Fake Gods

[The Hammer]

And no... mythos is not 'what's inside our spiritual realm'.

In your opinion

 

[Sand Dancer]

That is an experience I cannot put into words but when I met the goddess my entire experience and perspective of the world totally changed. There was a sensation of connectiveness to even the smallest of things. I often felt alone now I never feel alone. I just walk outside my door to all my relatives (Trees, insects, birds, rocks wind). There was the paradox of yes I am still my self but at the same time a am a part of this greater world. I began to see connections to everything around and the trees started to talk to me. I am sure this does not seem to make rational sense and yet it was so profound. I was raised and participated in a scientific community of medicine all my life so I am not a stranger to rational and logical thinking. It is just that I was not aware of my greater than human world until I let of restrictions of rational thinking and created anam cara - soul friend with the greater world. I hope this gives you an idea. Thanks for asking.

That's so cool! I would like to feel like nature is my friend, since nowadays it's hard to find human friends. So happy this happened to you.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It seems to me that there must be one of two ways people decide which belief is true and which god or gods are worthy of worship. Either it was through direct communication with God - or someone else convinced/persuaded them to believe.

God (or a god) cannot be known unless it's somehow revealed. Voice from above, great miracles, human manifestation... - all this is hard to verify because it depends on traditional (more or less mythical) accounts with low standard reliability. It is also suspicious that it hasn't been happening in the more recent era when there are more efficient documenting tools...

What remains is the contemplation of nature/universe and self and see some signs of greater intelligence/mind. This leads to a more pan(en)theistic view.

 

[Audie]

God (or a god) cannot be known unless it's somehow revealed. Voice from above, great miracles, human manifestation... - all this is hard to verify because it depends on traditional (more or less mythical) accounts with low standard reliability. It is also suspicious that it hasn't been happening in the more recent era when there are more efficient documenting tools...

What remains is the contemplation of nature/universe and self and see some signs of greater intelligence/mind. This leads to a more pan(en)theistic view.

Nothing can be known unless somehow revealed.
A god could concoct ways unimagined.

The way it is, " revelations" are all different,
and all are indisguishable from fraud.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What mental processes does one go through in order to logically determine which god is real as opposed to gods believed to be false?

For me it was just upbringing, but not only that it was heavily reinforced by fear and threats of violence and destruction if I didn't believe as I was told to.

 

[DavidMcCann]

God (or a god) cannot be known unless it's somehow revealed. Voice from above, great miracles, human manifestation... - all this is hard to verify because it depends on traditional (more or less mythical) accounts with low standard reliability. It is also suspicious that it hasn't been happening in the more recent era when there are more efficient documenting tools...

What hasn't been happening in recent times? Religious experiences are commonplace — the Religious Experience Research Centre at the University of Wales has several thousand records from the UK alone. Or healings? It would be a poor religion that couldn't show any healings. The only events that are confined to myth are the impossible ones, like the Sun standing still or the dead coming back to life.

 

[Audie]

What hasn't been happening in recent times? Religious experiences are commonplace — the Religious Experience Research Centre at the University of Wales has several thousand records from the UK alone. Or healings? It would be a poor religion that couldn't show any healings. The only events that are confined to myth are the impossible ones, like the Sun standing still or the dead coming back to life.

So they complie anecdotes about " experiences".

So...?

 

[PearlSeeker]

What hasn't been happening in recent times? Religious experiences are commonplace — the Religious Experience Research Centre at the University of Wales has several thousand records from the UK alone. Or healings? It would be a poor religion that couldn't show any healings. The only events that are confined to myth are the impossible ones, like the Sun standing still or the dead coming back to life.

Yes, religious experiences are common but the documented part is only unverifiable anecdotal evidence.

Healings? Brain-body connection has a lot of potential (see the placebo effect). Even in the Bible it's written: "Your faith has healed you."

There are more mythical events unseen today: sea parting, walking on water, food multiplication, turning water to wine, pillar of cloud/fire, speaking cloud/flame, speaking burning bush...

 

[DavidMcCann]

So they complie anecdotes about " experiences".

So...?

So — people are having religious experiences, which PerlSeeker said didn't happen. Of course atheists like you will dismiss them, but what makes your dismissal more valid that their experiences?

 

[DavidMcCann]

Yes, religious experiences are common but the documented part is only unverifiable anecdotal evidence.

The expression "anecdotal evidence" is a popular put-down, but a worthless one — all evidence is someone's report, after all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The expression "anecdotal evidence" is a popular put-down, but a worthless one — all evidence is someone's report, after all.

No, you are incorrect. Anecdotal evidence is known to be highly unreliable since it generalizes from too small a sample. A valid scientific study is far, far superior.

 

[Audie]

So — people are having religious experiences, which PerlSeeker said didn't happen. Of course atheists like you will dismiss them, but what makes your dismissal more valid that their experiences?

My comment has to do with the qualitty of evidenve
prexentrd: a list of " experiences". Whatever an " "experience " may be.

One can similarly complile, as some have, a list of anecdotes re alien abductions. Mermaid sightings
( rare now, once commonplace) and of bigfoot.

I dont doubt people have what they term religious
experiences. Others make lists. So...?

Oh, and considering you just made up some things
about me and all other atheists, another "so" is, "so, where's your credibility?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

The expression "anecdotal evidence" is a popular put-down, but a worthless one — all evidence is someone's report, after all.

I wouldn't call that evidence, not at all.

What I would call it however, is personal conviction and that's about it.

 

[Audie]

The expression "anecdotal evidence" is a popular put-down, but a worthless one — all evidence is someone's report, after all.

Thar really is not true.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So — people are having religious experiences, which PerlSeeker said didn't happen.

??? Trying the Strawman fallacy?

 

[Audie]

??? Trying the Strawman fallacy?

Is it surprisng that those whose deepest " reality" is
based in fantasy, who can interpret a funny feeling to
mean a Omniscient Creator is hinting something
would also be into free form " interpretstion" even
of things that didnt happen?

 

[Quintessence]

No, you are incorrect. Anecdotal evidence is known to be highly unreliable since it generalizes from too small a sample. A valid scientific study is far, far superior.

Except in cases where "scientific study" is irrelevant or not possible to do, such as with the vast majority of our day-to-day experiences (unless you happen to be a career scientist).

Besides, if our anecdotal day-to-day experiences were "highly unreliable" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Species don't survive if they don't have reliable ways of sensing and responding to their environments. As @DavidMcCann correctly points out, all evidence derives from "someone's report" or human observations.

I'm not knocking science. I've been a career scientist, and I still work in a job where I engage in heavy science-promotion and support. It's a fantastic tool for exploring certain types of questions/answers by creating rules to follow that reduce bias and encourage impartiality. But it does bother me when folks oversell the sciences and preach it as the be-all and end-all of everything.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The expression "anecdotal evidence" is a popular put-down, but a worthless one — all evidence is someone's report, after all.

No, there is more than just a report. Look at the examples below and compare them.

A: I have seen the Loch Ness monster.

B: I have discovered a new animal species. I have a specimen, photo/video documentation, a genetic analysis...

 

[DavidMcCann]

No, there is more than just a report. Look at the examples below and compare them.

A: I have seen the Loch Ness monster.

B: I have discovered a new animal species. I have a specimen, photo/video documentation, a genetic analysis...

As ever you have taken extreme cases. In reality, the history of science is full of bad theories (Galileo rejecting gravity), mistaken claims (N rays, cold fusion, Martian canals), experiments rejected because they don't fit the theory (Miller's work on the speed of light), failed experiments accepted because they do fit the theory (Millikan's oil-drops). Those who think it's all clear-cut need to read Wikipedia's article on the replication crisis.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Oh, and considering you just made up some things about me and all other atheists

I'm not sure what I've made up about you; but I do see that you've been touting atheism on a religious forum for six years — perhaps you need to get a life?