Evidence

[YmirGF]

I think you missed the point. A punch in the face is one kind of evidence, one that everyone can see as a black eye. I'm not dismissing evidence at all, but expand my awareness to include the soft touch on the skin, so to speak, that leaves no evidence for others to see. Is one less real than the other?

No, not really, but "internal" realizations can be misleading, in that they can be so powerful as to lead to the suspension of "external evidence". Everything is about balance, really. If you trust your own vision too much, one runs the risk of building castles in the sky. If you trust only "external" evidence then you may not be able to appreciate a hypothetical view from that sky. The only reasonable path to lead is a middle ground. For example, one of the greatest blunders, imho, that the "modern" human animal commits on a continual basis is "back-seating" emotion for reason. My thinking is that emotion can set the individual "free" as long as one does not get too carried away with it. You know, all things in moderation.

I don't know whether I should be amused or incredulous at the inconsistency I see here among atheists. There is in modern physics "consensual evidence" (or a punch in the face) that shows there is continuity between inside and outside. Yet, rather than accepting the punch in the face as evidence, people (quite inconsistently) choose to cling to what they have been told and what they have been taught: there is a separation between inside and outside and outside takes precedence--even at the cost of denying what is undeniable to their own senses and irrefutable in their own experience.

Personally, I prefer the splash of cold water in my face on occaision. It makes me think far more clearly. Aside from this is would seem to be a logical faux pas to use the phrase "denying what is undeniable". Sorry that would be quite impossible as it is unlikely that any reasonable person COULD deny a thing or quality that was "undeniable". The simple fact that people can deny that "undeniable" quality undermines the premise that it cannot be denied. I am sure you understand. Would you care to rephrase your point?

And the anti-atheist rants will be fewer if atheists weren't so obnoxious about it...comparing belief in God to belief in pink unicorns, for example.)

Well, there is that. Shall we let people alone with their psychological teddy bears and call it a day? Heck, I believe in "god" whatever that is, exactly! I find theists to be downright arrogant over their esteemed wisdom that they cannot prove to another living being without resorting to silly crutches like "faith". Aside from this many theists have a penchant for employing circular reasoning in their arguments and fail to grasp the essentials of logic. To this old frosty giant, that is more than a bit -- unseemly... and theists have the unmitigated gall to call atheists "obnoxious".

In all honesty, Rolling_Stone, I can easily defend virtually any point I may be making. I simply expect others to be able to do the same. I also THRIVE on being asked questions, because invariably, those questions make me think. To my thinking, when they do not realisitically defend their positions it is because the ideas they support in fact do not hold any water and so they lapse into persecution complexes and withdraw. You would think that "god" would give them just a little bit more wisdom, but apparently, that is not always the case.

Oh well, what would I know. At least I have the decency to venture that I may well be wrong. Theists really ought to try that concept on for size.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't know whether I should be amused or incredulous at the inconsistency I see here among atheists.

Why would you expect atheists to be consistent with one another's atheism? Why is it noteworthy that we are not?

And the anti-atheist rants will be fewer if atheists weren't so obnoxious about it...comparing belief in God to belief in pink unicorns, for example.

Yeah how offensive can an attack on a belief be IN A DEBATE FORUM compared with an attack on a group of people?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No, not really, but "internal" realizations can be misleading, in that they can be so powerful as to lead to the suspension of "external evidence". Everything is about balance, really. If you trust your own vision too much, one runs the risk of building castles in the sky. If you trust only "external" evidence then you may not be able to appreciate a hypothetical view from that sky. The only reasonable path to lead is a middle ground. For example, one of the greatest blunders, imho, that the "modern" human animal commits on a continual basis is "back-seating" emotion for reason. My thinking is that emotion can set the individual "free" as long as one does not get too carried away with it. You know, all things in moderation.

I'm in basic agreement here. However, in my experience the more familiar one becomes with the personal experience of "no boundaries," the less relevance the punch-in-the-face type evidence becomes in determining life's directions. It's not that external evidence is unimportant, any more than Newtonian physics is rendered unimportant by quantum physics.

Personally, I prefer the splash of cold water in my face on occaision. It makes me think far more clearly. Aside from this is would seem to be a logical faux pas to use the phrase "denying what is undeniable". Sorry that would be quite impossible as it is unlikely that any reasonable person COULD deny a thing or quality that was "undeniable". The simple fact that people can deny that "undeniable" quality undermines the premise that it cannot be denied. I am sure you understand. Would you care to rephrase your point?

Not really. For all the demands for objective evidence, when it does come most will use every "discounting, cynical and intellectualizing weapon" they have at their disposal to stay in the same old rut, as it were.

Well, there is that. Shall we let people alone with their psychological teddy bears and call it a day? Heck, I believe in "god" whatever that is, exactly! I find theists to be downright arrogant over their esteemed wisdom that they cannot prove to another living being without resorting to silly crutches like "faith". Aside from this many theists have a penchant for employing circular reasoning in their arguments and fail to grasp the essentials of logic. To this old frosty giant, that is more than a bit -- unseemly... and theists have the unmitigated gall to call atheists "obnoxious".

Here, again, there is some agreement when it come to the behavior of theists. But "faith" is a crutch only where there is no supporting experiential evidence. How I do I prove a light touch on the skin when the only thing people accept as valid evidence of having been touched is a black eye? You know them by their fruits, not by their logic or assertions.

In all honesty, Rolling_Stone, I can easily defend virtually any point I may be making.

So what? Does the fact that I cannot prove the depth of my awareness invalidate the experience? Does the fact that I can't prove to a skeptical blindman that color is an experiential reality invalidate that experience? No, my friend, any point you can "defend" is irrelevant to the discernment of higher truths, and the reason is simple: defending a truth externalizes it. It may be factual, but it is no longer truth, for truth is without boundaries--it is something lived rather than conceived.

I simply expect others to be able to do the same. I also THRIVE on being asked questions, because invariably, those questions make me think. To my thinking, when they do not realisitically defend their positions it is because the ideas they support in fact do not hold any water and so they lapse into persecution complexes and withdraw. You would think that "god" would give them just a little bit more wisdom, but apparently, that is not always the case.

Up to a point that's true. But "there is no advantage in prolonging that which no longer serves your highest light. And there is no yardstick with which that determination can be made, beyond your own inner-knowingness."

Oh well, what would I know. At least I have the decency to venture that I may well be wrong. Theists really ought to try that concept on for size.

This strikes me as having all the sanctimoniousness that I obnoxious in relatively few (as compared to atheists) theists. Each of us is convinced of the validity of our own beliefs, and that is the parameters within which we operate--including you.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Why would you expect atheists to be consistent with one another's atheism? Why is it noteworthy that we are not?

Out of context. Read the following sentence.

Yeah how offensive can an attack on a belief be IN A DEBATE FORUM compared with an attack on a group of people?

Constantly attacking a belief using a non sequitur gets tiresome, don't you think?

 

[rojse]

Show me someone who asserts that they make their life’s decisions based on evidence, or whose every discounting, cynical and intellectualizing argument includes “show me the evidence,” and I’ll show you someone who has never really considered what kind of “evidence” they are looking for: consensus. Truth-seeking is not an undertaking for cowards: it requires courage to invade new levels of experience and to attempt the exploration of unknown realms of intellectual and living. By limiting their life’s decisions to the “evidence” at hand, people build a cage around themselves that prevents them from exploring new avenues of thought.

Rationalism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring phenomenon, in making its objections by referring what is admittedly higher back into that which is admittedly lower because the “evidence” for a purposeful Creator is scant. Consistency requires that it not discount religious experience on grounds of credulity while it persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from something that is utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling. “Intelligent men should cease to reason like children and should attempt to use the consistent logic of adulthood, logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact.” They should be mature enough to acknowledge that not everything in life is reasonable, logical or empirical. The incessant demand for “evidence” at the expense of the inner life is also a demand to be an outcast in the universe, for reality doesn’t end where the skin begins.

Well, shouldn't I be skeptical of an experience that apparently I cannot experience, and leaves no evidence that I can examine?

Considering that God does not leave evidence, is invisible, and apparently chooses whom he wants to reveal himself to, don't I have some right to question as to whether it exists or not?

I would hardly call the evidence that people propose to prove God's existence phenomena. A face in some second rate takeaway food does not impress me - is God some cheap parlour magician, or is that all he is capable of making these days?

The only occurences that I would consider evidence are mentioned in a two thousand year old book. Considering that all of the important facts were not discussed in any book outside the Bible, that agree on the same details, surely there is a question as to the validity of evidence proposed.

 

[Fluffy]

Out of context. Read the following sentence.

Ah sorry I read it as implying a disagreement between atheists rather than an inconsistency in the atheistic belief system.

Constantly attacking a belief using a non sequitur gets tiresome, don't you think?

Do you mean like inferring that a person who is an atheist must be obnoxious because they must use the IPU analogy? I agree completely. So stop doing it please.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Well, shouldn't I be skeptical of an experience that apparently I cannot experience, and leaves no evidence that I can examine?

That's like a blindman asking if he should be skeptical of color being an experiential reality.

Considering that God does not leave evidence, is invisible, and apparently chooses whom he wants to reveal himself to, don't I have some right to question as to whether it exists or not?

You might want to ask if you have tools adequate to the task.

I would hardly call the evidence that people propose to prove God's existence phenomena. A face in some second rate takeaway food does not impress me - is God some cheap parlour magician, or is that all he is capable of making these days?

LOL My reaction exactly!

The only occurences that I would consider evidence are mentioned in a two thousand year old book. Considering that all of the important facts were not discussed in any book outside the Bible, that agree on the same details, surely there is a question as to the validity of evidence proposed.

I agree. But what if I were to say that it is possible for you to have a shift in consciousness that, from your perspective, recreates reality along the lines of a higher continuum? Now, that's just plain nuts! Yet, history is full of examples, so many it's just as nuts to dismiss all of them.

 

[gnostic]

Consensus evidence is like a "punch in the face": there for everyone to see as a black eye; I'm relying on the "light touch on the skin." Reliance on the former at the expense of the latter is limiting youself to the physical.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. Light, particularly sunlight can be felt on the skin. If you go back to the shades and out to the light, then what can be felt, can be recorded. And this is valid evidence of what being observed, even though it is not possible trap the light on your skin as physical evidence. Also readings can be recorded to the determine the strength of the light, such as the UV, from electronic instruments, so that is also valid evidence.

Sorry, but IMHO light have far more substances than the existence of god.

Even air has more substance than god. You can trap air in the balloon, and this air has volume and mass, even though we can't see air particles, and this can also be measured as evidence through measuring instruments.

Electricity can be seen under certain circumstances, eg lightning, but usually you can't see it, but it certainly can be felt and measured.

Since I have not seen, heard or felt any divine intervention or miracle for myself, I considered that the literary evidence of the Bible to be unreliable as far as proof to god's existence is concern.

 

[crystalonyx]

I have yet to see a coherent definition of what a god even is, and what the experience is that proves it exists on this thread.

 

[Willamena]

The evidence I've seen, that was in any way convincing, was philosophical and would take some time to cover --perhaps more time than people are willing to contribute.

 

[Panda]

That's like a blindman asking if he should be skeptical of color being an experiential reality.

Not a valid comparasion. You are saying theists are capable of something that an atheist isn't which is simply not the case.

You might want to ask if you have tools adequate to the task.
LOL My reaction exactly!
I agree. But what if I were to say that it is possible for you to have a shift in consciousness that, from your perspective, recreates reality along the lines of a higher continuum? Now, that's just plain nuts! Yet, history is full of examples, so many it's just as nuts to dismiss all of them.

Like what exactly? Give some substance to your arguments.

 

[Quath]

That's like a blindman asking if he should be skeptical of color being an experiential reality.

There is a difference in the knowledge of color and the detection of color. For example, my computer is blind but it knows a lot about color due to its monitor and printer. It experiences the concept of color differently that I do, but we can both talk about color to each other (programming, settings, etc).

Someone may claim a spiritual experience but the knowledge can be communicated. Then we have to decide if it really was a real experience or just a misinterpreted observation.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Although I have repeatedly stressed that physical evidence cannot be discounted any more than Newtonian physics can be discounted since the discovery of physics, even serious respondents seem to believe I’m saying measurable, objective evidence no longer has a role. This is utter nonsense. What I am saying is there is a level of awareness of things whose evidence is not seen by the physical senses. Some people call this “faith” and subsequently dismiss it as being groundless. This, too, is nonsense. It’s putting up a veil or blinder between the self and the rest of reality and then saying rarified interactions between inside and outside don’t happen because they don’t happen to me--and this attitude is struck in spite of there being experimental evidence indicating a constant interchange of energies and particles between “me” and the rest of reality.

I think the reason for this is that people have so much emotional energy vested in their obsolete worldview they can’t let go, ay least, not without a fight. “Someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape,” and the more comfortable they are, the more they will resist change.

In another thread I used the term “disengagement” to describe a growing dissatisfaction with material-minded people. This was something of a misnomer, as it implies putting up a barrier of my own and cutting them off from me. A better term would be “disentanglement,” implying involvement without having vested interests in the outcome of my actions. I admit that this is going to take some practice.

Light, particularly sunlight can be felt on the skin. If you go back to the shades and out to the light, then what can be felt, can be recorded. And this is valid evidence of what being observed, even though it is not possible trap the light on your skin as physical evidence. Also readings can be recorded to the determine the strength of the light, such as the UV, from electronic instruments, so that is also valid evidence....

Since I have not seen, heard or felt any divine intervention or miracle for myself, I considered that the literary evidence of the Bible to be unreliable as far as proof to god's existence is concern.

Remember Plato's cave?

I have yet to see a coherent definition of what a god even is, and what the experience is that proves it exists on this thread.

Remember Plato's cave?

There is a difference in the knowledge of color and the detection of color. For example, my computer is blind but it knows a lot about color due to its monitor and printer. It experiences the concept of color differently that I do, but we can both talk about color to each other (programming, settings, etc).

Wow...anthropomorphizing a computer. I don't know what to say.

Someone may claim a spiritual experience but the knowledge can be communicated. Then we have to decide if it really was a real experience or just a misinterpreted observation.

People have been doing this for thousands of years. The problem is, how do you communicate the experience of color to a skeptical blindman?

 

[gnostic]

Remember Plato's cave?

Sorry, but I am not familiar with this expression? Can you please clarify?

 

[Quath]

Sorry, but I am not familiar with this expression? Can you please clarify?

I believe this is the idea that we could be sitting in cave where everything is backlit so all we see are shadows. How can we know reality when all we see are shadows?

In modern form this is the story of the Matrix. How do you know if you are in a computer being fed false impulses now? Or in other words, how do you know what reality is? And can shadows or measurements really give insight to the true reality?

Wow...anthropomorphizing a computer. I don't know what to say.

I find computers to be a useful concept when dealing with life, consciousness and intelligence. It hits a lot of the grey areas.

People have been doing this for thousands of years. The problem is, how do you communicate the experience of color to a skeptical blindman?

You could do it like you would program a computer. Explain all the properties of light and color. The blindperson may not experience it as you do, but with enough thinking you two can still talk about the reality of light and color.

 

[autonomous1one1]

....But what if I were to say that it is possible for you to have a shift in consciousness that, from your perspective, recreates reality along the lines of a higher continuum? Now, that's just plain nuts! Yet, history is full of examples, so many it's just as nuts to dismiss all of them.

Greetings RS. It seems that we write similarly of a direct experience of awakened awareness and consequent shift of perspective. Storm's thread on 'evidence..' provides additional information about such an experience as evidence: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/59207-evidence-13.html

Well, shouldn't I be skeptical of an experience that apparently I cannot experience, and leaves no evidence that I can examine?
.....

Greetings Rojse. Did someone indicate that you could not have this experience yourself? If so, may the counter be offered that this is potential for anyone and that there is greater possibility today than ever before. See insights: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...s/60418-what-your-significant-insights-2.html

Regards,
a..1

 

[frg001]

@R_S - From re-reading this thread, all I get is a sense that you are simply experiencing something akin to being high on mind altering drugs and putting it across as some connection with a higher plane of existance. But whatever your inner feelings may be, whtever higher state of awareness, it is still just electrical impulses in your brain. That is it. I have had this type of experience myself, with and without the use of substances to promote it, but when it comes down to it, the only 'real' things are those on the outside, the quantifiable, measurable and proveable.

 

[Rioku]

When are you theists going to learn that experiences of awakened awareness are simply explained by how easily one's mind is tricked. Take a look at False Memories, which is one of many examples of how wrong one's mind is on a regular basis.

 

[gnomon]

I think you missed the point. A punch in the face is one kind of evidence, one that everyone can see as a black eye. I'm not dismissing evidence at all, but expand my awareness to include the soft touch on the skin, so to speak, that leaves no evidence for others to see. Is one less real than the other?

I don't know whether I should be amused or incredulous at the inconsistency I see here among atheists. There is in modern physics "consensual evidence" (or a punch in the face) that shows there is continuity between inside and outside. Yet, rather than accepting the punch in the face as evidence, people (quite inconsistently) choose to cling to what they have been told and what they have been taught: there is a separation between inside and outside and outside takes precedence--even at the cost of denying what is undeniable to their own senses and irrefutable in their own experience.

(BTW, I used to be "Mormon" and my family still is. Like you, I don't understand the rants against Mormonism. And the anti-atheist rants will be fewer if atheists weren't so obnoxious about it...comparing belief in God to belief in pink unicorns, for example.)

I didn't miss anything. The fact remains that the only underlying assertion in this entire waste of time is that you have a superior sense of understanding experience because you say so.

There is no consensual evidence of which you speak in modern physics. What we do have is once again someone posing as a mystic masking their worthless arrogance inadequately trying to show their superiority for no better reason than I can guess than you were abused by atheists as a child.

Although I have repeatedly stressed that physical evidence cannot be discounted any more than Newtonian physics can be discounted since the discovery of physics, even serious respondents seem to believe I’m saying measurable, objective evidence no longer has a role. This is utter nonsense. What I am saying is there is a level of awareness of things whose evidence is not seen by the physical senses. Some people call this “faith” and subsequently dismiss it as being groundless. This, too, is nonsense. It’s putting up a veil or blinder between the self and the rest of reality and then saying rarified interactions between inside and outside don’t happen because they don’t happen to me--and this attitude is struck in spite of there being experimental evidence indicating a constant interchange of energies and particles between “me” and the rest of reality.

So you say. The most reasonable position the rest of us can take is that you are wrong.

A constant interchange of energies (sic) and particles between you and the rest of reality proves faith? Yes, how dare atheists and other non-believers not flock to the immediate superiority of your truth.

It may be, you irrational appeal to the material duly noted and set aside, that this lame mysticism has been attempted by the materialistic atheist yet they actually took the next step in their own personal development by letting go of all the spiritual baggage in this world completely. Of course, telling this to someone who lacks even basic comprehension of the religious variety in this world, as so clearly evidenced by the "disengagement" thread, is most definitely a waste of time.

At least, based upon the evidence.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

when it comes down to it, the only 'real' things are those on the outside, the quantifiable, measurable and proveable.

Even that understanding begins on the inside. It is an utterly subjective understanding that is neither "quantifiable," "measurable" or "provable."