God is only one

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, his love is amply demonstrated by earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, fires, floods, droughts, typhoons and tornadoes, abnormalities at birth and diseased like SARS, Ebola and Covid-19 (243,745,106 cases and 4,953,505 deaths, many infections lead to residual problems).

You are preaching to the choir.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you know of any scans that reveal something different?

I don't need them because I am not making any claims so I don't have any burden of proof.

No brain scan is going to tell me if I feel rewarded or not, only I know that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I get angry about a lot of things.

It should not be so. I thought religious teachings make one better at controlling emotions and being understanding.

 

[Trailblazer]

It should not be so. I thought religious teachings make one better at controlling emotions and being understanding.

We're not perfect, and besides, I have a lot of stress. I am not angry at anybody, I just get angry at the situation.
It is an animal takeover at my house and on my property.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, you allowed it and you like it. Your cats.
For me, no pets, why should I interfere in their natural life? Why should they look up up to me for their food? That is sort of slavery. Why must they react to and obey my gestures or commands? Am I their God?

 

[PureX]

My wife and I, both atheists, have had psychedelic experiences in our youths, and we both agree that the experiences were profound and permanently life-changing. And maybe we experienced some reality other than our own minds or not. Maybe we were closer to a deity or not. We have no way to tell, so we remain agnostic on the matter. There is no need in either of us to guess.

Then why presume not?

A theist in the same circumstance will choose to presume so because that choice makes the experience more meaningful and profound. So right or wrong he at least has a reason for his presumption, and a positive effect.

But the atheist gains nothing by presuming his experience was simply an effect of a drug. I just don't see any reason or advantage to choose atheism over agnosticism. At least with agnosticism the door of the mind remains open.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then why presume not?

A theist in the same circumstance will choose to presume so because that choice makes the experience more meaningful and profound. So right or wrong he at least has a reason for his presumption, and a positive effect.

But the atheist gains nothing by presuming his experience was simply an effect of a drug. I just don't see any reason or advantage to choose atheism over agnosticism. At least with agnosticism the door of the mind remains open.

We never make any progress in our discussions, you and I, do we? Why do you suppose that is?

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. The words are plain English, but somehow, they had zero impact on you. I might as well have written that I've decided that the "experience was simply an effect of a drug." At least then, your answer would be responsive.

And you still continue to mischaracterize my atheism and that of the majority of atheists. We are both atheists and agnostics. We haven't chosen one over the other. We have chosen both.

Incidentally, inserting gods doesn't make any experience more profound for me. I find reality with or without gods profound. I just explained that to you when I described having a life-changing experience on psychedelics that I did not call meeting a god, but rather, possibly being that, and possibly not. It was still profound either way, even if all I experienced was chemicals and my own mind.

 

[PureX]

We never make any progress in our discussions, you and I, do we? Why do you suppose that is?

It's because your positions are not rational, even as you keep insisting and imaging that they are. And you don't 'listen' to learn, but only to negate anything that contradicts what you think you already know. I keep explaining why your positions are irrational and/or illogical, but you're not even considering that possibility. Instead you're intent of disqualifying anything that contradicts your presumptions.

Hey, you asked.

The thing I don't get about atheism is that there is no benefit or logic to it. At least the theist gains some benefit from choosing theism in the face of his unknowing. But the atheist gets nothing from choosing atheism in the face of his unknowing. So why do it? Why not just be agnostic and leave it at that? At least this would keep the mind open to future revelation and possibilities. Whereas atheism just closes and locks a door before having any idea what's on the other side.

Who does that? And why? It makes no sense.

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.

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.

The words are plain English, but somehow, they had zero impact on you. I might as well have written that I've decided that the "experience was simply an effect of a drug." At least then, your answer would be responsive.

Well, you have to use those words appropriately. Agnosticism means that you don't know. Atheism means that you are choosing to presume that gods don't exist in spite of your not knowing it to be true. I could understand this choice if there were some benefit in it for you, but there is no benefit in it at all. There is nothing in it but blind negation. And you just keep refusing to acknowledge this. I don't know how to say it more clearly, and yet you can't seem to 'hear' it. That it's a pointless, unsubstantiated bias against a possibility that a lot of other people find great benefit in.

And you still continue to mischaracterize my atheism and that of the majority of atheists. We are both atheists and agnostics. We haven't chosen one over the other. We have chosen both.

You can't "choose" agnosticism. If you don't know then you don't know. Period. We can, however, logically choose a theist or atheist position in spite of our not knowing if we are doing so based on some other criteria besides knowing, like personal or collective advantage. Which is why most theists choose theism. But atheism provides no advantage at all. It's just blind negation. And this is why it's so pointless, and so irrational. I don't know how many times or how else to say it!

 

[F1fan]

I don't need them because I am not making any claims so I don't have any burden of proof.

You claimed:

"That might be true for some people, but not for all people. To say it is true for all people would be the fallacy of hasty generalization."

Which people are you aware of that had scans and the emotion and reward centers were NOT active?

No brain scan is going to tell me if I feel rewarded or not, only I know that.

So if your brain was scanned and it showed the emotion and reward centers activated you still wouldn't believe it?

I'm not sure why you're opposed to any of this.

 

[F1fan]

It's because your positions are not rational, even as you keep insisting and imaging that they are. And you don't 'listen' to learn, but only to negate anything that contradicts what you think you already know. I keep explaining why your positions are irrational and/or illogical, but you're not even considering that possibility. Instead you're intent of disqualifying anything that contradicts your presumptions.

I don't see you give explanations of why ANS's posts are not rational. I see you oppose his non-religious perspective, and you counter with your views that include religious assumptions. A number of us don't see you (or other theists) explain why we should make the religious assumptions that you do.

 

[F1fan]

The thing I don't get about atheism is that there is no benefit or logic to it.

Just like there is no benefit or logic to not collecting stamps. To stamp collectors it's illogical that those who don't love collecting stamps don't spend their time collecting stamps. It's not illogical to those who just don't want to collect stamps, it's only illogical to those who have assigned meaning and significance to their stamp collecting.

So your judgment about atheists is ONLY valid from the perspective of a theist that has assigned meaning to religious belief and ritual. It's not actually illogical objectively. You are likely saying it is illogical as a non-rational way to add power to your judgment and condemnation. But we see through this bad faith attempt, can you?

At least the theist gains some benefit from choosing theism in the face of his unknowing.

Sure, the theist can rely on his religious assumptions and illusions to help soothe anxiety. It doesn't help them face reality, just a way to distract from it.

Atheists opt to face reality head on, and cope with stress and trauma in whatever other options are available that are not based on religious assumptions.

But the atheist gets nothing from choosing atheism in the face of his unknowing. So why do it?

Atheists don't choose to be atheist. Atheists just happen to be free thinkers who have assessed the concepts of religion objectively and realized they are not credible or believable. It isn't an option to believe in concepts that not only have no evidence, but are inconsistent with reality and fact.

Why not just be agnostic and leave it at that? At least this would keep the mind open to future revelation and possibilities. Whereas atheism just closes and locks a door before having any idea what's on the other side.

I argue that everyone is agnostic. I assert this because no one knows if any god exists, nor in what form, if any. The whole human behavior around religion and belief is largely biological and evolutionary. It is also largely cultural as we can see in the diverse sets of religious belief around the planet. Religions don't deal with facts, they deal with concepts that might reflect some things about the universe, but are largely symbolic. So there is no knowledge. Theists and atheists may all be wrong about what something like a god might be in reality. No one knows. But atheists acknowledge that we can't, and don't know. So there is honesty in that approach. But most theists don't believe in religion because they have come to a rational conclusion based on facts, they believe due to biological and cultural influences.

Agnosticism means that you don't know.

Right. Theists don't know if there are any gods. Atheists don't know if there are any gods. Theists believe is one or more gods. Atheists aren't convinced that the evidence is adequate to decide any gods exist.

Atheism means that you are choosing to presume that gods don't exist in spite of your not knowing it to be true.

Yet theists don't know it to be true there are any gods, so you create a logical stalemate here. This is why logic has the logical default, and that is that any given claim in logic is regarded untrue UNTIL the claim can be demonstrated true. We also allow there to be a preponderance of evidence that allows us to make a judgment that some claim is likely true, as in court cases with juries.

I could understand this choice if there were some benefit in it for you, but there is no benefit in it at all. There is nothing in it but blind negation. And you just keep refusing to acknowledge this. I don't know how to say it more clearly, and yet you can't seem to 'hear' it. That it's a pointless, unsubstantiated bias against a possibility that a lot of other people find great benefit in.

Just like not collecting stamps is blind negation of the joy and thrill of collecting stamps.

Can you acknowledge that people who collect stamps benefit from their experience, for example when they finally find a stamp that they have been searching for many, many years?

You can't "choose" agnosticism. If you don't know then you don't know. Period.

Right, because we are all agnostic. When theists find an actual god then we will all KNOW a god exists. Until then, no one knows (agnosis).

We can, however, logically choose a theist or atheist position in spite of our not knowing if we are doing so based on some other criteria besides knowing, like personal or collective advantage. Which is why most theists choose theism. But atheism provides no advantage at all. It's just blind negation. And this is why it's so pointless, and so irrational. I don't know how many times or how else to say it!

Theists might think they are being logical, but there just aren't any facts that an objective mind can apply to conclude any sort of god exists, so there is no choice to be theist or atheist. Theists believe due to evolutionary/biological and cultural reasons. Many former theists have rejected their belief once they remove themselves from strong religious influences.

 

[PureX]

I don't see you give explanations of why ANS's posts are not rational. I see you oppose his non-religious perspective, and you counter with your views that include religious assumptions. A number of us don't see you (or other theists) explain why we should make the religious assumptions that you do.

I can't help what you can't (won't) see. I keep explaining over and over and over, and somehow it's all invisible to you. What can I say? OPEN YOUR MIND. Stop auto-defending. Look to learn, not to defend what you think you already know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But the atheist gains nothing by presuming his experience was simply an effect of a drug.

An old timer speaking: Why should any one theist or atheist, be using psychedelic drugs?

 

[PureX]

Just like there is no benefit or logic to not collecting stamps. To stamp collectors it's illogical that those who don't love collecting stamps don't spend their time collecting stamps. It's not illogical to those who just don't want to collect stamps, it's only illogical to those who have assigned meaning and significance to their stamp collecting.

That would justify an ignorant indifference to stamp collecting, not an "atheistic" rejection of the whole idea of stamps. People who don't collect stamps don't reject the idea of stamps. Also, the moment you had to turn to this inaccurate analogy, you began losing the debate. Please just stick to the subject at hand.

Sure, the theist can rely on his religious assumptions and illusions to help soothe anxiety. It doesn't help them face reality, just a way to distract from it.

Fear and anxiety are not part of reality? I think a great many humans would disagree with you on that.

Atheists opt to face reality head on, and cope with stress and trauma in whatever other options are available that are not based on religious assumptions.

Why? If an effective tool exists, why not use it? This is the issue that you continue to fail to address. You reject theism for no reason, and with no benefit. And then you hold into that pointless decision tooth and nail. Why?

Atheists don't choose to be atheist.

Then they are clearly idiots who can't think for themselves. And not even I think that.

Atheists just happen to be free thinkers who have assessed the concepts of religion objectively and realized they are not credible or believable. It isn't an option to believe in concepts that not only have no evidence, but are inconsistent with reality and fact.

This is nonsensical gibberish. Theism proposes a possibility that we humans can neither validate nor invalidate. And that leaves us being agnostic (unknowing), but with options. And the options are to accept or reject the possibility (of God) based on it's functional value to us, or do neither. It's that simple. But atheism has no functional value to anyone. So why choose that option? Why not just remain agnostic and indifferent? What's the point of choosing atheism when there is no knowing it to be so, and no benefit to anyone in presuming it to be so? At least agnosticism keeps an open mind.

I argue that everyone is agnostic. I assert this because no one knows if any god exists, nor in what form, if any.

Well, we can't know this to be so, either, but it clearly seems to be the case with a huge majority of us.

The whole human behavior around religion and belief is largely biological and evolutionary.

Everything involving we humans is "biological and evolutionary". Also, this discussion is not about "religion and/or belief". It's about the possibility that God exists, the fact that we cannot validate that possibility, but that we can choose to act on it, or not, as we see fit. I'm not going to debate religion with you.

Theists don't know if there are any gods. Atheists don't know if there are any gods. Theists believe is one or more gods. Atheists aren't convinced that the evidence is adequate to decide any gods exist.

That last sentence is absurd. You just stated that we humans can't know if God exists or not, or in what manner. So no evidence exists that will "convince" an atheist of anything. Why is this atheist looking for what we all know can't be found? Is he an idiot? Why is he making decisions based on this kind of idiotic quest? The whole sentence is absurd. If I were an atheist I'd be insulted by it.

Yet theists don't know it to be true there are any gods, so you create a logical stalemate here.

Theists choose to trust in the possibility that a God of their choice exists because they find that in doing so, they gain a significant benefit. There is nothing illogical about this. Atheists, on the other hand, gain nothing at all by choosing to trust that no gods of any significance, exist. So why bother choosing this position? There is no validation, and there is no benefit. So what's the point?

 

[PureX]

An old timer speaking: Why should any one theist or atheist, be using psychedelic drugs?

Many cultures throughout history have used drugs to open themselves up to an experience of the divine. Humans sense the existence of this divine realm, but cannot directly access. So the seek alternative means, and psychedelic drugs are one of those means.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's because your positions are not rational, even as you keep insisting and imaging that they are. And you don't 'listen' to learn, but only to negate anything that contradicts what you think you already know. I keep explaining why your positions are irrational and/or illogical, but you're not even considering that possibility. Instead you're intent of disqualifying anything that contradicts your presumptions.

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

So what do you propose would be the benefit to me choosing your path? Apparently, your god belief meets some need in you that I don't have. I suspect that the benefit to you is related to your successfully overcoming a substance abuse problem with the aid of a religiously oriented organization. You probably beat alcoholism with the aid of a god belief. On another thread, you mentioned that some AA members seemed to miraculously overcome their compulsion. If so, I can understand fostering a god belief just in case that's important or correct.

But that's not my situation. Your logical error is in assuming that if a god belief improved your life, it would improve anybody's. I assure you that it would not improve my life. I've already lived both with and without such a belief, and my life got better and has remained good since.

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.

The thing I don't get about atheism is that there is no benefit or logic to it. At least the theist gains some benefit from choosing theism in the face of his unknowing. But the atheist gets nothing from choosing atheism in the face of his unknowing. So why do it? Why not just be agnostic and leave it at that? At least this would keep the mind open to future revelation and possibilities. Whereas atheism just closes and locks a door before having any idea what's on the other side.

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.

My mind couldn't be more open. Open-mindedness is required for critical thinking and dialectic. But maybe you mean something other than what I do with open-mindedness. Many theists mean relaxing ones standards for belief and accepting more ideas uncritically, as they have. That's incorrect. What the term means is having the willingness to consider an argument impartially and be convinced by a compelling argument. That implies the ability to recognize a compelling argument. That is all it means.

You know who doesn't do that? Faith-based thinkers. They will tell you that they won't consider arguments that contradict their faith-based beliefs. Here are two examples from prominent Christian apologists. Both of these people are proudly announcing that their minds are closed to contradictory evidence.

[1] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

[2] "The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Here are a couple more from less well-known faith-based thinkers:

[3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

[4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” –creationist Henry Morris

That's what closed-mindedness looks like. What i do is consider then reject your arguments as I am doing here.

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.

Another straw man. You name beliefs I don't hold than call them illogical.

I've defined what I mean when I use the word the atheist several times. You choose to refuse to acknowledge that.

Yes, my wife and I are atheists, meaning that neither of us has a god belief. And no, I have not guessed that there are no gods. I've told you that and demonstrated it repeatedly. As long as you insist on hearing the word atheist to mean somebody who has positively denied the existence of gods, and thinking that that is my position because I call myself an atheist, we will be talking past one another.

Your definition doesn't include me as an atheist. What value does such a definition have to unbelievers that don't make that claim? I wonder if you can conceive that that is possible. You've never acknowledged that it is possible to both be undecided about the existence of gods and not embrace one.

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, yet you presume to give me life advice that I have told you would do to my life what glasses would do to my vision (in case it wasn't clear, I don't wear corrective lenses).

Incidentally, I wouldn't presume to give you such advice. I have never tried to talk you into joining me in atheism, not just because that would be in vain, but also because I think I would be doing you a disservice if I could and did. It would be the equivalent of me trying to tell you to throw your glasses away because I can see fine without any. Why would I do that?

But you would. If I could take your advice (I can't, because I don't choose what I find believable, and don't believe what I don't) and did, it would degrade my life, not improve it. I know this from experience, and from noting that I am content with life as I live it now.

Atheism means that you are choosing to presume that gods don't exist in spite of your not knowing it to be true.

Not to me. And I have told you repeatedly. If that's the only group you wish to speak with, what atheists call strong or gnostic atheists, then your audience will be very small and your message irrelevant to most of us, who agree that concluding that gods don't exit is unsupported (non sequitur, a leap of faith).

I could understand this choice if there were some benefit in it for you, but there is no benefit in it at all. There is nothing in it but blind negation. And you just keep refusing to acknowledge this. I don't know how to say it more clearly, and yet you can't seem to 'hear' it. That it's a pointless, unsubstantiated bias against a possibility that a lot of other people find great benefit in.

You don't see the benefit in atheism for me, so you assume there is none, even after I explain to you what it is. I don't know why you can't understand me. Atheism made secular humanism possible for me by making room for it, which I've explained was an upgrade in my life.

You don't need to be clearer. You just need to be more convincing.

My bias is far from pointless or unsubstantiated. It is rational. It is the unwillingness to believe without sufficient evidentiary support. There is no other rational position possible.

Those are the kinds of biases I collect - rational ones born from experience. I call them knowledge, and I call acquiring them from careful observation and consideration learning.

 

[F1fan]

I can't help what you can't (won't) see. I keep explaining over and over and over, and somehow it's all invisible to you.

It is "invisible" to objective minds, so I suggest the problem rests with theists who assume they are aware of something they can't show it real, and not imagined.

What can I say? OPEN YOUR MIND.

Open my mind to what? What you assume it real? My mind is open to facts and evidence, yet you offer neither.

Stop auto-defending. Look to learn, not to defend what you think you already know.

I know you offer us no facts and evidence. How is that my impediment?

If you think you have some special awareness of some phenomenon then it's on your to explain how you come to this special awareness and knowledge. AND you need to show how what you think you are aware of isn't just imagined.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many cultures throughout history have used drugs to open themselves up to an experience of the divine. Humans sense the existence of this divine realm, but cannot directly access. So the seek alternative means, and psychedelic drugs are one of those means.

Yeah, people do it. In India it was mainly centered around Sadhus, renunciates. People in the society generally did not use any. At one time use of opium was prevlent in desert regions of India among the warrior caste. Marijuana drink, Bhang was accepted.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, you allowed it and you like it. Your cats.

I do love the cats more than I love any God. So there you have it.

 

[Trailblazer]

You claimed:

"That might be true for some people, but not for all people. To say it is true for all people would be the fallacy of hasty generalization."

Which people are you aware of that had scans and the emotion and reward centers were NOT active?

I really have no idea. 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.

So if your brain was scanned and it showed the emotion and reward centers activated you still wouldn't believe it?

I'm not sure why you're opposed to any of this.

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?