been measured is an accurate depiction of reality. Honestly, how do you want me to phrase this to avoid the word games you are playing?

 

[infrabenji]

I think you meant to tag me, not Infrabenji.

None the less, I think it is quite clear what I was saying. If many people can measure and corroborate some particular fact, then I accept it as true. I will conclude that what has been measured is an accurate depiction of reality. Honestly, how do you want me to phrase this to avoid the word games you are playing?

Mikkel loves his word games lol. I read and my fiancé read as well his recommended reading on cultural relativism/ cultural anthropology and intersubjective philosophy and we found it to be mostly unessential. If it can be shown to be more substantive for discourse regarding religion then I'll take it more seriously. But I wouldn't necessarily invest the time he has into forming my arguments around these philosophies unless it becomes more applicable in the future. No offence to Mikkel.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you meant to tag me, not Infrabenji.

None the less, I think it is quite clear what I was saying. If many people can measure and corroborate some particular fact, then I accept it as true. I will conclude that what has been measured is an accurate depiction of reality. Honestly, how do you want me to phrase this to avoid the word games you are playing?

Thank you for your answer. I don't accept it as true or an accurate depiction of reality. I treat it as a belief system that apparently works and effectively no different than other subjective, personal and biased belief systems. That includes both yours, me and other belief systems.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel loves his word games lol. I read and my fiancé read as well his recommended reading on cultural relativism/ cultural anthropology and intersubjective philosophy and we found it to be mostly unessential. If it can be shown to be more substantive for discourse regarding religion then I'll take it more seriously. But I wouldn't necessarily invest the time he has into forming my arguments around these philosophies unless it becomes more applicable in the future. No offence to Mikkel.

Here is how I read your post. You start out with a slight derogatory term and include a lol; apparently as a form of emotion/feeling You then offer no actual reasoning and use a non-real subjective first personal evaluation of utility and thus it doesn't live up your standard of being robust and intellectually honest. Of course it is intriguing that it seems to apply a double standard between a real world and a real God.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I've never had a spiritual experience. I've had epiphanies which may be similar. I'm honestly not sure it's even possible to have a spiritual experience. If I had an experience I couldn't explain I think I would scrutinize it pretty severely to rule out natural causes. If I couldn't find a method to bespeak the event. I wouldn't rule out a natural explanation and presuppose a supernatural one. I would also look at the event subjectively to determine if it's just my head playing tricks on me. I would try not to let myself get lost in mental gymnastics trying to parse out an explanation that I cannot demonstrate or let my opinions about what happened outweigh the facts. It would help if someone was present when I had the spiritual experience and I could draw on their objectivity and/or subjectivity to help paint a clearer picture of the facts about the event. Sorry I don't have something better for you. I can't imagine we'll find many atheists who have had spiritual experiences but, we're never absolutely certain.

Hi.
Ive had experiences of going into another world (a forest world). I remained skeptical of the place, I even wondered why I breathe there so one time I walked out into water and breathed it in just to find out what would happen. Felt water flowing down my throat and filling my lungs. Then I breathed out and could feel the water flowing in and out as I continued to breathe.
I have also felt myself having two bodies at the same time, two consciousnesses, and being aware of each other. It didnt feel weird. We were both me. One me in this place called reality, and another me in a forest dimension.

I think it is amazing that the mind can do that.



I would really appreciate your opinions on the evidence for my new belief in God, if you have time to examine them more closely.

It was not the series of experiences of another world that convinced me.
But after examining the bible and other religious texts I have become a believer.

I found the words have specific positions with other words within sentences. So I followed the words and saw a pattern. My conclusion is the sentences speak a Zodiac wheel language.
The bible contains the Israel Zodiac wheel.

I think the wordplay used within the bible shows high intelligence. People will not be able to hear it with normal ears. Have to remove all association of words. The Keywords group together and fit into four directions and the 12 gates. Three groups in each of the four directions.


The bible language displays the map of the heavens. It is a law.

The same hidden language can be found all over the world. Many places have complete images of their Zodiac wheel. Many places have it still in fragmented written form.

Thats why I am now also a believer in myths and fairytales.


I know why scientists cant find historical evidence of biblical events. Its the same reason they cant find evidence of mythical items and creatures. Cant hear the words.

I can show you continuous cherry picked bible verses and use circular reasoning as evidence to demonstrate my point of view. Each word placement can be backed up with other words. The words stay within the wheel. That is how you can see bible prophecies fulfilled. They happen as the words go into their places. The prophecy of the mountain flowing with wine as an example. Because the mountain of gold is made of wine. They are the same thing.

Like have you heard about Jesus turning water into wine?
Do you know what wine is?

If you can hear my reasoning then perhaps you can tell me if its logical or not.

 

[Tiberius]

Thank you for your answer. I don't accept it as true or an accurate depiction of reality. I treat it as a belief system that apparently works and effectively no different than other subjective, personal and biased belief systems. That includes both yours, me and other belief systems.

Well, I think that's getting into the brain-in-a-jar situation there.

 

[Tiberius]

Hi.
Ive had experiences of going into another world (a forest world). I remained skeptical of the place, I even wondered why I breathe there so one time I walked out into water and breathed it in just to find out what would happen. Felt water flowing down my throat and filling my lungs. Then I breathed out and could feel the water flowing in and out as I continued to breathe.
I have also felt myself having two bodies at the same time, two consciousnesses, and being aware of each other. It didnt feel weird. We were both me. One me in this place called reality, and another me in a forest dimension.

I think it is amazing that the mind can do that.



I would really appreciate your opinions on the evidence for my new belief in God, if you have time to examine them more closely.

It was not the series of experiences of another world that convinced me.
But after examining the bible and other religious texts I have become a believer.

I found the words have specific positions with other words within sentences. So I followed the words and saw a pattern. My conclusion is the sentences speak a Zodiac wheel language.
The bible contains the Israel Zodiac wheel.

I think the wordplay used within the bible shows high intelligence. People will not be able to hear it with normal ears. Have to remove all association of words. The Keywords group together and fit into four directions and the 12 gates. Three groups in each of the four directions.


The bible language displays the map of the heavens. It is a law.

The same hidden language can be found all over the world. Many places have complete images of their Zodiac wheel. Many places have it still in fragmented written form.

Thats why I am now also a believer in myths and fairytales.


I know why scientists cant find historical evidence of biblical events. Its the same reason they cant find evidence of mythical items and creatures. Cant hear the words.

I can show you continuous cherry picked bible verses and use circular reasoning as evidence to demonstrate my point of view. Each word placement can be backed up with other words. The words stay within the wheel. That is how you can see bible prophecies fulfilled. They happen as the words go into their places. The prophecy of the mountain flowing with wine as an example. Because the mountain of gold is made of wine. They are the same thing.

Like have you heard about Jesus turning water into wine?
Do you know what wine is?

If you can hear my reasoning then perhaps you can tell me if its logical or not.

So you became a believer by finding a pattern that only works if you interpret the Bible a certain way, and looking at cherry-picked verses?

That sounds like a terrible argument.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

So you became a believer by finding a pattern that only works if you interpret the Bible a certain way, and looking at cherry-picked verses?

That sounds like a terrible argument.

So it appears.

I have to cherry pick verses so I dont overwhelm. I can keep showing more cherry picked verses until the point is made. To back up the word placement.

Or do what I tried to get you doing in your thread:

Determining the Validity of a Prophecy | Religious Forums



I would have liked to hear more from you there. We could have followed the word of God together. The "mighty" word. You can find the mighty wine, the mighty weapon the bow.
The "mighty" hand that lead Moses out of Egypt.

I showed you many things and all you can say is its wordplay. But thats my point.

Can you drop your ego, so you can pick up your intelligence?


Find a bible search. Search for the word "mighty" Look at the words surrounding the mighty word.

Then you can come back to your thread and we can continue talking about determining the validity of prophecies if you want to.

 

[Tiberius]

So it appears.

I have to cherry pick verses so I dont overwhelm. I can keep showing more cherry picked verses until the point is made. To back up the word placement.

Or do what I tried to get you doing in your thread:

Determining the Validity of a Prophecy | Religious Forums



I would have liked to hear more from you there. We could have followed the word of God together. The "mighty" word. You can find the mighty wine, the mighty weapon the bow.
The "mighty" hand that lead Moses out of Egypt.

I showed you many things and all you can say is its wordplay. But thats my point.

Can you drop your ego, so you can pick up your intelligence?


Find a bible search. Search for the word "mighty" Look at the words surrounding the mighty word.

Then you can come back to your thread and we can continue talking about determining the validity of prophecies if you want to.

The trouble is that when you cherry pick verses you can ignore the ones you don't like, and so only get the bits that support whatever it is you've decided to believe. You aren't going to get any kind of truth that way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I think that's getting into the brain-in-a-jar situation there.

Yeah, I do treat objective reality as fair and believe that it doesn't cheat. Brain-in-a-jar, Boltzmann Brain and what not. But I don't treat the everyday world as natural/physical/material only.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

The trouble is that when you cherry pick verses you can ignore the ones you don't like, and so only get the bits that support whatever it is you've decided to believe. You aren't going to get any kind of truth that way.

I agree. You cant ignore any of them. But you can sort them.
The language of the wheel is very precise in its detail and not vague.


Can sort any scripture worldwide into two groups. Those that speak wheel and those that don't.
I see Mohamed speaks the wheel of the bible prophets/messengers, but Baha'u'llah does not.

At first I thought the bible didnt make sense. So I stopped trying to make sense of it. Words in some of the sentences caught my attention but then I would shrug it off and not try to make sense of it. After repeated word coincidences I started taking note of the coincidences within sentences. I realised words have a position among the other words. The positions turned into groups.

I followed the words of the bible. My thinking it is a zodiac wheel language is my conclusion.

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah, I do treat objective reality as fair and believe that it doesn't cheat. Brain-in-a-jar, Boltzmann Brain and what not. But I don't treat the everyday world as natural/physical/material only.

Do you have any testable way to show this?

 

[Tiberius]

I agree. You cant ignore any of them. But you can sort them.
The language of the wheel is very precise in its detail and not vague.


Can sort any scripture worldwide into two groups. Those that speak wheel and those that don't.
I see Mohamed speaks the wheel of the bible prophets/messengers, but Baha'u'llah does not.

At first I thought the bible didnt make sense. So I stopped trying to make sense of it. Words in some of the sentences caught my attention but then I would shrug it off and not try to make sense of it. After repeated word coincidences I started taking note of the coincidences within sentences. I realised words have a position among the other words. The positions turned into groups.

I followed the words of the bible. My thinking it is a zodiac wheel language is my conclusion.

Sounds like the Bible Code. That was debunked as pure nonsense when they discovered they could use it to find any message they wanted, and that it also worked on Harry Potter.

So your argument looks to be extremely weak.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you have any testable way to show this?

No! It is a non-religious belief, yet it is the same as some religious beliefs as to the objective properties of objective reality. I believe it is fair, but that is not testable.
The same as this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That’s a good question. I’ve had s

I've never had a spiritual experience. I've had epiphanies which may be similar. I'm honestly not sure it's even possible to have a spiritual experience. If I had an experience I couldn't explain I think I would scrutinize it pretty severely to rule out natural causes. If I couldn't find a method to bespeak the event. I wouldn't rule out a natural explanation and presuppose a supernatural one. I would also look at the event subjectively to determine if it's just my head playing tricks on me. I would try not to let myself get lost in mental gymnastics trying to parse out an explanation that I cannot demonstrate or let my opinions about what happened outweigh the facts. It would help if someone was present when I had the spiritual experience and I could draw on their objectivity and/or subjectivity to help paint a clearer picture of the facts about the event. Sorry I don't have something better for you. I can't imagine we'll find many atheists who have had spiritual experiences but, we're never absolutely certain.

Okay. TL;DR and only subjectively relevant and without evidence.
When starting doing this in earnest over 20 years ago, I always wondered how it is possible to be subjective in a natural world. Off course there is more than just that, but in general I was mostly around in effect people like you; in effect scientific skeptics. And I was told always to check my thinking and consider, when I was subjective and be honest about it. So I learned to try to reduce away subjectivity and found it is not possible. In not so short terms the closest you can get is non-reductive physicalism. The mind or rather its properties or rather in effect the referent to certain words can be found to be caused by the physical, but can't be reduced too the physical.

So here is an example. Take the word honest. In the end as it connects to other words and not all of these words can be explained objectively.
So here it is. The word spirit is religious in origin, but if you remove the religious part there is something left, which is not fully physical. In non-religious words the mental is a case of supervenience and it is connected to the physical and apparently caused by it, but you can't use evidence on it.
In other words, there is a part of the everyday world where science doesn't apply and that wouldn't change if we were all non-religious. It wouldn't even be better with evidence, because better is in the mind and mental and without evidence.
Whether you are in effect doing some variant of scientism or not, I don't know yet. Time will tell.

 

[Tiberius]

No! It is a non-religious belief, yet it is the same as some religious beliefs as to the objective properties of objective reality. I believe it is fair, but that is not testable.
The same as this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Of course, those axioms allow us to produce consistent results, no matter who uses them.

Can your axioms do the same?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course, those axioms allow us to produce consistent results, no matter who uses them.

Yes, in a limited sense.

Can your axioms do the same?

Yes, they are just different for the parts that are not cover by those axioms.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, much of what science has learned in the last 100 years is counter-intuitive. Precisely because scientists like Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrodinger etc., were prepared to change their ways of thinking about a problem, to pursue ideas which were on the face of things absurd, and to submit papers which many of their peers found inscrutable, and dismissed as nonsense.

But what they didn't do is put logic and reason to one side and give up on objective evidence. They put intuition to one side. In other words, the opposite of what you suggested.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are correct that there are lots of 'holy books' and even more interpretations of them but holy books are the only real evidence of God because they originated from God through His Messengers. Maybe you could start by deciding which holy books to look at. It makes sense to me that you would look at the most recent ones rather than ones that were written thousands of years ago, which were written to apply to past ages of history. The Baha'i Faith is the newest world religion and it has many, many books you could read.

Why would I look at any of them? If I were to, your reasoning regarding the latest is entirely based on your own view being true. There is no objective information to tell us which one may contain truth or, for that matter, that any of them do.

God could show up on Earth, but I just explained what would happen if God did that on this thread:

Sure, God could show up on Earth and make sure everyone believes He exists. This is what would happen if God showed up. So great is the Light of God that if God showed up on earth in all His glory everything on Earth would be reduced to utter nothingness.

Either god is perfectly capable of showing up (in some form) without destroying everything or it isn't omnipotent.

The other reason God does not 'show up' is because that would be too easy since in that case everyone would know that He exists and nobody would have to exert any effort to search for God.

Why does it want effort? If it has an important message and it hasn't made it obvious, it is being cruel and unfair.

God is hidden from view, but God's attributes and God's message are not hidden as they are revealed by the Messengers of God.

I see no evidence of genuine messages from any god, just many, many people making often contradictory claims.

There is an obvious message from God and evidence for God, you just have to go looking for it.

If I have to go looking for it, it isn't obvious.

There is plenty of evidence that comes on the form of holy books as I just pointed out in my previous post. the fact that atheists do not 'like' that evidence is an entirely moot point.

It's not a matter of liking it or not. Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". Specifically, something is useless as evidence if it's subjective or consistent with the falsity of the proposition as well as its truth. What solid, objective facts are there in holy books that support the proposition that there is a god and that the books are valid messages? I've read the bible and it certainly doesn't contain any evidence.

And, again, if god insists we go searching through holy books for evidence of an important message, it's playing a cruel game of hide-and-seek. I would want nothing to do with such a god, even if it existed.