God is only one

[PureX]

Yes, I've considered the possibility that I've made a logical error, but I can't find one. You claim that I'm irrational, and your argument is that there is benefit in a god belief, so those who refuse it are illogical. You don't see the fallacy there? You are projecting yourself onto me.

Literally BILLIONS of human beings find value in trusting in a God of their choice. The huge majority of them now and throughout the history of humanity. In fact, one might even say an overwhelming consensus of them find this to be so (scince scientific consensus is so important to you). So it's not "me" projecting myself onto you. And the fact that you felt you had to stoop to that level of misrepresentation isn't helping your position.

You apparently receive a benefit from a god belief, and generalize that to believing that everybody would.

Well, the evidence and all that.

I've explained to you that I have experience there, and found the opposite to be the case. I received a benefit leaving faith, god beliefs, and religion behind. In so doing, I learned to be comfortable knowing that there may be no god or afterlife. I content that there may be nobody not on earth that is looking over me or answering my prayers. You steadfastly refuse to understand that when I call myself an agnostic atheist, I mean that I am open-minded to the possibility of gods, but presently have no reason to believe any exist even if one or more do.

All this supports agnostic indifference toward the God proposition. None of it supports choosing the counter proposition. As you have clearly done. So your 'explanation', here, isn't explaining anything. Not to mention that there could be any number of reasons why trusting in the possibility didn't work for you. So why jump to the conclusion that no gods exist, as opposed to you're doing it wrong? (Probably taught to do it wrong.) After all, there's still all those BILLIONS of other people for whom it seems to work.

So what do you propose would be the benefit to me choosing your path?

That's not what I am asking, or suggesting. What I'm asking is why reject the possibility all together? Because doing that makes no sense. Unknowing indifference makes more sense. Especially logically, which you claim to be so important to you. Yet instead you determined rather passionately that god does exist, based on no evidence whatever. And in spite of the fact that doing so imparts no positive value to you.

It looks like resentment, or spite of some kind, from my perspective. Neither of which is especially logical, or "objective".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Literally BILLIONS of human beings find value in trusting in a God of their choice. The huge majority of them now and throughout the history of humanity. In fact, one might even say an overwhelming consensus of them find this to be so (scince scientific consensus is so important to you). So it's not "me" projecting myself onto you. And the fact that you felt you had to stoop to that level of misrepresentation isn't helping your position.

And billions find value in wearing glasses.

And consensus matters little to me in matters in which I can arrive at conclusions myself. I rely on consensus in maters that I cannot evaluate myself, and even then, only the consensus of experts. They say that the proof of Fermat's last theorem is too difficult for more than a handful of mathematicians to follow. Those few people agree that the proof is valid, and so I assume that the theorem has probably been proved. But in most other areas, consensus isn't compelling.

why jump to the conclusion that no gods exist

I didn't.

you determined rather passionately that god does exist, based on no evidence whatever. And in spite of the fact that doing so imparts no positive value to you. It looks like resentment, or spite of some kind, from my perspective. Neither of which is especially logical, or "objective".

But you don't know what my position is despite telling you repeatedly. You continue to come back to this same error. And you ignore the value that I told you that leaving a faith-based life and embracing secular humanism had for me.

Unless you are trolling, you, my friend, are under the sway of a confirmation bias. At one time, I would have concluded that you must be lying, that there was simply no way that you couldn't understand what I was telling you in plain English, which is that I do not deny the existence of gods, a fact I have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread alone, and why I call my form of atheism agnostic. I would not have believed that there was any other explanation for your behavior here than gaslighting.

Then, a few years back, I encountered the testimony of an old earth creationist and geologist, Glenn Morton who had formerly been a young earth creationist. I found the man to be sincere and credible, so I believe him when he says that there are people who do what you have done that aren't lying in the sense that they know that they are telling an untruth. Take a peek if you're interested:

Spoiler: Morton's demon

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.

Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one. This energy spent to collect information meant that the demon couldn't violate the 2nd law.

The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with [email protected] who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: [email protected] ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy—he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

So which is it in your case, gaslighting, or Morton's demon (confirmation bias)? Since you steadfastly refuse to discuss the matter even after multiple prompts to get you to do so, I lean toward the gaslighting. If you were simply blind to all this, I would expect you to have responded to those requests. You might ask, "When did you say that that you have not ruled out the possibility of gods?"

But you don't. You evade the matter like it never happened. Can that be explained by a cognitive bias? Maybe. You don't seem like a troll in any other way. But what's the difference, really? Either way, we're clearly not going to make any progress from this, our starting point - you telling me that I believe what I have denied and calling it illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unless you are trolling, you, my friend, are under the sway of a confirmation bias. At one time, I would have concluded that you must be lying, that there was simply no way that you couldn't understand what I was telling you in plain English, which is that I do not deny the existence of gods, a fact I have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread alone, and why I call my form of atheism agnostic. I would not have believed that there was any other explanation for your behavior here than gaslighting.

I have not been following all of the back and forth, but I saw this in passing so I just want to make one comment.

I do not think there is any trolling or gaslighting, what I think happens is that people generally project their own thoughts and feelings so much so that they cannot hear what other people are saying. I make a concerted effort to understand what other people are saying and I make a conscious effort not to allow my own beliefs to obscure what others are saying. In psychology that is called having boundaries.

I also try to understand other people's perspectives and I think I understand the atheist perspective even though I am still a believer for my own reasons, just as you are an atheist who embraces humanistic values for your own reasons. There is nothing inherently illogical about being an atheist or about being a believer, and just because most people are believers that alone does not prove that a God exists or that this is the preferable position, as there are many, many reasons why most people are believers.

 

[F1fan]

I really have no idea.

Then you should have admitted this instead of not being truthful and trying to challenge what the data shows.

If people have scans and they are thinking about something that activated that activated their emotion and reward centers then those centers would be activated, the question is what thoughts are they activated by.

The book Emotional Intelligence explains it.

I am not opposed to anything except people telling me what I feel rewarded by because they cannot know that.
If my brain was scanned and it showed the emotion and reward centers activated I would believe it, but what would that prove?

Who was talking about you or your brain?

 

[rational experiences]

One said God as mass owned everything.

One was mass as anything existed by mass of its own form owning it.

Single never existed.

As God owned everything as mass of any form no man was God.

God owned our life by mass support.

As heavens owned any one reaction. As mass allowed any one reaction to exist.

It was only a human relativity teaching.

By humans for humans.

Who said no man is God as there is no singularity.

 

[PureX]

I start from the baseline premise that it is not possible for a human being to determine the nature or even the existence of 'God'.

I realize this may not be entirely true, but if there are exceptions, they are very, very rare. In the same way that 'miracles' do appear to happen, but whatever they are, they are very, very rare. So although my baseline premise in not absolute, I believe it stands, logically and realistically. There is no significant information or evidence available to us that would logically move us off this baseline premise. "I don't know" (agnosticism) is the logical human response to the proposal that 'God/gods' exist.

However, this leaves the proposal of God's existence to be a possibility, as agnosticism does not logically negate the existence of God/gods. It also leaves, by default, the possibility open that no gods exist since agnosticism does not negate that possibility, either.

The point I'm making, here, is that agnosticism does not preclude anyone from choosing to adopt a presumption that God/gods (of a metaphysical nature) exist, or that that they do not exist. What agnosticism does do, however, is remove the possibility of our logically proving either presumption to ourselves or to anyone else.

So why would anyone adopt the presumption that God/gods exists, or that God/gods do not exist, given this baseline premise of our lack of sufficient evidence or information to make a logical determination? Because a great many humans do choose to move past their agnosticism, and into one determination or the other (theism or atheism).

I understand why theists choose to do so. And so do most of us, here. The reason is that they gain some personal value benefit from their choosing to trust in their particular idealization of 'God'. But I do not understand why people choose to presume that no gods exist, because that choice offers them no personal value or benefit. There is no idealization to inculcate or act on in adopting atheism, and therefor no benefit to be derived from such non-idealization and non-action.

I also understand taking a position of uninformed indifference as an agnostic. If one feels no particular need or desire for the benefits others seek through theism, then so be it. There would logically be no reason, then, for them to choose theism.

What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism, as opposed to simply remaining agnostic and indifferent. I've been trying to ask one or two self-proclaimed atheists, here, why they choose atheism as opposed to agnostic indifference and I cannot get an answer from them. I can't even get them to acknowledge the logic behind my question.

CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)

Actually, I'm now thinking this needs it's own thread ...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've been trying to ask one or two self-proclaimed atheists, here, why they choose atheism as opposed to agnostic indifference and I cannot get an answer from them. I can't even get them to acknowledge the logic behind my question.

I presume you are referring to this atheist. You did get an answer. Here is part of it:

• There is both benefit and logic in being an atheist. I don't have any need or desire to answer unanswerable questions using the device of a deity. I am agnostic, but all agnostics either have a god belief or don't, meaning all agnostics are forced to choose between theism and atheism in the face of that unknowing. I choose atheism because it is the only logical position possible. Theists may be correct, but if they are they are only guessing correctly. I prefer not to guess.

Here's more of the answer:

• Our discussion here reminds me of somebody with blurry vision who received the miracle of corrective lenses, and now thinks that everybody needs a pair, even people with good vision naturally whose vision is actually degraded by these lenses, unaware that there are people who don't have any need that glasses can fulfill. You would be telling me that it is irrational for me to refuse glasses, and I'd be telling you that it would be irrational for me to wear a pair. I'd be telling you that I see clearly now, and you'd be calling me stubborn, incalcitrant, intransient for not wearing a pair, and I'd just be shaking my head as I am now in wonderment.

So why would anyone adopt the presumption that God/gods exists, or that God/gods do not exist, given this baseline premise of our lack of sufficient evidence or information to make a logical determination?

Beats me. I consider both logical errors, leaps of faith, non sequiturs. People may claim to know that gods exist or do not, but they aren't credible once one considers the perimeters of knowledge and what is knowable.

A huge barrier to your understanding atheists is your inability to understand agnostic atheism. You see these as mutually exclusive categories, meaning a person can be either but not both at the same time.

I've mentioned this to you:

• In fact, by refusing to acknowledge the possibility of the concept of agnostic atheism, insisting that everybody can only be one or the other but not both, you undermine yourself and your message. You don't understand your audience. You don't understand me. You don't know what I believe even after me telling you multiple times.

I'm an atheist because I have no god belief. If you ask me if I believe in a god, my answer is no. Apparently, that's not an an atheist to you if I don't also add that I know that gods don't exist. And I never have and likely never will. Why? Because I'm also an agnostic. I don't claim t know that gods don't exist, just that there is no reason to believe that one or more do at this time. That's a pretty common and sound position, but to you, it doesn't exist.

I've told you that this is my position, but all you hear is atheist, and to you that means that I have ruled out the possibility of gods existing. I can't get past that, and it's why you can't understand my answer. It's also odd that when I tell you that I am agnostic as well as atheist, you can't remember that. When I describe both my atheism and agnosticism to you, you don't comment on why you consider it impossible. You don't even acknowledge that you read it. You go for atheist, drop agnostic, and use your limited definition of an atheist when deciding what I am claiming about myself.

Here's an example of that. I wrote, "Here you are asking me why I presume that the psychedelic experience wasn't a god when I just told you that I didn't come to that conclusion - that I came to no conclusion at all about whether I was experiencing just my mind or more, and I choose not to guess." Your response:

• You stated right at the beginning that you and your wife are atheists. So you did choose to guess, and you guessed that gods don't exist. So, obviously, you also have chosen to "guess" that your experiences were not of God. Had you simply remained agnostic, you would not have chosen to take a stance either way. And your mind would still be open. But your mind is not open. Because you have chosen to presume that gods don't exist. And I don't see the logic in making that presumption when there is no evidence of it, nor any benefit in it for you, or for anyone else.

How can I possibly get past that?

Because a great many humans do choose to move past their agnosticism, and into one determination or the other (theism or atheism).

Yes, this is you failing to understand yet again that agnostics can be either theists or atheists according to their answer to the question of whether they believe in gods or not despite their agnosticism.

This is how you conceive the logical possibilities: three, all mutually exclusive:

This is how most atheists conceive of them. We are the entire right side of this diagram. Most of us fit in the lower right box, a minority in the upper right box.

Obviously, you can't ever understand what somebody like me is saying if you can't conceive of agnostic atheism. You see the word atheist and consider only the upper right box. And it's intriguing to consider why, after being told this at least a half dozen times, you've never disagreed or even commented on this matter to indicate that you've understood what is being claimed. Here's the last time I commented on it, which also received no acknowledgement. You had written, "you determined rather passionately that god does [not] exist". I added the not, as I'm sure that's what you meant to write:

• But you don't know what my position is despite telling you repeatedly. You continue to come back to this same error. And you ignore the value that I told you that leaving a faith-based life and embracing secular humanism had for me.

I also mentioned the following, which also received no acknowledgement:

• Unless you are trolling, you, my friend, are under the sway of a confirmation bias. At one time, I would have concluded that you must be lying, that there was simply no way that you couldn't understand what I was telling you in plain English, which is that I do not deny the existence of gods, a fact I have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread alone, and why I call my form of atheism agnostic. I would not have believed that there was any other explanation for your behavior here than gaslighting. Then, a few years back, I encountered the testimony of an old earth creationist and geologist, Glenn Morton who had formerly been a young earth creationist. I found the man to be sincere and credible, so I believe him when he says that there are people who do what you have done that aren't lying in the sense that they know that they are telling an untruth.

Why is that. How can you read something like that and remain silent on the matter? Don't you have any interest in helping resolve this? Presumably, you don't believe either possibility is the case.

 

[PureX]

I presume you are referring to this atheist. You did get an answer. Here is part of it:

There is both benefit and logic in being an atheist. I don't have any need or desire to answer unanswerable questions using the device of a deity. I am agnostic, but all agnostics either have a god belief or don't, meaning all agnostics are forced to choose between theism and atheism in the face of that unknowing. I choose atheism because it is the only logical position possible. Theists may be correct, but if they are they are only guessing correctly. I prefer not to guess.​

This is incorrect for several reasons. You say that you have no need or desire to answer unanswerable questions using the device of a deity, and yet atheism has you doing exactly that, unnecessarily. You could have simply remained agnostic and dropped the question all together. And yet you did not do that. Instead, you determine that no gods exist; thus answering the very question that you said you had no need or desire to answer. So why did you, then?

People may claim to know that gods exist or do not, but they aren't credible once one considers the perimeters of knowledge and what is knowable.

Then why have you decided to presume that gods don't exist? You could have simply remained agnostic and undetermined.

You still are not answering this very simple question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is incorrect for several reasons. You say that you have no need or desire to answer unanswerable questions using the device of a deity, and yet atheism has you doing exactly that, unnecessarily. You could have simply remained agnostic and dropped the question all together. And yet you did not do that. Instead, you determine that no gods exist; thus answering the very question that you said you had no need or desire to answer. So why did you, then?

Then why have you decided to presume that gods don't exist? You could have simply remained agnostic and undetermined. You still are not answering this very simple question.

This is a remarkable phenomenon to me. Here we are yet again right where we started, zero progress having been made. Presumably, you can read and understand my words, so why is there no evidence of that? How is it possible for me to tell you a dozen times that I have not declared gods nonexistent, yet you return to this?

I assume that you are not gaslighting me here, although that is not impossible. But you don't appear to be trolling in any other way, so I will work from the position that you simply can't process the evidence before your eyes, you can't read certain sentences and assimilate them. Since I can't conceive of any other explanations than gaslighting and confirmation bias, I presume the last to be the case, I'll repost the article from geologist and former young earth creationist (now an OEC) Glenn Morton on this topic, which, remarkably, you didn't find worthy of a mention the last time I posted it to you.

I found him to be compelling and sincere. Here, he anthropomorphizes the confirmation bias in the form of a demon filtering data before it enters consciousness. It really sounds like what is happening here. You just don't seem to see the words. Maybe you don't remember seeing it before. It would be nice if you would comment on whether you think this could be happening to you, and why or why not, but I don't expect it, but maybe you won't remember seeing it this time, either:

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.

The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with [email protected] who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: [email protected] ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!​

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand why theists choose to do so. And so do most of us, here. The reason is that they gain some personal value benefit from their choosing to trust in their particular idealization of 'God'.

Let's be honest, believers also gain some personal benefit from believing in God. they are getting something for themselves. They can cut the crap that they are sacrificing something for God, I don't believe it. Believers believe because they want to believe, either because they believe they are going to get some reward in heaven and/or because they believe they are getting some reward in this life.

But I do not understand why people choose to presume that no gods exist, because that choice offers them no personal value or benefit. There is no idealization to inculcate or act on in adopting atheism, and therefor no benefit to be derived from such non-idealization and non-action.

I do not think that most of the atheists on this forum presume that no gods exist, they say that they don't believe that God/gods exist, which is different. Most atheists on this forum have identified themselves as agnostic atheists.

What evidence is there that a God exists aside from religion? And if atheists look around at religion I don't blame them for not believing in God. Why would any rational person believe in all the mumbo jumbo that religion has to offer? We are all sinners, for example. Why are we all sinners, even when we are not sinning? God is beneficent and loving is another example, but what evidence do we have that God has any such attributes? Certainly all the suffering we see in the world would not indicate any such God exists.

I agree that agnosticism is the most logical and the most respectable position even though I am a believer

I am a believer because I believe God exists because the evidence I see from religion, but I do not accept all the attributes that religious people slap on God, as if they could ever know what God is like.

I do not believe in God because I want to believe. I do not like being a believer and I would gladly be an atheist if only I did not see evidence that God exists.

Great post, I think it deserves its own thread.

 

[PureX]

I do not think that most of the atheists on this forum presume that no gods exist, they say that they don't believe that God/gods exist, which is different. Most atheists on this forum have identified themselves as agnostic atheists.

Yes, and the problem with that is that atheism is not defined by their indecisiveness. Atheism is a specific intellectual (counter) proposition. Just because "Bob" isn't totally on board with the proposition doesn't suddenly redefine atheism and "weak" or "strong". Atheism is what it is. Bob is whatever Bob is. They are not interchangeable.

What evidence is there that a God exists aside from religion?

It's too numerous to get into, here. But that's not the point. "Evidence" is subjectively determined. And so far it clearly has not reached the level of being 'proof' for most people. Which is why I say that agnosticism (we don;t know) is the logical (honest) baseline.

And if atheists look around at religion I don't blame them for not believing in God.

Well, not believing in THAT God, anyway. But then why should they? Why should anyone believe in anyone else's God-ideal? I know I wouldn't.

I agree that agnosticism is the most logical and the most respectable position even though I am a believer.

Me too.

I am a believer because I believe God exists because the evidence I see from religion, but I do not accept all the attributes that religious people slap on God, as if they could ever know what God is like.

I have to reinterpret the religious mumbo-jumbo to make any sense of it. Then I can find some use for some of it.

I do not believe in God because I want to believe, I do not like being a believer and I would gladly be an atheist if I could not see the evidence.

Well, that's your business. But for myself, once I realized that no matter what I thought God was, I was almost certainly going to be wrong, I found myself free to think whatever I liked. And so now I do, as the circumstances dictate. And I am much more at ease with the whole thing.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's too numerous to get into, here. But that's not the point. "Evidence" is subjectively determined. And so far it clearly has not reached the level of being 'proof' for most people. Which is why I say that agnosticism (we don't know) is the logical (honest) baseline.

Yes, I agree that "evidence" is subjectively determined.
Agnosticism is the most logical baseline until we have a reason to believe that we do know.

Well, not believing in THAT God, anyway. But then why should they? Why should anyone believe in anyone else's God-ideal? I know I wouldn't.

I believe in the God that I see evidence for. That is not necessarily a God I like but I don't go by what I like because that is sure to lead me away from the truth.

I have to reinterpret the religious mumbo-jumbo to make any sense of it. Then I can find some use for some of it.

That is what I also do. I do not accept anyone else's interpretation of scriptures because there is no reason to think that their interpretation is any better than mine.

Well, that's your business. But for myself, once I realized that no matter what I thought God was, I was almost certainly going to be wrong, I found myself free to think whatever I liked. And so now I do, as the circumstances dictate. And I am much more at ease with the whole thing.

I agree that no matter what I think God is, I am almost certainly going to be wrong, which is why I do not accept al the 'attributes' religious people slap on God. Heck, Baha'u'llah wrote that God is incomprehensible, completely independent of the knowledge of all created things. So even if God is loving and good, according to scriptures, how then can we ever know what it means for God to be loving or good? Imo, it is only our own ego that says we know that God is x, y, and z, and it is also what people want to believe for their own purposes.

“How wondrous is the unity of the Living, the Ever-Abiding God—a unity which is exalted above all limitations, that transcendeth the comprehension of all created things! He hath, from everlasting, dwelt in His inaccessible habitation of holiness and glory, and will unto everlasting continue to be enthroned upon the heights of His independent sovereignty and grandeur. How lofty hath been His incorruptible Essence, how completely independent of the knowledge of all created things, and how immensely exalted will it remain above the praise of all the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth!”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 262-263

 

[rational experiences]

Do all humans die is A pretty basic answer.

Yes.

So belief of a sovereign God said his son sacrificed died for you.

Human claim so I will forever be with God.

We are equal humans.

Whose claim is that one human was more especial?

Men or man.

Who invented the statements science and put a machine at their side instead of the equal female human life?

Men or the man did.

If you say he him his or the man it makes sense.

So you write a book about consciousness your own that said when you sacrificed man's life your image became with gods body the clouds.

Seeing the heavens was God O earths evolution status. Just stone the planet.

As you taught Christ gases came out of gods body!

So you said the state to own image and record pre existed between sun and dusts as a nuclear status,? Recording transmitting in heavens.

Yes says man.

Did you also do nuclear dusts science converting naming it Sion?

Yes.

Now you know how why you did it...life sacrifice of man..Hu man both selves.

Female memories I never did it your life or body. I am not to blame. Yet you write a document directly blaming the human female. Do you see what you did?

The female zero space womb maths thesis did. With machine attacked life.

Is the teaching.

Now if you want to say does a man as God now exist. Our human answer is yes it is an AI status image vision speaking voice that you adult man as baby to father caused.

Memory says origin father never did it he was spiritual. Baby to son man did it said consciously my adult self sacrificed me.

Stated God had my human man life sacrificed.

As God determined everything as creation formed any one state in a mass.

Your human scientists teaching.

You coerced self because you had human excuses. You were innocent of knowing evil you said.

Then how did you invent science?

Maths he said. Maths knows everything except what it is like to be evilly life changed he taught.

So you preach. God is holy. No man is allowed to change the holy form.

As it was a human advised.

If you ask is spirit real. That subject is not biblical it is natural.

 

[Starlight]

Disagree



First i am atheist so no gods exist.

Second there have been at least 3600 creator gods worshiped throughout known history. So assuming a creator god does exist then which one? Or maybe they all did a bit.

And third, again assuming a god exists and it's the god you favour, how do you know what your god wants?

All religions try to understand and describe the higher power/spirit/god who is the creator of the universe/universes. But different religions describe the higher power in different ways.

 

[Starlight]

Disagree



First i am atheist so no gods exist.

Second there have been at least 3600 creator gods worshiped throughout known history. So assuming a creator god does exist then which one? Or maybe they all did a bit.

And third, again assuming a god exists and it's the god you favour, how do you know what your god wants?

Good question. Common sense. And reason. And what is common sense and reason about what God wants? That you Are kind and loving to humans and animals. That you thank God for the blessings you have in this life. And to have a relationship with God. A mother and Father wants a relationship with their child, in the same way God wants a relationship with us. We Are his creations.

 

[Starlight]

I don't think God wants anything from us.
I think we've used God to claim authority we don't really have.
If you want to worship God, ok but I don't think it is something God needs or wants.

To worship God is to thank God for the blessings you have in this life. And to have a relationship with God. A mother and Father wants a relationship with their child, in the same way God wants a relationship with us. We Are his creations. So to worship God is to thank God and have a relationship with him

When human Father and mother is kind to you, that they hive you gifts, cook dinner to you and help you then you give thanks to them. In the same way give thanks to God.

 

[Starlight]

If there is only one God and that He created us, why do you believe He wants us to worship him? That's rather petty when you think about it. What does a creator deity wants from the worship of humans? It would be akin for me to want to be worshiped by the bacteria that live on my skin because I am quite literally their whole world and are completely dependent on me for their survival.

To worship God is to thank God for the blessings you have in this life. And to have a relationship with God. A mother and Father wants a relationship with their child, in the same way God wants a relationship with us. We Are his creations. So to worship God is to thank God and have a relationship with him.

When human Father and mother is kind to you, that they hive you gifts, cook dinner to you and help you then you give thanks to them. In the same way give thanks to God

 

[muhammad_isa]

God is only one. God wants us to only worship him because it was God who created us. This i believe.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree
The word "worship" is understood by most people in the West, as going to church .. and revering God.

For Muslims, it is so much more. It includes daily prayers, giving charity, fasting, pilgrimage..

..but it doesn't stop there .. ANYTHING done to please God is considered worship, such as eating while remembering God .. even having sexual relations with your partner.
[ if you've got one ]

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, is reported to have said:

"When one of you has a sexual intercourse with his wife, he receives the reward of sadaqah."

They said, "O Messenger of Allah! Will he still receive the reward when he satisfies his lust?" He answered:

“Would it not be haram if he satisfied his lust through haram ways? When he satisfies his lust through halal (legitimate) ways, he will receive rewards.” (see Abu Dawud, Salatu't-Tatawwu' 12; Adab 159-160; Musnad, V/167, 168)

In Islam, the rewards a person gets for worship is twofold:
i.e. in this world and the next

Our intention needs to be purely "to please God".
Any other intention is not acceptable, as the intention is fundamental.

 

[Starlight]

I think this is what bugs me. People claiming to know what God wants. I'm not saying there is a God or isn't one, just these claims of possessing special knowledge about God. So much for humility.

To know what God wants you have to use common sense and reason. God did create us with reason. God wants us to use it. And what is common sense and reason about what God wants? That you Are kind and loving to humans and animals. That you thank God for the blessings you have in this life. And to have a relationship with God. A mother and Father wants a relationship with their child, in the same way God wants a relationship with us. We Are his creations.

 

[Starlight]

That is not "pure logic." It's not even impure logic. It is merely an assertion, for which you can provide no reasonable justification at all.

To know what God wants you have to use common sense and reason. God did create us with reason. God wants us to use it. And what is common sense and reason about what God wants? That you Are kind and loving to humans and animals. That you thank God for the blessings you have in this life. And to have a relationship with God. A mother and Father wants a relationship with their child, in the same way God wants a relationship with us. We Are his creations.