Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[F1fan]

So, as you presented it, one believed that Santa exists. It is a belief until the gig is up and then, "in this case the concept is "Santa doesn't exist" and children decide this is true and believe it." - a new belief system which is what i have been saying.

No one goes around saying "I believe Santa doesn't exist". There is no belief system for adults to "believe in Santa's non-existence". Adults don't believe in the non-existence of any imaginary characters. The way we think and communicate don't follow this pattern of considering the non-existence of things, we talk about whether things exist.

Do you believe in the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster?
Do you believe in the non-existence of Bigfoot?
Do you believe in the non-existence of angels?
Do you believe in the non-existence of ghosts?
Do you believe in the non-existence of extraterrestrials?
Do you believe in the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy?
Do you believe in the non-existence of Superman?
Do you believe in the non-existence of Hindu gods?
Do you believe in the non-existence of the Boogeyman?

Is this how you talk? To say yes to these means all these are actively believed? We don't actively believe in thousands of things being non-existing. It's absurd to "believe in non-existence". We talk in reference to concepts being existent, and we assess and judge these ideas in that way.

I don't have a problem with people have the belief system that there is no God. We all know that jolly old Santa is non-existent except in the form of parents. We have empirical and verifiable evidence, ie. my parents told that they were Santa and wife.

So you have a belief system that there is no Santa? And that there is no Tooth Fairy? And that there is no Easter Bunny? And that there is no Boogeyman? Etc. Your belief system in your life and thinking includes all these and many hundreds of more things you believe are not true or existent?

Of course you don't. Nor do non-believers have a belief system that a God doesn't exist. Just like Santa, it is an idea we are exposed to and then reject as being true. It then no longer has a place for our meaning nor how we navigate our perspective about reality.

You may have your position that there is no God (Not sure there is a God is agnostic) although we have no empirical and verifiable evidence of such. (Of course you could say the same of believers in a God).

Which of the estimated 5000+ gods in human history are you referring to? The one you adopted and have decided exists? Or someone else version? Let's note that if you think a specific version of God exists you have rejected thousands yourself. So in your wording your position is that there are no thousands of other gods. Is that how you navigate your theology, that there are no thousands of other gods? Or do you just ignore them and focus on the version you have adopted from your social experience?

The problem I have is that atheists play with words because they just don't want to say what they believe "is true and believe it" as a belief system.

Really? I don't see that happening. Perhaps what you mean is that atheists, who tend to be critical thinkers, don't agree with what you think is true and what you believe.

So, without playing with words like "We don't "believe in God doesn't exist"" - either you are an agnostic (but don't want to admit it) or you are an atheist that doesn't believe there is a God (but don't want to say it)

It's not important. A assert that everyone is agnostic. I assert that both theists and atheists are agnostic because the many ideas of God, and even specific ideas of God, have no basis in evidence. There is nothing for any of us to know about gods, so we are left not knowing (agnosis).

What theists claim to know about their Gods is what they learn from their social/religious experience, what is in their religious books, and what they experience as theists, which is both invented in their minds and influenced by others. So we aren't talking about hard facts in regards to what theists believe is happening to them. Atheists only exist because there are theists in the world. Those who are not convinced religious ideas are true as they are learned about are agnostic and/or atheists.

I was a skeptic since a very young boy. I remember being about 8-9 and having serious questions about religion, and why we go to church. I got answers, but I was never satisfied. I saw my Catholic and Baptist family argue over rituals at holidays, and it caused problems. I observed how these Christians did not live up to the ideals they claimed in church. Something was up, and not quite true as claimed. I couldn't ignore this. In time, and as my brain developed, I kept asking questions and religion kept showing me it wasn't what is claimed itself to be.

I had to be honest and truthful with myself as a seeker of truth. I had no interest in being believer, I wanted to know what the truth is.

 

[F1fan]

See post #467.

You didn't explain how I don't understand anything that you are asserting. But I did reply to that post of yours.

 

[Kenny]

1) What part is confusing you?

Is not playing football a sport?
No? Then why is not believing a belief?

2) "If you disbelieve the doctor when he says, "You need to go to the hospital NOW", you will go home instead."
Now, you have given me an example of NOT going to the hospital.

Not confused at all.

1) Irrelevancy - which you won't agree with but I will hold on to.
2) Purposefully omitting "Your belief RESULTED in an action of going home" - probably you won't agree with but I will hold on to.

And you can take those principles and weave it through all that you wrote.

So... we CAN agree to disagree with the belief that we can live together in harmony on a human level

 

[Kenny]

I was a skeptic since a very young boy. I remember being about 8-9 and having serious questions about religion, and why we go to church. I got answers, but I was never satisfied. I saw my Catholic and Baptist family argue over rituals at holidays, and it caused problems. I observed how these Christians did not live up to the ideals they claimed in church. Something was up, and not quite true as claimed. I couldn't ignore this. In time, and as my brain developed, I kept asking questions and religion kept showing me it wasn't what is claimed itself to be.

I had to be honest and truthful with myself as a seeker of truth. I had no interest in being believer, I wanted to know what the truth is.

I am PERFECTLY fine with you having reached your conclusion. After my questions, I was satisfied and came to my conclusion

Happy to have you as part of the family of human-kind

 

[Yazata]

This is a good example. DIS belief - is still a "BELIEF" that there is not a God.

I think that it's possible to have no opinion on the subject of the existence of deities, to lack any beliefs about the subject in other words. Infants would fall into that category. Rocks certainly do, they have no beliefs at all. I'm not clear on why atheists would be so eager to embrace that kind of ignorance though.

It's even possible for thoughtful educated adults to admit that they lack knowledge of the ultimate secrets of the universe, or even to express the belief that knowledge of transcendental matters is probably impossible for beings like us. That's weak and strong agnosticism. (I believe agnosticism is probably the most defensible position to hold on these matters). But to the extent that it isn't ignorance and is based upon plausible justifications, strong agnosticism is an epistemological belief about what is and isn't knowable that will require defense if challenged.

But atheists rarely if ever fit those descriptions. Just look at this thread, our atheists are FULL of opinions, often stated very forcefully and very insultingly. We read that one can't seek metaphysical answers in beings that don't exist (a belief about existence if I ever saw one), we read there's no evidence for the existence of deities, that believers in God don't reason properly, are illogical or are unskilled in "critical thinking". Atheists are always trying to associate themselves somehow with science. They are always dropping snide little remarks like "get an education".

Those all appear to be expressions of beliefs, beliefs that a certain kind of atheist shrilly insists that they don't possess. It comes across as intellectual dishonesty to me.

A nice play on words and, IMO, it is used to wiggle out of defending a position.

Yes, that's exactly it. They appear to be trying to evade any need to defend their own views by insisting that they don't hold any views. (They simply lack views.)

Of course that isn't how it works. It's just basic rhetoric that the burden of "proof" (actually the burden of being persuasive) lies with whoever wants to convince somebody else of something that they don't already believe. So if the atheists want to convince theists to stop being theists and to become atheists, then the atheists have the burden of convincing the theist to make that move.

It's also basic rhetoric that hostility, insults and abuse are unlikely to induce opponents to agree. Angering opponents will just harden them in their opposition. We win arguments by making opponents want to agree with us. We accomplish that by being friendly, sympathetic and by listening to their concerns.

Whether a believe or if you disbelieve something... both carry actions or both can display inaction.

Certainly something explains why our atheists are so forceful in arguing for propositions that they insist that they don't believe.

One would think that if it was true that they simply lack belief in what religious people believe are the secrets of the universe, that atheists' attitudes would be curiosity: 'Tell me more! Tell me the secret of the universe and how you discovered it!' (That's how this thread started and why I applaud its original intent.) Certainly our atheists would be within their rights to respond to whatever the answer is: 'I don't find that convincing'. They would have the duty to listen to it and consider it fairly. And if they have intelligent reasons for not being convinced, those reasons will probably reveal preexisting philosophical beliefs and would need defending if challenged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find @Subduction Zone much more cogent.

Thank you, but I really should not have had to explain what is rather obvious.

Theists seem to want atheists to make a positive statement about God when in reality one cannot do so with good evidence. Now if one wanted to talk about the Muslim God or the Christian God or the Jewish God or others many atheists will be able to explain to you why they think that those Gods do not exist. Most often it is the logical contradictions that eliminate certain gods.

 

[F1fan]

I think that it's possible to have no opinion on the subject of the existence of deities, to lack any beliefs about the subject in other words. Infants would fall into that category. Rocks certainly do, they have no beliefs at all. I'm not clear on why atheists would be so eager to embrace that kind of ignorance though.

What exactly is ignorance to not believe some claim is true or believable?

You seem to be suggesting that once a human is exposed to an idea that we are obligated to believe it in some way.

It's even possible for thoughtful educated adults to admit that they lack knowledge of the ultimate secrets of the universe,

Right. It could turn out there is no supernatural phenomenon at all in the universe and it is all just natural phenomenon, and no intention, no meaning, no gods, no heaven, no fate. Can the faithful admit this? Or will they retreat to their redoubt of faith and continue defiantly to defend what they think is real?

Agnostics will concede the possible of error, and if these are agnostic theists they will have a tentative truth only.

 

[Audie]

I think that it's possible to have no opinion on the subject of the existence of deities, to lack any beliefs about the subject in other words. Infants would fall into that category. Rocks certainly do, they have no beliefs at all. I'm not clear on why atheists would be so eager to embrace that kind of ignorance though.

It's even possible for thoughtful educated adults to admit that they lack knowledge of the ultimate secrets of the universe, or even to express the belief that knowledge of transcendental matters is probably impossible for beings like us. That's weak and strong agnosticism. (I believe agnosticism is probably the most defensible position to hold on these matters). But to the extent that it isn't ignorance and is based upon plausible justifications, strong agnosticism is an epistemological belief about what is and isn't knowable that will require defense if challenged.

But atheists rarely if ever fit those descriptions. Just look at this thread, our atheists are FULL of opinions, often stated very forcefully and very insultingly. We read that one can't seek metaphysical answers in beings that don't exist (a belief about existence if I ever saw one), we read there's no evidence for the existence of deities, that believers in God don't reason properly, are illogical or are unskilled in "critical thinking". Atheists are always trying to associate themselves somehow with science. They are always dropping snide little remarks like "get an education".

Those all appear to be expressions of beliefs, beliefs that a certain kind of atheist shrilly insists that they don't possess. It comes across as intellectual dishonesty to me.



Yes, that's exactly it. They appear to be trying to evade any need to defend their own views by insisting that they don't hold any views. (They simply lack views.)

Of course that isn't how it works. It's just basic rhetoric that the burden of "proof" (actually the burden of being persuasive) lies with whoever wants to convince somebody else of something that they don't already believe. So if the atheists want to convince theists to stop being theists and to become atheists, then the atheists have the burden of convincing the theist to make that move.

It's also basic rhetoric that hostility, insults and abuse are unlikely to induce opponents to agree. Angering opponents will just harden them in their opposition. We win arguments by making opponents want to agree with us. We accomplish that by being friendly, sympathetic and by listening to their concerns.



Certainly something explains why our atheists are so forceful in arguing for propositions that they insist that they don't believe.

One would think that if it was true that they simply lack belief in what religious people believe are the secrets of the universe, that atheists' attitudes would be curiosity: 'Tell me more! Tell me the secret of the universe and how you discovered it!' (That's how this thread started and why I applaud its original intent.) Certainly our atheists would be within their rights to respond to whatever the answer is: 'I don't find that convincing'. They would have the duty to listen to it and consider it fairly. And if they have intelligent reasons for not being convinced, those reasons will probably reveal preexisting philosophical beliefs and would need defending if challenged.

Well! Speaking of those with a litany of
strongly worded insults!

" friendly, sympathetic, and listening...

As if.

 

[PureX]

Sure. Most humans are capable of empathy. But 1 in 24 people are sociopaths and have a genetic defect that makes them unable to feel empathy, so they can't experience this.

Is this what you are talking about, how defects can alter how people sense and experience what is real and true about normal life? If not, then be specific about what you meant.

People have come on here and shared experiences that are impossible to comprehend. They come on here and share experiences that they have interpreted in ways I would not have. But they were not my experiences, so what do I really know?

i have a friend that grew up in a violent, abusive home. Not only was he beaten and abused by his father while his mother did nothing, but he was also molested by an older cousin and by the family priest. And as a result, he came to believe that those who have power in our culture can do anything they want to those who don't. Human society is 'dog-eat-dog' and the bigger dogs eat the littler dogs, and even the supposed 'doo-gooders' are just more dogs hiding in do-gooder clothing. He's a full on philosophical Darwinist. And as a result, he has spent his whole life serving the bigger dogs, and trying to make as much money from it as he could, so as not to get 'eaten' by them.

This was not my experience growing up, at all. So I did not grow up seeing humanity as this sort of Darwinist nightmare where money and violence rules over all. I also do not see all "do-gooders" as wolves in sheep's clothing. But how could I possibly convince my friend of this? His very real experiences from the day he was born, on, have shown him that his view of humanity is exactly as he perceives it. Because for him, IT IS! He's not wrong!

But he's also not right, either. Because everyone's experience of being human is not so endemic of the strong abusing the weak however and whenever they please, as his was. So he is not seeing the whole picture. But then, neither am I, because I haven't seen it from his perspective. And our views of "reality" are very different as a result of this. He has voted for republicans since he could vote, and he doesn't care at all they they lie and cheat and steal. Because he EXPECTS them to. He hates the democrats because he sees them as pretending to be "do-gooders" while they lie, cheat, and steal just like everyone else with the power to do so, does. (Like the priest that preached about morality and righteousness on Sundays while sticking his hands down my friend's pants on Monday.)

Are you getting what I'm saying, here? We do not all experience existence as a human being in the same ways. And we do not comprehend our experiences the same ways as a result. If I prayed to God for the one thing that would save my life in a time of great dread and danger, and that thing happened, it would likely effect the way I 'see God' from that time on. And if you didn't have that kind of an experience, you would likely not 'see God' in the same way as I would. The 'reality of God' would be something very different to me than it would be to you. This isn't about who's reality is the "right reality" because none of us is ever going to know that. Whatever reality is, it's way bigger than any of us are ever going to be able to experience or comprehend. Which is why it's good that we share our experiences in a spirit of trust (not competition). Because collectively, perhaps, we can see a little further into it than we can individually.

So you can incorporate some of what atheists experience as non-believers and broaden your reality?

As you atheists are constantly reminding us all, ad nauseam, atheism is negation for the sake of negation. It's negation as default. It offers no insight or alternative perspective. All it offers is negation based on nothing. This is what I have learned from atheists: the pointlessness and uselessness of negation for negation's sake.

How (is demanding) facts and evidence arrogant as a response to people who claim to know a God exists?

There are no facts that you will accept as evidence because your criteria for evidence is that it be convincing to you. People experience God for themselves, and then tell you that they have done so, and you reject their testament as not being factual or evidential even though it is clearly both. From their perspective they do KNOW God exists (according to any definition of the term, "to know" I can think of). Then, you presume to stand in judgment of something that you have not experienced as if somehow you have been appointed to determine what reality "really" is. Of who's reality is the real one, and who is just fooling themselves. Yet you have no more knowledge of or experience of reality than anyone other individual, and NO human has the capacity to know it "for real".

In a debate how is this counter-productive?

It's dishonest. And dishonesty is always counter-productive.

 

[Audie]

People have come on here and shared experiences that are impossible to comprehend. They come on here and share experiences that they have interpreted in ways I would not have. But they were not my experiences, so what do I really know?

i have a friend that grew up in a violent, abusive home. Not only was he beaten and abused by his father while his mother did nothing, but he was also molested by an older cousin and by the family priest. And as a result, he came to believe that those who have power in our culture can do anything they want to those who don't. Human society is 'dog-eat-dog' and the bigger dogs eat the littler dogs, and even the supposed 'doo-gooders' are just more dogs hiding in do-gooder clothing. He's a full on philosophical Darwinist. And as a result, he has spent his whole life serving the bigger dogs, and trying to make as much money from it as he could, so as not to get 'eaten' by them.

This was not my experience growing up, at all. So I did not grow up seeing humanity as this sort of Darwinist nightmare where money and violence rules over all. I also do not see all "do-gooders" as wolves in sheep's clothing. But how could I possibly convince my friend of this? His very real experiences from the day he was born, on, have shown him that his view of humanity is exactly as he perceives it. Because for him, IT IS! He's not wrong!

But he's also not right, either. Because everyone's experience of being human is not so endemic of the strong abusing the weak however and whenever they please, as his was. So he is not seeing the whole picture. But then, neither am I, because I haven't seen it from his perspective. And our views of "reality" are very different as a result of this. He has voted for republicans since he could vote, and he doesn't care at all they they lie and cheat and steal. Because he EXPECTS them to. He hates the democrats because he sees them as pretending to be "do-gooders" while they lie, cheat, and steal just like everyone else with the power to do so, does. (Like the priest that preached about morality and righteousness on Sundays while sticking his hands down my friend's pants on Monday.)

Are you getting what I'm saying, here? We do not all experience existence as a human being in the same ways. And we do not comprehend our experiences the same ways as a result. If I prayed to God for the one thing that would save my life in a time of great dread and danger, and that thing happened, it would likely effect the way I 'see God' from that time on. And if you didn't have that kind of an experience, you would likely not 'see God' in the same way as I would. The 'reality of God' would be something very different to me than it would be to you. This isn't about who's reality is the "right reality" because none of us is ever going to know that. Whatever reality is, it's way bigger than any of us are ever going to be able to experience or comprehend. Which is why it's good that we share our experiences in a spirit of trust (not competition). Because collectively, perhaps, we can see a little further into it than we can individually.
As you atheists are constantly reminding us all, ad nauseam, atheism is negation for the sake of negation. It's negation as default. It offers no insight or alternative perspective. All it offers is negation based on nothing. This is what I have learned from atheists: the pointlessness and uselessness of negation for negation's sake.
There are no facts that you will accept as evidence because your criteria for evidence is that it be convincing to you. People experience God for themselves, and then tell you that they have done so, and you reject their testament as not being factual or evidential even though it is clearly both. From their perspective they do KNOW God exists (according to any definition of the term, "to know" I can think of). Then, you presume to stand in judgment of something that you have not experienced as if somehow you have been appointed to determine what reality "really" is. Of who's reality is the real one, and who is just fooling themselves. Yet you have no more knowledge of or experience of reality than anyone other individual, and NO human has the capacity to know it "for real".
It's dishonest. And dishonesty is always counter-productive.

Since youve realized that dishonesty is countproductive, it seems like yoU might look a
little deeper and stsrt noticing how you
piddle in your own credibility.

 

[F1fan]

But atheists rarely if ever fit those descriptions. Just look at this thread, our atheists are FULL of opinions, often stated very forcefully and very insultingly. We read that one can't seek metaphysical answers in beings that don't exist (a belief about existence if I ever saw one), we read there's no evidence for the existence of deities, that believers in God don't reason properly, are illogical or are unskilled in "critical thinking". Atheists are always trying to associate themselves somehow with science. They are always dropping snide little remarks like "get an education".

So it is insulting for non-believers to state in a religious forum that they are not convinced religious claims are true? Or that the claims of metaphysical answers are not justified to a certain standard of thinking?

Please cite some examples of these opinions that are insulting so we can see for ourselves what an insulting comment looks like. And then explain what is insulting.

Those all appear to be expressions of beliefs, beliefs that a certain kind of atheist shrilly insists that they don't possess. It comes across as intellectual dishonesty to me.

It might seem that way, especially to those who do believe in a set of concepts that are in dispute. If Jim claims he knows the Loch Ness Monster exists and he has evidence, and this evidence is his own experiences, as he "saw something in the water he couldn't explain". And a photo that is fuzzy and only indicates something in the water, but not clear what it is. I wouldn't be convinced that Jim knows any such thing. This doesn't mean I believe the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, it just means that I've heard Jim's claim of evidence and that it isn't convincing, so I reject it. I'm not stating a belief of my own. I'm responding to Jim's claim.

Now if I assert that Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, well that would be on me and my claim.

Yes, that's exactly it. They appear to be trying to evade any need to defend their own views by insisting that they don't hold any views. (They simply lack views.)

Rejecting Jim's claim that he knows the Loch Ness Monster exists due to a lack of compelling evidence is itself NOT a view. It is just a response to Jim.

Of course that isn't how it works. It's just basic rhetoric that the burden of "proof" (actually the burden of being persuasive) lies with whoever wants to convince somebody else of something that they don't already believe. So if the atheists want to convince theists to stop being theists and to become atheists, then the atheists have the burden of convincing the theist to make that move.

But atheists aren't here to convince theists from being believers. We are here to debate. It's fun. It's a waste of time. It's like any other community activity. Theists can present their case for why they believe. Non-theists can assess and respond. Theists, like yourself, can respond in turn.

It's also basic rhetoric that hostility, insults and abuse are unlikely to induce opponents to agree. Angering opponents will just harden them in their opposition. We win arguments by making opponents want to agree with us. We accomplish that by being friendly, sympathetic and by listening to their concerns.

No, debates are won by presenting the most reasoned arguments from the best, objective evidence. That some parties resist listening is another issue that is psychological.

Let's note that when a theist offers their reasons for belief it does not imply or mean those reasons are logical. They are just reasons, and this includes reasons that feel good to the self, the believer. This reward to the brain can become habitual, and self-reinforcing. So the reward comes by repeating the behavior even if it is harmful or in error, with drug use being an extreme example.

Certainly something explains why our atheists are so forceful in arguing for propositions that they insist that they don't believe.

Fun. This behavior also rewards the brain. We all get a hormone boost by debating.

One would think that if it was true that they simply lack belief in what religious people believe are the secrets of the universe, that atheists' attitudes would be curiosity: 'Tell me more! Tell me the secret of the universe and how you discovered it!' (That's how this thread started and why I applaud its original intent.) Certainly our atheists would be within their rights to respond to whatever the answer is: 'I don't find that convincing'. They would have the duty to listen to it and consider it fairly. And if they have intelligent reasons for not being convinced, those reasons will probably reveal preexisting philosophical beliefs and would need defending if challenged.

It should be clear that atheists do this. We listen. We assess. We offer our reasoning and judgments.

Can theists explain why they believe in ideas that have no factual basis? The reasons are not a reasoned conclusion via facts. So what is the real reason?

 

[PureX]

Believe me... I know what you were getting at. But this is STILL nothing like those "special" cases of "reality" (so called) that theists would like to present without being challenged. Nothing like it. And again - this is because we can share the experience, and corroborate one another's findings to a very high degree of fidelity. Not so with claims of the supernatural, or descriptions of God(s) or experience with God(s). Not so.

You are presuming, here, to know, or to be able to determine what is "natural" and what is not. I have no idea how you/we could possibly determine this. If "God" were hovering in the air right before me in a blaze of blinding glory, how would I determine this was a "supernatural" event? How would I even determine that it was "God" as opposed to something that only appeared to be God? And if you weren't here, how could I possibly convince you that I had experienced a 'real' visitation from "God"?

The answer is that I could do none of the above. Because as a human being, I do not have the ability to determine the limitations of nature, or of existence, or of 'reality'. And if I can do none of the above, because I am human, then you can't, either. So that all we're left with is each other's very limited (and subjective) experiences, and views of existence, or nature, and of the "reality" we created to explain them to ourselves. And so, of course, of "God".

There is, most certainly, value in gleaning ideas off of other people's imaginations. However, there is a line that can be crossed, whereby one is simply going too far with the things they have imagined. That line ends at the boundaries of your skull. In my opinion, one should never be found attempting to install their imaginative meanderings into the mind of another with intent to convince that person that these items are " as real as the nose on your face." That is disingenuous, controlling and arrogant.

It's also mostly impossible, fortunately, even though it's somewhat inevitable that we try. If, however, we humans would come to accept that what we think is real and true is just a fiction we created in our minds to make sense of our own particular experiences of being, I think we'd be much less likely to go around trying to force everyone else to comply with it. Honesty has a tendency to bring with it humility and tolerance.

... what's happening here (and everywhere that religious ideas are challenged) is that people are rejecting that these items are "true" just because someone wants them to be.

Well, that's just silly. Person "A" has no more or better idea what's true than person "B" does. And none of us is in charge of assigning existential truth. Best we got over that idea right quick!

Until a DEMONSTRATION CAN BE MADE, ...

No such "demonstration" is ever going to be possible. Existence, truth, reality; these are beyond our ability to grasp. All we're ever going to get are small, relative bits and pieces of it; and not the same ones in the same way at the same time.

Sure... fine... I can accept that everyone else's reality is just as "illusory" as my own. Fine. But I can still hand you a stone, and you can run your hands over it and give a description of it that will very closely match my own. FACT. Happens all the damn time with all manner of objects, and even ideas. God isn't like this.

A great many things that we humans experience and cognate aren't like this. Not just "God". Which is why materialism is such an absurd philosophical worldview. One that remains very popular among atheists, however. Along with negation as a default; also absurd and pointless philosophical proposition.

I don't know how many times I need to say it. God is FAR MORE ILLUSORY ...

There is no 'more or less' illusory. It's ALL illusory. Existence, truth, reality, these are all conceptual absolutes that we do not have cognitive determination of.

... you can't hand God to me, and ask me to tell you what I sense and expect that anything close to what you and that other guy are blathering on about will come out of my mouth. You can't... and you know this.

Of course not. Who's trying? But neither can you claim that God doesn't exist because it can't be handed from one person to another like a stone.

Which is supposed to mean what? That we should go about the business of MAKING THINGS UP in order to pretend we have a clue?

I think we ought to stop pretending that we have a clue when we don't. I think that's where we should start. After that, all we can do is share our own peculiar experience of existence, and the "conceptual reality" we've created for ourselves as result, and then see how it goes.

So what? Again - why does this mean that making things up is prudent?

Prudent or not, it's all we can do. The key is not to fall for our own 'make-believe'. Instead, to remain open to whatever other versions we encounter.

Aren't you then admitting that we are in EXACTLY the situation where the best course is to feel out and try to understand WHAT IS ACTUALLY HERE to the best of our ability?

No. Because we aren't going to succeed and we'll just end up falling for our own make-believe, again. I think the better goal is to amass a collection of different possible ways of understanding "reality" so we can apply whichever one works best for us in the moment.

Why defend the people who are just choosing make believe instead of doing the work of finding out those items that truly apply to ALL of us,

Because we're all living in our own make-believe reality. Including those who think they are "doing the work of finding out those items that truly apply to ALL of us".

I don't care what you think of the process of trying to weed out bad ideas from good ones. I don't. Not at all. You can try and shame me all you want with words like "arrogant," "annoying" and "counter-productive." I'm not going to believe your schtick until you can demonstrate the truth of it. There it is. You can't do that? Then it is best not to mention it in the public sphere in the first place - because I will be lurking there, ready to ask you the questions that make your entire façade fall apart like so much wet papier mâché.

I'm not "shaming" anyone. I'm simply pointing out that your chosen view of reality and your chosen method of negotiating with it are no better or worse than those of other people that you can't understand and disparage because they don't comport with your own.

 

[PureX]

Since youve realized that dishonesty is countproductive, it seems like yoU might look a
little deeper and stsrt noticing how you
piddle in your own credibility.

What you deem "credible" or not is not my concern.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You are presuming, here, to know, or to be able to determine what is "natural" and what is not.

No... I am presuming to be able to determine what HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED to myself, and WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED. That's it. And I can even discern whether or not you are able to demonstrate a particular thing to anyone else as well, if I am present, and can witness what actually goes on. That's exactly what this is all about. I don't care what is "natural" or not. I only invoked the items of "Supernatural" or "God" to give examples of things no one had been able to demonstrate the reality of to any acceptable degree. That's all. I am pretty sure you were aware of this... but you needed something to come back with, and the above was as good as you were going to get. Sound about right?

I have no idea how you/we could possibly determine this. If "God" were hovering in the air right before me in a blaze of blinding glory, how would I determine this was a "supernatural" event?

Exactly... so there is absolutely no reason to invoke such flim flam for any purpose.

How would I even determine that it was "God" as opposed to something that only appeared to be God? And if you weren't here, how could I possibly convince you that I had experienced a 'real' visitation from "God"?

Exactly. You can't do either. And so, the question instead becomes WHY would you try and convince me that you had experienced a visitation by God if even YOU ADMIT that you can't be sure that's what it was? That you can't verify it or reproduce it. If you can't do those things, then why in the ever-heated hell would you go around talking about it like you just KNEW what had happened? WHY?!??!?

It's also mostly impossible, fortunately, even though it's somewhat inevitable that we try. If, however, we humans would come to accept that what we think is real and true is just a fiction we created in our minds to make sense of our own particular experiences of being, I think we'd be much less likely to go around trying to force everyone else to comply with it. Honestly has a tendency to bring with it humility and tolerance.

All fine and good until one realizes the amazing level of utility that can be leveraged by comparing experiences and coming to the ultimate "real" that we can all experience time and time again. This is the whole reason that science is lauded for having pushed us so far forward with useful advances and religion has been left in the dust, wallowing in its own uselessness for the last several hundred years. All religion can ever lay claim to is that it helped some poor sole INDIVIDUALLY, and then extrapolate any "wins" it has on the individual level out to some "mass" of the population - because, as you yourself have stated, this stuff is ENTIRELY PERSONAL. "God", "spirit", "afterllife" - the whole shebang is just "whatever it means to you." Science refuses to deal in the realm of "whatever it means to you" - and deals only in the items that appear to be true regardless the observer. As such, OBVIOUSLY its ability to advance our capabilities is going to blast something like religion completely out of the water.

RANDOM PERSON 1: "I believe in Zeus."
RANDOM PERSON 2: "Well, I believe in Yaweh."
ME: "And what did we learn today kids?!"​

Well, that's just silly. Person "A" has no more or better idea what's true than person "B" does. And none of us is in charge of assigning existential truth.

But TOGETHER, "Person A" and "Person B" can compare notes and come to realizations about the world around them and how it continuously and reliably functions! They can then use those realizations to build and craft and change and react in ways that relying on separate ideas of "make believe" never, ever could do. And that because it is just exactly like a hobby. One person likes collecting stamps - the other likes collecting coins. There is nothing "profound" in their preferences... nothing at all. These are just their predilections due to nature/nurture/who-cares. Their hobbies do nothing to enlighten the rest of us about "reality" and in those particular cases, the practitioners of "collecting stamps" and "collecting coins" DON'T EXPECT THAT THEIR HOBBIES WILL DO SO. But then the practitioner of religion comes along and DOES EXPECT SUCH TO HAPPEN. It's idiotic.

No such "demonstration" is ever going to be possible. Existence, truth, reality; these are beyond our ability to grasp. All we're ever going to get are small, relative bits and pieces of it, and not the same ones in the same way at the same time.

Then stop talking about this crap like you have any idea if it is even real!! Why is that so damn hard for you? Why do you think it makes sense to talk like you do here in these sentences, and then go on to INSIST that these things should be accepted by the rest of us as being worthwhile or important? I don't need to recognize any sort of importance in items for which the demonstration of their comport with reality is not forthcoming. It would be like asking me to observe Dr. Seuss works with grave importance, because you think they describe some fundamental aspects of reality better than anything else. You can't quite communicate it directly, and ask me to read the books and decide for myself as a way of gleaning this amazing knowledge, and if I don't see it, then you label me things like "closed-minded." Get over yourself. Your proclamations in this area mean absolutely nothing! As do mine! Oh WAIT... I DON'T MAKE SUCH PROCLAMATIONS. I only inform people when they shouldn't be doing so themselves. AND - if someone actually did, one day, pony up some real evidence, guess who would make sure their foot was placed securely in their mouth and shut it? Me. That's who. Me. Because then there would be actual warrant to go running around claiming such knowledge or import. As it stands, however - that just isn't there. not at all. And YOU are the one saying we can never even get there!

A great many things that we humans experience and cognate aren't like this. Not just "God". Which is why philosophical materialism is such an absurd worldview. One that remains very popular among atheists, however. Along with negation as default; also absurd and pointless.

I don't care what you point to (love, beauty, etc.) - anything we attribute as a representation of observable human behaviors has a RIDICULOUS AMOUNT MORE evidence going for it than God EVER will. And, a lot of things you point to are subjective - meaning the subject and the subject alone need make the determination of whether or not they think something meets a particular criteria. But what I have been getting at is that certain things are much closer to being objective - meaning that it doesn't matter what subject is doing the observing, the realities of the thing are common between subjects - these things do not rely on the subject. If you want to say that God is more like "love" or "beauty" in that there is no actual presence in reality, and the idea relies solely on the subject at hand to even have thoughts about it for it to experience anything even approaching "reality" - then I am 100% on board with that sentiment! The "utility" of God then becomes the sole purview of the person keen on blabbing about God - and they needn't even attempt to pass on their "knowledge" - because it would be exactly like trying to convince someone that a particular painting YOU enjoyed SHOULD NECESSARILY BE ENJOYED by some other person. That's dumb.

There is no 'more or less' illusory. It's ALL illusory. Existence, truth, reality, these are all conceptual absolutes that we do not have cognitive determination of.

None of that matters. Again, there is what we can share in the reality WE APPEAR to inhabit, and there is what we cannot. Deny that. Go ahead... actually deny that. You know what I am getting at, and it scares you. Hence the reason you dance around it and keep saying that all of reality is just "up for grabs." It isn't... even if this is all some grand illusion and the true "reality" runs far deeper - that DOESN'T MATTER when considering the reality we are ultimately presented with. If we can share elements of that experienced reality for our mutual (even if only perceived) benefit then those are FAR MORE IMPORTANT between persons than anything that only one person can experience alone.

Prudent or not, it's all we can do. The key is not to fall for our own 'make-believe'. Instead, to remain open to whatever other versions we encounter.

No... you remain open only until it is realized that the reality of whatever "version" someone is keen on pressing to you cannot be established. Once that realization is made then it only makes sense that many people are going to discard it or ignore it. I mean... it happens all the time. Think werewolves, dracula, unicorns, bigfoot, leprechauns, fairies, etc. Once you realize that there is not going to be any presentation of the reality of these items, you are free to just file it away in a bin marked "curiosities" in your mind. Should some evidence or experience harken back to stuff thrown in that bin, then it makes sense to revisit... but not until then.

No. Because we aren't going to succeed and we'll just end up falling for our own make-believe, again. I think the better goal is to amass a collection of different possible ways of understanding "reality" so we can apply whichever one works best for us in the moment.

But again, when discussing ideas of religious ilk, it is so easily understood and time has handily demonstrated that there is very very little utility in those other "possible ways of understanding reality." It just isn't there. There are no strides being made in religion... NONE! The only thing it can do is retro-fit discoveries to its outdated proclamations and prescriptions so that it can pretend it is still relevant! Anything that "happens" due to interaction with religion happens on an individual level. That should tell you something.

Because we're all living in our own make-believe reality. Including those who think they are "doing the work of finding out those items that truly apply to ALL of us".

Nope... this is just ridiculous. The proof is in the pudding. Literally. Pudding is delicious... and religious adherence and gains of knowledge from a religious tilt have never produced something even a millionth as delicious as pudding. Boom. In religion, it would be a flavorless paste being passed around, and when a newbie tasted it and asked "Why are we eating this?" the response would be "Because it can taste like anything you want it to taste like!"... and then all the other idiots in line would start nodding their heads and grunting to each other in approval of the profundity of that statement.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What you deem "credible" or not is not my concern.

You're right... but that isn't going to stop people from deeming you less than credible. And a mounting set of opinions of that kind can certainly have real-world consequences. This is exactly where I hope that religion itself is headed. Into a bin marked "credibility approaches 0%", and for exactly the same reasons - its adherents just keep talking, and just keep estranging themselves from people who are more keen on bearing the fruits that observation of reality can afford us.

 

[PureX]

You're right... but that isn't going to stop people from deeming you less than credible.

I don't care. I'm not in charge of how other people see the the world, or me. I offer what I can, and they can do with it whatever they choose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your belief system in your life and thinking includes all these and many hundreds of more things you believe are not true or existent?

"many hundreds"?

Try an infinite number of things, only really limited by ones imagination.

I guess @KenS also positively "believes" in the "non-existence" of gooblydockboeya
Gooblydockboeya is a creature I just made up. It has 7 legs, 3 eyes, 6 mouths and it squirts tomato sauce when it is laughing. I plan on catching one one of these days. I'll put it in a box and have it watch comedy 24/7 and bottle its squirt juices to sell at a premium to Italian restaurants.

There literally is an INFINITE number of things like that.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Because once you understand your illusion is an illusion, you can't really believe it's true. And who wants to be lost in an illusion?

6 billion people want to be lost in an 'illusion'. That is the amount of Theists there are in the world. You are mistaking illusion for imagination, we need imagination to function in a reality. We could do without Illusion true, but we could not do without imagination. Think of what the world would be like if our brains were to process everything unimagined. We would have holes in our vision, we would see everything upside down, we would have no concept of love or freedom. We would be machines. What is the goal of an atheist? Truth? Well the truth is that were spinning thousands of miles an hour in a ball in the middle of nothing space prone to any type of destruction imaginable. There's your truth. Now what are you going to do with that truth. Absolutely nothing, but wait until the ultimate inevitable demise of their lives and the planet come to a bitter and meaningless end. That is the truth of the Atheist, by removing imagination from the equation. Do I prefer that 'illusion' or do I prefer the 'illusion' that everything is here for a reason. A purpose of a loving and caring being that will protect His creations and has protected his creations since they were conceived. I am sorry to break it to you, but your truth has nothing for me. Even if the imagination was an illusion, I would prefer the illusion until I die, for it is a world that has little consequence in the end. 6 billion people would agree with me on this one.

 

[Audie]

You're right... but that isn't going to stop people from deeming you less than credible. And a mounting set of opinions of that kind can certainly have real-world consequences. This is exactly where I hope that religion itself is headed. Into a bin marked "credibility approaches 0%", and for exactly the same reasons - its adherents just keep talking, and just keep estranging themselves from people who are more keen on bearing the fruits that observation of reality can afford us.

True. So better to encourage it than
suggest a more sensible approach.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not confused at all.
1) Irrelevancy - which you won't agree with but I will hold on to.

How is it irrelevant? Please provide something more beside blanket assertion.

2) Purposefully omitting "Your belief RESULTED in an action of going home" - probably you won't agree with but I will hold on to.

I didn't ommit anything. You were simply incorrect.
Home? Why home? Why not the bar? Why not the swimming pool? Why not driving of a cliff?
The fact is that I could be going ANYWHERE. There is no specific action that I will be engaging in as a result of disbelieving the doctor.

The fact is that my disbelief of what the doctor says only results in the NON-action of doing what the doctor said I had to do. Which is go to the hospital.

How can you not understand this?

And you can take those principles and weave it through all that you wrote.

What principles? What are you talking about?

So... we CAN agree to disagree with the belief that we can live together in harmony on a human level

But I will not agree to things that are clearly wrong.
Both your examples were exactly what I predicted:
Nonbeliefs informing non-actions.

Because beliefs inform actions.

If you believe in a religion that says that you should burn witches, then that will inform your action to burn witches.
If you do NOT believe such claims, then that will inform your NON-action of burning witches. Ie, you will not be burning witches. You will do other things that are unrelated to your disbelief about having to burn witches.

You are still most welcome to try and come up with other examples that aren't preceeded by the word "not".