Atheists: does God exist?

[RamaRaksha]

No one's looking for a placebo, we are in search of the truth. You atheists, on the other hand, are not the noble, adventurous, and fearless ones; you are defiant, corrupt, and oblivious - you don't want to be accountable, or told what to do.
You all lack self-discipline and true morality - you think that you're good simply because you compare yourselves to the worst of humans, and never to a holy and righteous God; the Father and Author of all love, truth, and rectitude.

Being held accountable means accepting our mistakes and making things right - making the victim whole
If I drove drunk one night and caused some material damage, sure in the light of the day, I am repentant
But if I start crying and beg for forgiveness from the Judge, he actually, will get angry
1 - Tell me that I need to stop crying, stop feeling sorry for myself, take responsibility for my actions
2 - As a Judge he does not have the right to forgive, only the victim has that right
3 - And most important, I need to set things right, pay for the damages that I caused, make the victim whole
In fact, it is YOU theists who are corrupt and sick
You think you can just beg and cry your way out
All this talk of repentance and the religion assures you that nice God will forgive you and that is what you are really after
Not one word about the victim, not one mention of the pain that you caused
Not even once do you ask for a 2nd chance to set things right, because you know what, to set things right, you
have to come back - Reincarnation!
But you want nothing to do with doing the right thing, all you want to do is cry and sneak away to Heaven
And religion assures you that nice God will let you do that - help you cheat your victims!
Well Sir, the real God is not going to help you cheat your victims
He is not going to let you cry your way out
Amazing that you talk morals, values! Just wow!

 

[RamaRaksha]

There you have it: one who believes that the world is in spiffy order. That says it all - every time that one looks at the world and all its conventions and constructs, they should see the devil.

You are actually mocking God and his work? Not up to your standard?
God made this world, this earth - our home - gave us this life
Life is a Gift from God
But life is also harsh, not easy and so religions have created Heavens - perfect worlds - to run away to and hide
These are fantasies - they are not real
Only this world is Real
One cannot live in a fantasy - one can live only in the real world

 

[Unfettered]

Unless someone is omniscient, "all-knowing", I find life to be like one of those mystery movies with twists and surprise endings. That new clue, it can change everything.

Example, my great grandmother was quite a controlling woman. Grandfather hardly ever said anything, sat quietly nodding, agreeing to everything, always just a little smile. She controlled finances. She read the paper. I remember at a restaurant she ordered his food for him - he wasn't allowed to look at the menu, wasn't allowed to choose what to eat- she ordered for herself, and without pause, then ordered for grampa. He would just sit there, nodding, smile, agree to everything, never complain.... So ... new piece of info.... She ended up going blind... and that is when we learned he was illiterate... You think you know what is going on, and find you don't.

Example. Exemplary family. He serves in bishopric, she is relief society president, their children are praised, everyone sustains them in their callings, feels the spirit, raised hands to sustain - children are told aren't they so lucky to have parents like that, aren't they proud, so wonderful to have priesthood, they all learn the songs, sing during fathers day - we're so glad when daddy comes home... only now he's in jail, without probation under Jessica's law, he'll die in jail. 18 years of videos. Calling after calling after calling... they blamed his first wife of being uptight.. his second wife had been abused too... his mother had been abused... generation after generation, isn't genealogy great?

I don't know what this has to do with my statement that you quoted: "Then my claims of knowledge are being prejudiced here. Which, of necessity, means that those who are prejudicing my claims are doing so in ignorance—and remaining in ignorance."

Could you shed light on what you intended to communicate with both your initial response (about omniscience) and the examples?

Listening with the internet to manipulate isn't really listening....

I didn't say anything about listening with the intent to manipulate. Not sure what you're responding to.

Not of your beliefs...

I don't know what you mean here. It doesn't appear to follow what I said.

A miracle they were cured (not that athiest doctor). So thankful for 'gods' #blessings, so #blessed. (Those other people in developing and war torn countries... I guess they earned their place in premortal life, guess they just needed more "refinement", need to be "prumed, cut down", for their own good... refined? PTSD? Completely brain dead is "refined"? It was good for them?)...

... they wouldn't volunteer with me, I should have seen it then. They would not testify in court, priest privilege... they rushed to visit him in prison, but did not help kids, no talking to me. Innocence - we are all trusting, we assume the best, cognitive dissonance is very real.

We're not omniscient. We don't know anything really.

Just FYI, many of the athiests I know have gone through hell. Abused animals, know how they act?

This reads like stream of consciousness to me. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you explain?

 

[idea]

I don't know what this has to do with my statement that you quoted: "Then my claims of knowledge are being prejudiced here. Which, of necessity, means that those who are prejudicing my claims are doing so in ignorance—and remaining in ignorance."

Could you shed light on what you intended to communicate with both your initial response (about omniscience) and the examples?
I didn't say anything about listening with the intent to manipulate. Not sure what you're responding to.
I don't know what you mean here. It doesn't appear to follow what I said.
This reads like stream of consciousness to me. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you explain?

I do not believe anyone has knowledge. The only way to know anything with certainty is to be omniscient. We are all ignorant of many things.

It was examples - of thinking I knew something, then finding I was wrong.

Have you done shadow work? Have you ever been wrong about something important?

Those unwilling to change their beliefs are difficult to communicate with. I have changed, learned, grown. Claims of knowledge... think for a moment how you view others who believe they have found the "truth"... you are not so different than they.

 

[Unfettered]

I do not believe anyone has knowledge. The only way to know anything with certainty is to be omniscient. We are all ignorant of many things.

I agree that we are ignorant of many things. I don't agree that no one has knowledge. It is self-evident that we each have knowledge. I'm not sure how you equate possessing any knowledge at all with omniscience, which is to know all. But if that is your understanding, I can see why you would argue against my claims of knowing something.

It was examples - of thinking I knew something, then finding I was wrong.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

Have you done shadow work?

Yes, I have. My life, like everyone else's, is complex, and has afforded me the need to seek and ponder many things relative to myself and my experience.

Have you ever been wrong about something important?

Yes, many times.

Those unwilling to change their beliefs are difficult to communicate with.

Doesn't that depend on your objective when communicating with them? For example, if you're trying to get them to change their beliefs, I would expect communication to be next to impossible. If you're trying to communicate your point of view, I don't see why that would be destined to fail with a person not willing to change his beliefs; he just has to listen and evaluate, not change.

I have changed, learned, grown. Claims of knowledge... think for a moment how you view others who believe they have found the "truth"... you are not so different than they.

Except in times of weakness, I view such persons as companions, not adversaries. They're just like me—doing the best they can with what they have.

 

[Unfettered]

So you offer no knowledge that any God exists.

Beyond communicating with words, how do I "offer" my knowledge of God to another person?

How do you discern it was real versus imagind? Explain your process.

The things God promised to me came to pass in reality.

Did you have these experiences you call a God after you heard others talk about experiences with a God?

The concept of God was introduced to me by my parents. The experiences I have had with God are my own.

Gods aren't known to exist.

Perhaps not to you, but you are not the only person.

Few people claim to know a God exists.

I lack data with which to evaluate that statement. Of the billions of people who proclaim a god, I do not know how many of them know their god exists, or merely believe their god exists. Can you share the data on which you've based that statement?

When some person does claim such a thing it is an extraordinary claim and we have questions.

No doubt!

Who is "we"? Are you speaking for someone other than yourself here?

We also look at the other claims and beliefs of such claimants

Are you evaluating claims en masse, or doing due diligence for each individual claim?

and if they include disinformation

How would you evaluate "disinformation" here? Can you give me an example?

and show bias in one way or another

I don't know what "one way" is, here, vs "another." Can you give me an example of someone showing bias? Also include how the actuality of their bias was verified.

it suggests a person who is easily suggestible and can adopt ideas that aren't true. That casts doubt on their religious claims.

I'm forgoing additional replies on this line until you've had a chance to respond to my clarifying questions.

The more extraordinary the claim, like experiencing a God, the more extraordinary the evidence must be.

If a person claiming an experience with God expects me to change my opinion or views or life on the sole basis of his claim, I agree that evidence appropriate to the claim would be needed.

Given that humans can believe in all sorts of untrue and illusory ideas it is easy to reject extraordinary claims of experiencing a God.

It is very easy to reject claims, yes.

It's more likely the claimant is mimicking other believers and their claims of experience with God.

Again, I lack data and context to evaluate that statement. But since you're confident, why is it more likely that they're just mimicking others? More likely than what?

This is a broad and irrelevant definition. What is the point of trying to drag in atheists as having a religion unless you as a believer have some understanding that religion (defined as some God belief) includes ideas that not only lack evidence, but also inconsistent with fact and knowledge?

What is the motive to make the word "religion" apply to all people? We aren't talking about the definition you wrote, we are talking about a framework of concepts that include supernatural elements. Explain why you are trying to blur the definition.

It is a broad definition, but wholly relevant. Universally relevant to mankind, in fact. The word itself points to the state of having gone back and read something that one had read before (re- lig -ion), and the word was first used relative to a person's worldview and/or moral understanding. The word literally means "one in a state of having read a work again." Re- lig (from legere) -ion. It is relevant to anyone with a worldview or moral understanding. For example, do you, personally, have a system of beliefs about the world and morality to which you turn regularly ("religiously") when confronted with questions and situations? If so, does that system of belief find its origin outside of yourself, in works (books, papers, podcasts, etc.) produced by others? If you do have such a system, that is your religion—the ideas to which you turn again and again to orient yourself in the world. It makes no difference whatever that a person does or does not attach to his religion a belief in some god. The theist/atheist dichotomy is a superimposition onto the core meaning of the word.

Yet this moral truth DOES appeal to fact, namely the fact that victims are harmed. So this example doesn't work.
I wrote this "And would you agree that the standard of truth are facts, and reasoned conclusions that follow facts, and also rejecting claims that lack facts?"

I wasn't asking about rape.

I don't agree with the dismissal; I believe the example is a good one; but since you've followed up with an example that you already understand is a good example, let's go with that one.

I was asking about a standard for truthful statements and the mind that judges them. Would you say the god Vishnu exists and is factual?

That's two questions:

Would you say the god Vishnu exists?
- and -
Would you say the god Vishnu is factual?

The first question I cannot answer without additional learning and investigation (generally speaking). But it can be answered.

The second question makes no sense to me. I exist; that is true; am I factual? You exist; that is true; are you factual? What is being asked there? Are you intending to ask if the result of the first question is factual? If so, then you're really asking just one question. If not, I don't know what you're asking.

Your answers above can reveal what your standard of truth is, if it is factual or something else.

The standard of truth that I use is: "truth is things as they really are, things as they really have been, and things as they really will be."

So you think your religious beliefs, and your claim of experiening a God, are objective and use critical thinking? If so, explain.

Firstly, my religious beliefs and my claim of experiencing God are not the same things.

My religious beliefs are the product of my choosing to accept as true and/or real the abstractions constituted in the beliefs. For example, I believe that people are inherently good. I do not claim to know that people are inherently good because I know that every person is subject to influences that opposed good, making it impossible for me to independently know that all people are inherently good.

My claim of having experience with God is based on observation, following my fulfillment of known conditions claimed to be attached to a promised, observable experience.

Critical thinking is very much a part of how I learn, evaluate, process, decide and choose.

If your religious beliefs can't be shown to be factual and rational then it suggests you don't understand what these words mean, or unable to acknowledge what the religious concepts you believe in are (being social and cultural ideas hat are not fact-based).

I understand what you're saying.

Do you think atheists have a good reason to reject supernatural claims?

I accept that every person who claims a thing or espouses a belief has good reason for making those claims and espousing those beliefs. By default, I extend this grace to every human being. I cannot answer the question you offer, relative to specific individuals, without additional knowledge and understanding.

If you'll choose and identify the atheist we're talking about, I'll get to know him or her. If in that process I acquire enough knowledge and understanding to allow me to make a good judgment on the question, then I'll tell you whether or not I think he or she has a good reason to reject supernatural claims. No matter what judgment I reach, however, it will merely be an opinion. The person himself, or herself, will ever and always be the only human able to judge perfectly whether or not he or she has a good reason.

 

[Unfettered]

What do atheists say or do that you consider gaslighting?

(And FYI: I often feel the same thing from theists)

It doesn't have to be an atheist, but anytime a person tells me, without informed qualification of any kind, that I don't know what I claim to know, that I haven't experienced what I claim to have experienced, that what I know is irrational, that I can't rationally believe or know what I'm talking about, etc., and pressures me via shaming, mockery, insults to reject or abandon or re-define or re-classify what I claim to know, offering alternate realities that I should accept instead of what I present—that is gaslighting.

If you have experienced the same from anyone, including theists, then you understand what it is to be gaslighted, and you know how offensive and unproductive it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't have to be an atheist, but anytime a person tells me, without informed qualification of any kind, that I don't know what I claim to know, that I haven't experienced what I claim to have experienced, that what I know is irrational, that I can't rationally believe or know what I'm talking about, etc., and pressures me via shaming, mockery, insults to reject or abandon or re-define or re-classify what I claim to know, offering alternate realities that I should accept instead of what I present—that is gaslighting.

Generally, my approach when someone says they've experienced something is to take the experience itself as given and instead focus on what we can reasonably infer from the experience.

I think it would be out of line to say to someone describing their personal experience "that didn't happen," but I do think it's fair game to point out that our attribution of experiences to causes is sometimes mistaken.

A rustle in the bushes could just be the wind and not an animal; the fact that someone prayed for rain and then it rained doesn't mean that the rain necessarily came because of the prayer.

If you have experienced the same from anyone, including theists, then you understand what it is to be gaslighted, and you know how offensive and unproductive it is.

There are a lot of very mainstream Christian apologetics approaches that have a strong gaslighting element to them. A few examples:

- "Deep down, atheists actually believe in God. They're just rebelling."

- "Evidence for God is obvious and all around us. If you don't see it, you're blinded by sin."

- "The Bible is perfectly consistent and true, but to read it 'properly,' you have to be led by the Holy Spirit."

- "Once saved, always saved. If you leave Christianity, you were never a true Christian."

 

[idea]

I agree that we are ignorant of many things. I don't agree that no one has knowledge. It is self-evident that we each have knowledge. I'm not sure how you equate possessing any knowledge at all with omniscience, which is to know all. But if that is your understanding, I can see why you would argue against my claims of knowing something.

Have you ever learned something new that changed what you thought you knew? I thought I knew who my g-grandmother was, we all did, and we were wrong. She wasn't a bossy control freak. She was a fierce protector of her husband, loving, self-sacrificing, would rather us think ill of her than to think ill of him, so she didn't correct us. Our entire life - we were wrong - limited knowledge - then this new piece of info, it changed everything for everyone.

Without being omniscient there is always that new piece of previously unknown info that can change everything -

I see. Thank you for clarifying.
Yes, I have. My life, like everyone else's, is complex, and has afforded me the need to seek and ponder many things relative to myself and my experience.
Yes, many times.
Doesn't that depend on your objective when communicating with them? For example, if you're trying to get them to change their beliefs, I would expect communication to be next to impossible. If you're trying to communicate your point of view, I don't see why that would be destined to fail with a person not willing to change his beliefs; he just has to listen and evaluate, not change.
Except in times of weakness, I view such persons as companions, not adversaries. They're just like me—doing the best they can with what they have.

I guess it depends on the degree to which we have experienced being wrong. We have all experienced being wrong on little things, wrong turn driving somewhere, ate the wrong food that made you sick, but what is the biggest thing you have experienced being wrong on? Regret over who you voted for? Or regret over what job you took? Or regret for something involving your kids?

Have you experienced leaving Plato's cave? In anything?

When you learn something new, that completely changes what you once believed, it's a paradigm shift in life. Many call it "midlife crisis". After going through it, everyone either appears to be in a cave, or escaped with that new understanding that everything is uncertain.

Betrayal trauma is a life paradigm shift. From trust, relying, depending to self-reliance. .. No going back into the cave when it is seen for what it is.

Pull back the curtain, see the wizard of Oz... kind of want others to see behind the curtain too.

Our minds really do play tricks on us. Ask any detective. Eyewitness accounts, what people think they saw and know, Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable piece of evidence. Our eyes deceive us. Its easy to feel certain about things that are not correct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you experienced leaving Plato's cave? In anything?


When you learn something new, that completely changes what you once believed, it's a paradigm shift in life. Many call it "midlife crisis". After going through it, everyone either appears to be in a cave, or escaped with that new understanding that everything is uncertain.

Betrayal trauma is a life paradigm shift. From trust, relying, depending to self-reliance. .. No going back into the cave when it is seen for what it is.

Pull back the curtain, see the wizard of Oz... kind of want others to see behind the curtain too.

Personally, I find Plato's Allegory of the Cave - and especially how I see it commonly used - very gaslightly.

If you've found a new paradigm that works for you, great. You can do that without insinuating that everyone else's paradigms are all nothing but false shadows and tricks of the light.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Beyond communicating with words, how do I "offer" my knowledge of God to another person?

I think it would be useful to step back and ask yourself a question: given everything you believe about God, what does the existence of God imply or predict?

The specifics will vary depending of the characteristics of your God, but I bet that if you reflect a bit, you can think of observable things that someone could look for besides just "God would give subjective, personal experiences to believers like me."

The analogy I like to use is the Moon: we can investigate whether the Moon exists in a bunch of different ways; they all agree with each other and all confirm the Moon's existence and attributes. If your God has at least as much impact on us as the Moon does, I would expect that God would leave at least as robust a body of evidence as the Moon does. Maybe we wouldn't be able to bounce a laser of God to see how far away he is, but there should be some collection of tests that we could do that would be just as reliable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everyone has a religion, which is whatever system of beliefs the person goes to over and over to orient or calibrate his understanding and interactions. "Religion" comes from re- legere—to "read again." Meaning, to refer to again... to go back to... Whatever system of judgment and morality and conscience we appeal to from moment to moment—that's one's religion. Everyone is religious, not just "believers." Though everyone is a believer in something, too. We're all the same. This is one of the great blindnesses "nonbelievers" get lost in. They think they have no religion. They think that they don't "believe" in anything dogmatic or unseen or abstract. Sure they do. Everyone does.

FYI: this is gaslighting.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

anytime a person tells me, without informed qualification of any kind, that I don't know what I claim to know, that I haven't experienced what I claim to have experienced, that what I know is irrational, that I can't rationally believe or know what I'm talking about, etc., and pressures me via shaming, mockery, insults to reject or abandon or re-define or re-classify what I claim to know, offering alternate realities that I should accept instead of what I present—that is gaslighting.

I recall a heated discussion I had with another RF poster about a year ago in which he took great offense at my telling him that I didn't believe him when he said that he knew that his god existed because he had experienced this god. Who was gaslighting whom in that discussion?

And there was no shaming, mockery, or insult on my part - just a statement of incredulity on my part - which he took offense at. I merely told him that I once said the things he was saying, but eventually came to understand my experience differently and in naturalistic terms, and explained why that happened -the evidence that convinced me to change my opinion.

Beyond communicating with words, how do I "offer" my knowledge of God to another person?

You offer evidence if you have it. If you can't do that, you shouldn't expect an empiricist to believe you when you make so extraordinary a claim.

The things God promised to me came to pass in reality.

I don't believe that a god promised you anything. You might be correct, but why should I believe that you are just because you feel certain? That shouldn't anger you. It's perfectly reasonable that a critical thinker rejects your unfalsifiable claim about gods.

Believer frequently report that they dislike this kind of attitude and understand it in the terms you have used - stupid, irrational - and that the skeptic was hostile to them and demeaned them, but that's not what I see. I see believers responding to posts just like this one as if they were personal attacks on them and their god as I described above. I wish that I could link you to that discussion, but RF doesn't permit quoting other posters from other threads to make a point. This guy was fuming hostile, and I'd love for you to see what triggered him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Believer frequently report that they dislike this kind of attitude and understand it in the terms you have used - stupid, irrational - and that the skeptic was hostile to them and demeaned them, but that's not what I see. I see believers responding to posts just like this one as if they were personal attacks on them and their god as I described above. I wish that I could link you to that discussion, but RF doesn't permit quoting other posters from other threads to make a point. This guy was fuming hostile, and I'd love for you to see what triggered him.

It seems to me that a lot of this may come down to perspective:

An individual believer may have had experiences that they consider deeply compelling and convincing, but the skeptics are looking at dozens or hundreds of people like this, all equally compelling, but saying conflicting things.

I get how it can be frustrating for Believer A to be doubted when they're more sure of God than they are of anything, but when a skeptic sees that Believer B is just as sure, but A's beliefs imply B's are wrong and vice versa, the inescapable conclusion is that sometimes people can be really, really sure about this stuff despite being wrong about their conclusions.

And I also think that Believer A doesn't usually realize that accepting that their beliefs are well-founded means dismissing Believer B's beliefs in a way that Believer A would find disrespectful if it happened to them. I see a sort of unintentional chauvinism or hubris from a lot of believers on this, especially Christians: they usually don't even entertain that people in conflicting belief systems can also have compelling experiences that reinforce their beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

Beyond communicating with words, how do I "offer" my knowledge of God to another person?

1. why do you think you are experiencing a God at all?

2. unless you are some sort of special human with extrasensory perception you should be able to explain how anyone else can experience God. You haven't.

The things God promised to me came to pass in reality.

It's more likley you made the things happen. Confirmation bias.

The concept of God was introduced to me by my parents. The experiences I have had with God are my own.

That happens with Hindus too. Children mimic their parents.

Perhaps not to you, but you are not the only person.

Gods are still not known to exist as a factual matter. It's questionable when people claim to experience a God. There are better explanations.

Who is "we"? Are you speaking for someone other than yourself here?

We critical thinkers. Those asking you questions about your religious claims.

Are you evaluating claims en masse, or doing due diligence for each individual claim?

I question anyone I encounter, like you. The claims are extraordinary, yet the claimants can't explain that they actually know what they are claiming. Even you can't muster any satisfactory explanation. It's more likely you imagine experiences with a God.

How would you evaluate "disinformation" here? Can you give me an example?

Creationism is a huge red flag for those believers who claim to relate to a god. Creationism is fraud and factually incorrect. Also when we hear evanglicals claim the God sent Trump, well, that's laughable. It's nothing less than delusion. Rational minds can easily distill disinformation from factual information.

I don't know what "one way" is, here, vs "another." Can you give me an example of someone showing bias? Also include how the actuality of their bias was verified.

If you struggle to recognize bias you might have bias. Like the example I just gave, if a person thinks God sent trump, well that illustrates a bias, and an excuse for the person to justify support for a disturbed and dangerous candidate.

If a person claiming an experience with God expects me to change my opinion or views or life on the sole basis of his claim, I agree that evidence appropriate to the claim would be needed.

It is very easy to reject claims, yes.

Would you reject Muslims who say God orders them to attack Their enemies with a suicide bomb? How about the 9-11 hijackers? Think about it, they are dying because they are convinced God told them to do these acts. Are you convinced? Or are they victims of being conditioned to believe God told them to?

Again, I lack data and context to evaluate that statement. But since you're confident, why is it more likely that they're just mimicking others? More likely than what?

I have been asking believers how they know a God exists since 1996. And in all that time none have been able to explain that their experience is genuine. All of them admitted to being exposed to religion, jus like you. Several have claimed a doomsday date, yet none have been true. As a skeptic I resist believing in extraordinary claims. And the more extraordinary, the more questions. It's a pattern that the more questions asked the less the claimant can answer. There are studies in the social sciences that explain how people are gullible and susceptible to belief in irrational ideas. Look at QAnon, it has many believers in its nonsense.

 

[idea]

Personally, I find Plato's Allegory of the Cave - and especially how I see it commonly used - very gaslightly.

If you've found a new paradigm that works for you, great. You can do that without insinuating that everyone else's paradigms are all nothing but false shadows and tricks of the light.

We're all in our own caves, only know our own experiences.

The mindset if - I'm right, I "know" everyone else is wrong.
Vs.
Mindset: "There are a few things I think are valid, others may think differently and I'm prepared to reconsider my views"

It is important and healthy to remain open to changing views - on anything - even what is post precious to us. Difficult, but leave a marriage, leave a church, leave a country, to face truth of adultery or abuse or war, or whatever the horrible thing is - to change, evolve, learn, escape - change fundamental beliefs about how to live life.

Past pain - just want the message out there, it is possible to fundamentally change- on all levels. Being open to change is life saving, for ourselves and those we love..

Those who take a stance of not being willing to change - whatever it is they are chained to - it is imprisonment.

evolution, adaptation, change - this is what life thrives on. Changing beliefs should not be looked down on, but celebrated. Conversation stories -

 

[F1fan]

It is a broad definition, but wholly relevant. Universally relevant to mankind, in fact. The word itself points to the state of having gone back and read something that one had read before (re- lig -ion), and the word was first used relative to a person's worldview and/or moral understanding. The word literally means "one in a state of having read a work again." Re- lig (from legere) -ion. It is relevant to anyone with a worldview or moral understanding. For example, do you, personally, have a system of beliefs about the world and morality to which you turn regularly ("religiously") when confronted with questions and situations? If so, does that system of belief find its origin outside of yourself, in works (books, papers, podcasts, etc.) produced by others? If you do have such a system, that is your religion—the ideas to which you turn again and again to orient yourself in the world. It makes no difference whatever that a person does or does not attach to his religion a belief in some god. The theist/atheist dichotomy is a superimposition onto the core meaning of the word.

It's an obscur definition to use "religion" in reference to non-religious activities. I race bikes, and some call it a religion because of the extreme nature of the competition. I watch Formula 1, and you could call that a religion. This type of word usage is casual, not descriptive. If I am asked what religion I am on a government census I can't write down "bike racer". No, it's atheist, or Buddhist.

When I see fervent religious folk trying to assert that atheism is a religion there is some ulterior motive. The iriny about it is that if atheism is a religion, and atheism is wrong, then religions can be wrong, including Christianity or Islam. Of course some believers reject that their religious beliefs are religious, they will claim it's a relationship with God. They are hiding something, likely from themselves because they know religion is not fact-based.

That's two questions:

Would you say the god Vishnu exists?
- and -
Would you say the god Vishnu is factual?

Do you think these two questions are not mutually consistent? What exists that doesn't exhibit factual status?

The first question I cannot answer without additional learning and investigation (generally speaking). But it can be answered.

The second question makes no sense to me. I exist; that is true; am I factual? You exist; that is true; are you factual? What is being asked there? Are you intending to ask if the result of the first question is factual? If so, then you're really asking just one question. If not, I don't know what you're asking.

I'm not sure what is so confusing. Could it be that you recognize a dilemma that your claim of experiening a God must mean that is HAS to exist, and MUST be factual? Let's a say a child puts a tooth under their pillow at bedtime and in the morning they find money. A child will be convinced that happened due to actions of the Tooth Fairy. What other explanation can there be?

Someone claims they prayed for some outcome and it happened. What other explanation can there be? If you are closed to other reasons you will always be certain it was God.

The standard of truth that I use is: "truth is things as they really are, things as they really have been, and things as they really will be."

And if you are mistaken, and have some hidden bias? What is your method to self-check your objectivity? I was in journalism back in high school and college and objectivity was drilled into our minds. It is a skill that does not come naturally and casually.

Firstly, my religious beliefs and my claim of experiencing God are not the same things.

My religious beliefs are the product of my choosing to accept as true and/or real the abstractions constituted in the beliefs.

Did you consider Islam? How much time did you invest in studying Hinduism? Maybe Mormons are correct, did you look into it?

For example, I believe that people are inherently good. I do not claim to know that people are inherently good because I know that every person is subject to influences that opposed good, making it impossible for me to independently know that all people are inherently good.

In general terms most humans are inherently good and cooperative. Look at what happens when there is a natural disaster or emergency, people come from all over to help others. That said human genetics is not perfect. Mental illness exists. About 1 in every 24 people are born with a brain defect and they are called sociopaths. It's an inability to feel empathy. Humans also evolved to be tribal, and sooth anxiety by aligning to groups. If the groups are toxic, like the KKK, the attitudes can be adopted and turn an otherwise good person into someone willing to do harm. Look at the negative influence of Trump on many conservative citizens. It's resulted in a great deal of threats to law enforcement and democrats. Many election officials all over the USA have quit due to threats. I doubt many of them understand they are acting like robots and unable to monior their feelings and behavior.

My claim of having experience with God is based on observation, following my fulfillment of known conditions claimed to be attached to a promised, observable experience.

When I was younger I had experiences with ghosts and evil spirits. I even saw a ghost in the doorway of my room once. It turned out to be my grandmother checking on my in the middle of the night. Thanks grandma. I wet the bed. Only as I grew up did I mature past my fears and emotions to understand the creaking noises in the hall was the heating ducts. Still, even adults can feel anxiety and have expriences due to heightened awareness. We can easily create expriences in our minds, especially if we want to feel secure in some way when we feel out of control.

Critical thinking is very much a part of how I learn, evaluate, process, decide and choose.

We see some believers who have excellent reasoning skills, except where it comes to their religion. It's a sort of blindspot, and every interesting. The book Emotional Intelligence explains how our minds can compartmentalize data and beliefs, expecially those ideas that are meaningful to the idea of self and identity.

I accept that every person who claims a thing or espouses a belief has good reason for making those claims and espousing those beliefs. By default, I extend this grace to every human being. I cannot answer the question you offer, relative to specific individuals, without additional knowledge and understanding.

I think it takes a certain amount of courage to post personal beliefs, especially religious beliefs in an open forum.

If you'll choose and identify the atheist we're talking about, I'll get to know him or her. If in that process I acquire enough knowledge and understanding to allow me to make a good judgment on the question, then I'll tell you whether or not I think he or she has a good reason to reject supernatural claims. No matter what judgment I reach, however, it will merely be an opinion. The person himself, or herself, will ever and always be the only human able to judge perfectly whether or not he or she has a good reason.

I am an atheist who rejects supernaural claims. I suspect all other atheists do the same. The issue of ghosts and spirits has come up as a category, and it is an interesting investigation. If there is something to ghosts I suggest it is a natural phenomenon. I say that given some of the material evidence that is presented by investigators. Supernatural means "beyond natural" which by definition can't be sensed and experienced. So the category of supernatural is difficult itself, and that is makes up the core of religion gets glossed over by the masses of believers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We're all in our own caves, only know our own experiences.

According to the Allegory of the Cave, this isn't true. The masses are trapped in the cave, but the enlightened few - usually including whoever is using the allegory - are free of the cave and can see reality as it truly is.

The mindset if - I'm right, I "know" everyone else is wrong.
Vs.
Mindset: "There are a few things I think are valid, others may think differently and I'm prepared to reconsider my views"

The Allegory of the Cave encourages people who think they are "free of the cave" to adopt the first mindset.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't know what "God" is. A lot of people have their own ideas about God, but it's too far up in the clouds to make any real sense, and it's really kind of pointless to even talk about.

Yes, it's hard to give a meaningful answer without any definitions.

I'm an atheist regarding Abrahamic God and gods of various (other) mythologies.

I'm an agnostic theist regarding philosophical pantheistic conceptions of God.

Pantheism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.m.wikipedia.org

Conceptions of God - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

17 Major Concepts of God

Countless religious and philosophical thinkers have produced conceptions of God throughout human history. These conceptions do, as we shall see, vary between the religions and their primary figures…

jamesbishopblog.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to the Allegory of the Cave, this isn't true. The masses are trapped in the cave, but the enlightened few - usually including whoever is using the allegory - are free of the cave and can see reality as it truly is.

That's not my understanding of the allegory. Yes, there are an enlightened few involved, but they still can't see reality except as projections onto consciousness through the senses like every other cave dweller, which is what the shadows represent. The enlightened mind still can't get out of his theater of consciousness (cave) to see reality unprocessed by his mind (objects outside the cave), but he understands that, which is the sense in which he is enlightened. Maybe that's not a standard understanding.

Digression: And yes, THAT, unlike biblical myth, is allegory. The difference is that the symbols in the allegory (shadows, cave, objects outside) represent things we can name (subjective perception, the individual conscious sphere, and the ding an sich). By way of contrast, the elements of a myth don't stand for anything known to the mythmaker and aren't chosen to represent specific things, as with the flood myth. The water doesn't stand for anything else, although one poster recently suggested, "the flood was not water. Humanity is currently engulfed in an enormous flood of materialism and consumerism which has all but destroyed their spiritual nature except for those who have sought shelter with God." Obviously, the mythicist wasn't thinking of problems to come two-plus millennia in his future when he wrote about a flood.

The word literally means "one in a state of having read a work again." Re- lig (from legere) -ion. It is relevant to anyone with a worldview or moral understanding.

Not anymore. That would be an archaic usage now. The most literal definitions of religion involve the supernatural: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods; a particular system of faith and worship." Other usages are metaphorical: "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion""

Have you heard of the etymological fallacy? From Wiki:

"An etymological fallacy is an argument of equivocation, arguing that a word is defined by its etymology, and that its customary usage is therefore incorrect. An etymological fallacy becomes possible when a word's meaning shifts over time from its original meaning. Such changes can include a narrowing or widening of scope or a change of connotation (amelioration or pejoration). In some cases, modern usage can shift to the point where the new meaning has no evident connection to its etymon. An example of a word with a potentially misleading etymology is antisemitism. The structure of the word suggests that it is about opposition to and hatred of Semitic peoples, but the term was coined in the 19th century to specifically refer to anti-Jewish beliefs and practice. An etymological fallacy emerges when a speaker asserts that antisemitism is not restricted to hatred of Jews, but rather must include opposition to all other Semitic peoples."

For example, do you, personally, have a system of beliefs about the world and morality to which you turn regularly ("religiously") when confronted with questions and situations? If so, does that system of belief find its origin outside of yourself, in works (books, papers, podcasts, etc.) produced by others? If you do have such a system, that is your religion

Only by an archaic definition reflected in the roots of the word. It has undergone what the quote above calls pejoration - a narrowing of scope of application.

Theists like to taunt atheists by calling their humanist belief set a religion, science their god, and their reliance on science faith ("I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"), but most atheists reject that usage and just see it as an effort to level the playing field - a field that is most definitely not level.

I think this meme gained popularity following the displacement of prayer and religious teaching from the public schools, and an effort to assert false equivalence between empirical and faith-based world views, the other prong of that attempt at false equivalence being the ID program, which tried to give faith in a creator god as scientific flavor. They wanted to make science seem more like religion and religion more like science and to argue for creationism in the classroom on that basis ("Let the kids choose.")

I accept that every person who claims a thing or espouses a belief has good reason for making those claims and espousing those beliefs.

You do? Do you mean good by your standards or theirs? If the latter, yes, but that's a misuse of the phrase "good reason" and a trivial observation equivalent to everybody believes what they believe because they believe it.

Are you evaluating claims en masse, or doing due diligence for each individual claim?

Something in between. Bare claims are rejected if they aren't already believed correct. Claims preceded by fallacious arguments are likewise rejected, as are unfalsifiable claims. I don't evaluate creationist apologetics links, for example, except occasionally as an exercise in debunking specious arguments. Link me to one and I probably won't click on it.

You've been discussing people claiming to know or have directly experienced a deity. I don't need to investigate such claims individually anymore, and I don't. How many times in a row do people need to fail to support that claim before one just stops asking for their evidence?

And I don't. I don't ask, "How do you know that?" about such matters. I just say, "You don't and can't know that." They're welcome to prove me wrong if I am and they have a compelling, evidenced argument, but no to your question about investigating each such claim.