I believe there are no Gods

[Badran]

Sorry about the very late reply.

Where have I laid claim to a god who excludes anyone? You have misunderstood me. I believe my writing clearly identifies exclusion as a flaw causing imperfection. I believe my writing clearly identifies oneness (which is perfect inclusion) as perfection.

I regard this teaching by Jesus to be quite similar to what I said earlier.

Perhaps i've misunderstood. What i understood was that "the way to god", or seeking god would be the only way for someone to be moral or to have love for others as you described it. If not then please ignore all i've said in that regard.

1) I think the main problem with the view of the "strong" atheist could be interpreted as a mixture between ignorance and a poor understanding of philosophy.

Once again, no more or less so than strong believers, or believers that claim certainty or 'knowing god', assuming that either are actually fitting of what you describe. Both have strong beliefs, and both either think that they have evidence in support of their belief, or acknowledge that they don't but do it anyway for other motivations.

If you think there are reasons that make one valid and the other not, please share them. The only point so far is your proposal that lack of evidence is not an evidence of anything, generally. Which we are addressing now in other parts.

2) I am still highly interested in the hidden corollaries implied by your qualifier "can".

Only that it's not always the case. Such as for gods who are supposed to be outside of our existence, realm or things along those lines.

3) And who is to be the judge of where evidence is supposed to be found?

Everybody can judge for themselves.

As for tools to determining such, i think logic would do just fine. Based on the claim, idea or whatever that is under judgement, one can determine whether or not it's reasonable to expect there to be evidence for it at one point or another.

It's a probability issue mainly, since even things that should be evidenced are not necessarily so, at least at the time of it's inspection. So even after determining that something should be evidenced, that won't necessarily mean that an evidence must be found 'now'. In the issue of gods, in some cases the lack of evidence till now might be a pretty clear evidence on it's own. For others, it's not indicating anything. It all depends on the idea, claim or proposal itself.

The man who already believes there are no gods? The man who sees a deity who sits unmoved by evil atrocities (perfectly inclusive, remember) and sees that as no god at all?

Not sure what you're saying here.

4) To me, the difference between evidence and proof is only in degree.

A pretty important distinction, however.

It seems to me, the reason you are introducing this distinction is specifically to excuse your attempts to push non-evidence as evidence.

Not really. I don't need to excuse logical statements that i can and will back up.

IOW, i'm not pushing non-evidence as something that can be evidence; non-evidence can be evidence, and i'm just trying to let you know that.

This might seem like me pushing my views, but i'm really not. I'm just distinguishing between what are my views and what actually is. I'll give examples to support this in the next part.

Is it not obvious that even a little actual evidence can reach the level of proof, while even an infinite amount of non-evidence cannot? Do you believe this is a trivial distinction?

Trivial is not the word i'd use to describe it. I'd use 'false'.

Let me attempt to use an example. If someone claimed that they peed on my bed just now, and that the bed is all dirty with pee, and i check and find no evidence of this, such as:

1) The bed being wet.

2) A smell.

3) Seeing the shape caused by wetting the bed.

Then i can safely conclude that they're lying. Solely based on the lack of evidence to support their claim (since there actually was supposed to be evidence).

5) You would say my friend hasn't looked deep enough into the theory of evolution, and I agree,

1) What i said was effectively that he might have not, as there 's always of course the possibility that he's just lying.

2) That is based on the fact that he stated false information about evolution.

IOW, it's not because i disagree with him, but because he is actually wrong. He was stating common misunderstandings of evolution.

so maybe you'll excuse me when I tell you that atheists have not looked deep enough into their minds. There is good reason for this.

I understand. You are of course entitled to your view of it. I will just state my disagreement, and share my reasons in response to yours.

As long as these people are still enslaved to false versions of themselves, or ego, they will never be able to see their whole mind. People ignore the force that tells them they are one with others and in doing so fracture their minds into conscious and subconscious. For this reason, the more evil things you do, the less self-aware you become, and the less you understand of everything that is around you.

My reasons for disagreeing in the form of questions:

1) How do you explain people who do not believe in a god yet have a mentality, and act in a way exactly opposed to the way you describe them by saying that they're enslaved to themselves or egos? IOW, selfless people who do not believe in a god.

2) How do you know that they're ignoring anything? Or, how do you know that they received what you supposedly received and are simply refusing it? Is it not possible that they actually just haven't received this?

 

[Falvlun]

Again, I'd say this runs into all the issues I outlined in my last post. In far less detail then I gave in that post:

1) "lack" means "to not have, possess, own" and entails the absence of whatever it's (grammatical) object is. Here the object is "belief in". If I do not have a belief in unicorns, why is it not the case that I lack a belief in unicorns? Yet I certainly know the concept "unicorn". How does not having (and therefore lacking) a belief in unicorns (or whatever) necessarily entail that I'm not aware in the concept of unicorns? If it impossible not to lack [and therefore impossible not to not have==impossible to have] a belief in a concept I'm not aware of, how does entail that it is impossible to lack a belief in a concept I am aware of?

A negative belief, a belief in a negative, (disbelief) is still a belief. So, if you don't think that unicorns exist, then you don't merely lack a belief. You have the belief that unicorns don't exist.

Although in my post a couple posts before yours, I agree with you that it is possible to be aware of a concept and still merely lack a belief. I do believe, however, that many people who do have an opinion, a disbelief, are trying to define their belief as a mere "lack of belief" in regards to the question of god's existence.

2) What does "aware" mean? There is no concept such that any individual understanding of it is exactly the same as the understanding of any other individual, and it seems almost a prima facie truth that one individual can understand a concept more than another can. How then does can it be determined whether or not someone is sufficiently "aware" of a concept to believe, disbelieve, and/or lack a belief?

I think you're thinking about this too hard.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

When someone makes a claim A, and if there is no evidence to prove claim A, then I don't believe claim A. It doesn't mean that claim A is false or true. It is just a claim and I judge it on its merits. I don't understand what is so pretentious about that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, which is why they are obviously two types, rather than one.


It's a play on words--you've made a turn, turned the phrase, nothing less. It no longer describes the person but a set. I rest my case.

Your whole argument is based on plays on words, so I don't see how you have any cause to complain that someone else is doing it... especially when your complaint is incorrect.

 

[Willamena]

Falvlun has the right of it. A negation is "not." You can negate belief, or you can negate what it is that is being claimed for belief, but they are in no way the same negation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A negative belief, a belief in a negative, (disbelief) is still a belief. So, if you don't think that unicorns exist, then you don't merely lack a belief. You have the belief that unicorns don't exist.

True, I do have the belief that unicorns don't exist. What I don't have is the belief that they do exist. I didn't say I lack any belief regarding unicorns. Simply that I lack a belief in unicorns. Having a belief that unicorns don't exist is not the same as having a belief in unicorns (clearly). If I don't believe unicorns exist, I don't possess/have a belief that they do exist, and therefore I lack a belief that they do exist.

I do believe, however, that many people who do have an opinion, a disbelief, are trying to define their belief as a mere "lack of belief" in regards to the question of god's existence.

I'd agree. An in my first response, I raised the possibility that disbelief and belief are not necessarily equivalent. But I don't think disbelief can be side-stepped by using a different nomenclature. The fact that disbelief can be described in terms of belief doesn't entail that disbelief is different than lacking a belief in what one disbelieves.

I think you're thinking about this too hard.

What else am I going to do with my time when I'm the safety supervisor of a nuclear power plant? Make sure we don't have a meltdown? I mean, c'mon. Although I do with that bright red light and high pitched alarm would quit distracting me.

 

[Orias]

How then does can it be determined whether or not someone is sufficiently "aware" of a concept to believe, disbelieve, and/or lack a belief?

Depends on how much they want to be right I guess.

Even then, being aware of a concept is different than simply being aware.

 

[Vultar]

Ok I'm intrigued. What exactly are these spirits? Why are they around? What is their nature? Etc.

Spirits are both easy and difficult to explain.

The easy answer - Spirits are the next phase of human existance after the physical body has expired.

The harder answer - Spirits are energy bound together by something (I could not examine what) that seems to maintain the thoughts and feelings of its previous selves and has abilities far different from what we hold as regular human abilities (a change in the way you communicate, move, etc)

They are around due to natural evolution of the species (and other advanced species as well although the ability to communicate with the other species is limited - try talking to your cat for a while)

Not sure what you are wanting about nature, do you mean how they act? or how they interact with humans?

 

[lunakilo]

It's impossible to lack belief in something unless you're not aware of the concept.

Why?

 

[Prophet]

Sorry about the very late reply.

Take all the time you need. This is a hobby, not a job.

Perhaps i've misunderstood. What i understood was that "the way to god", or seeking god would be the only way for someone to be moral or to have love for others as you described it. If not then please ignore all i've said in that regard.

Once again, no more or less so than strong believers, or believers that claim certainty or 'knowing god', assuming that either are actually fitting of what you describe. Both have strong beliefs, and both either think that they have evidence in support of their belief, or acknowledge that they don't but do it anyway for other motivations.

If you think there are reasons that make one valid and the other not, please share them. The only point so far is your proposal that lack of evidence is not an evidence of anything, generally. Which we are addressing now in other parts.

Some call it recognizing oneness. Some call it goodness. Some call it morality. Some call it seeking God. They all mean the same thing.

The goal of all wisdom is to recognize what your conscience is really telling you by preferring selflessness to selfishness, by preferring love to fear, and by preferring courageous to cowardly.

Here's the truth about who we are as best I can tell you in words: Our minds are connected. This connection exists in the real outside the physical illusion. What this connection tells all beings intuitively is that they are more than just themselves, which is a ridiculous notion for beings who mistakenly see the physical as the real.

People who love truly see the needs of the beloved as one with their own needs. People who imitate love see satisfying the needs of the beloved as a means of getting their own needs satisfied. It is the latter type whose "love" can, in an instant, turn to hatred as their "love" fails to buy the reciprocation it deserves. People who live in this way mistake attachment for love.

Love everyone, and you will no longer have need to render your mind subconscious. Then you will know your True Self, the cause of all conscience, and the connection that exists between all minds will reveal itself to you as God.

Everybody can judge for themselves.

As for tools to determining such, i think logic would do just fine. Based on the claim, idea or whatever that is under judgement, one can determine whether or not it's reasonable to expect there to be evidence for it at one point or another.

It's a probability issue mainly, since even things that should be evidenced are not necessarily so, at least at the time of it's inspection. So even after determining that something should be evidenced, that won't necessarily mean that an evidence must be found 'now'. In the issue of gods, in some cases the lack of evidence till now might be a pretty clear evidence on it's own. For others, it's not indicating anything. It all depends on the idea, claim or proposal itself.

I think its pretty obvious that the evidence we're going to need to examine my particular formulation of God is psychological in nature. I explain all observed phenomena with regards to love, morality, and the like to be a result of a connection to a consciousness superstructure from which all sentient beings come to life, and that this structure is God.

I propose that you should explain how morality and love came to be so that we can compare how our models fare.

Trivial is not the word i'd use to describe it. I'd use 'false'.

Let me attempt to use an example. If someone claimed that they peed on my bed just now, and that the bed is all dirty with pee, and i check and find no evidence of this, such as:

1) The bed being wet.

2) A smell.

3) Seeing the shape caused by wetting the bed.

Then i can safely conclude that they're lying. Solely based on the lack of evidence to support their claim (since there actually was supposed to be evidence).

I understand you finally. Thank you for the example.

My reasons for disagreeing in the form of questions:

1) How do you explain people who do not believe in a god yet have a mentality, and act in a way exactly opposed to the way you describe them by saying that they're enslaved to themselves or egos? IOW, selfless people who do not believe in a god.

2) How do you know that they're ignoring anything? Or, how do you know that they received what you supposedly received and are simply refusing it? Is it not possible that they actually just haven't received this?

And who, exactly, is this selflessness demonstrated towards? Those who are selfless or kind in return? Or is it extended to those who lie and cheat them as well? Is selflessness to be extended to those who are in positions of authority who can easily be the cause of their fortune and misfortune? Or is it extended to those who have nothing to offer you or threaten you with as well?

And how, exactly is this selflessness demonstrated? Do they raise up their offerings with both hands for all to see, proudly boasting of their magnanimous acts of kindness to all within shouting distance as the hypocrites do? Or do they do their giving in secret, without thought of gaining reputation?

I believe much of what passes for selfless is fake. Unless you love everybody, you don't love anybody, much less understand what love is. This may confuse, but if you understand God in my way, an atheist who loves everyone knows God infinitely better than the theist who condemns the godless.

As for your second question which boils down to "how do you know?" A little more than two years ago I experienced a renewing of my mind. This renewing was brought about by an honest assessment of why I love, specifically pertaining to a romantic relationship. In a single moment, I realized that everything I thought I was doing for her was completely selfish all along.

I know they ignore it because they are just like me. No one can bear being evil. We think evil is in action, but its not. Evil is contained in selfish motives. All beings who do bad things hide their selfish motives from themselves by penning off a section of mind called subconscious with a fence of ego.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why?

Is there a giant meteor coming down to earth right now?

You can either believe yes or no, since you are aware of the question and understand it you cannot say "I lack belief on this subject"

 

[Badran]

Some call it recognizing oneness. Some call it goodness. Some call it morality. Some call it seeking God. They all mean the same thing.

The goal of all wisdom is to recognize what your conscience is really telling you by preferring selflessness to selfishness, by preferring love to fear, and by preferring courageous to cowardly.

Here's the truth about who we are as best I can tell you in words: Our minds are connected. This connection exists in the real outside the physical illusion. What this connection tells all beings intuitively is that they are more than just themselves, which is a ridiculous notion for beings who mistakenly see the physical as the real.

People who love truly see the needs of the beloved as one with their own needs. People who imitate love see satisfying the needs of the beloved as a means of getting their own needs satisfied. It is the latter type whose "love" can, in an instant, turn to hatred as their "love" fails to buy the reciprocation it deserves. People who live in this way mistake attachment for love.

Love everyone, and you will no longer have need to render your mind subconscious. Then you will know your True Self, the cause of all conscience, and the connection that exists between all minds will reveal itself to you as God.

Some questions before i attempt to address what you're saying:

1) I'm only partially understanding your criteria. I basically get that it involves seeing the physical world around us as an illusion, what i don't get is the other part. What does it mean to recognize that we're all connected? And, what is that conclusion based on (both this and recognizing that the physical world is supposedly an illusion)? As in, how did you reach this criteria?

2) Why do you consider selflessness to be a good thing?

I think its pretty obvious that the evidence we're going to need to examine my particular formulation of God is psychological in nature. I explain all observed phenomena with regards to love, morality, and the like to be a result of a connection to a consciousness superstructure from which all sentient beings come to life, and that this structure is God.

I understand. Three things:

1) I wasn't saying whether or not your idea of god falls under the category of one's where evidence, or any particular type of evidence should be found. I was providing a general criteria.

2) To actually address your idea of god, or understand how you think it's reachable. I'm assuming you've used something to reach your interpretation of things. What was it?

3) If your interpretation of god includes the idea that those who do not seek him will be selfish people, then that is actually something that can be used to argue against your claim pretty strongly. As reality can (and actually does in my view) demonstrate otherwise.

I propose that you should explain how morality and love came to be so that we can compare how our models fare.

I have no idea how morality came to be.

The idea the word is describing varies from one person to another. To me it's the core based upon which i deduce rules that i attempt to live by. That core differs from one person to another, despite possibly (and i think most likely) stemming from the same thing.

To me that core is my desire to be happy/fulfilled. The set of rules/standards i deduced based on that is to attempt to be as happy as i can, without stepping on other's happiness as best as i can, and to help others do the same, as best as i can.

I understand you finally. Thank you for the example.

You're most welcome.

And who, exactly, is this selflessness demonstrated towards? Those who are selfless or kind in return? Or is it extended to those who lie and cheat them as well? Is selflessness to be extended to those who are in positions of authority who can easily be the cause of their fortune and misfortune? Or is it extended to those who have nothing to offer you or threaten you with as well?

And how, exactly is this selflessness demonstrated? Do they raise up their offerings with both hands for all to see, proudly boasting of their magnanimous acts of kindness to all within shouting distance as the hypocrites do? Or do they do their giving in secret, without thought of gaining reputation?

The answer to all these questions is some do, and some don't. In some cases, and in other cases not etc..

I believe much of what passes for selfless is fake.

Oh i quite agree. More than you would like me to, actually.

As i'm highly skeptic of the notion that any act can be completely selfless to begin with. Which is something i don't think would be inline with your position.

Unless you love everybody, you don't love anybody, much less understand what love is. This may confuse, but if you understand God in my way, an atheist who loves everyone knows God infinitely better than the theist who condemns the godless.

That i have no objection to, as it's merely defining love in specific terms and is not like what i perceived to be an arbitrary differentiation between people based on their beliefs.

I'm curious about that definition, though.

As for your second question which boils down to "how do you know?" A little more than two years ago I experienced a renewing of my mind. This renewing was brought about by an honest assessment of why I love, specifically pertaining to a romantic relationship. In a single moment, I realized that everything I thought I was doing for her was completely selfish all along.

I know they ignore it because they are just like me. No one can bear being evil. We think evil is in action, but its not. Evil is contained in selfish motives. All beings who do bad things hide their selfish motives from themselves by penning off a section of mind called subconscious with a fence of ego.

But how did you jump from to that to concluding that all atheists are ignoring the supposed messages and so forth?

 

[Badran]

Is there a giant meteor coming down to earth right now?

You can either believe yes or no, since you are aware of the question and understand it you cannot say "I lack belief on this subject"

I know your question, i however don't know the answer to it.

I have no idea whether or not a giant meteor is coming down to earth right now. I neither have belief that it is or belief that it's not, because i see nothing to base upon either beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

I know your question, i however don't know the answer to it.

That is lacking the facts, though. It does not speak to lacking belief.

 

[Falvlun]

I know your question, i however don't know the answer to it.

I have no idea whether or not a giant meteor is coming down to earth right now. I neither have belief that it is or belief that it's not, because i see nothing to base upon either beliefs.

Knowledge is not the same thing as belief: you can be either gnostic or agnostic about your beliefs. Do you think it equally likely that a meteor is about to crash on Earth as it is that one isn't?

 

[Willamena]

That is lacking the facts, though. It does not speak to lacking belief.

We want our opinions to be informed, and all the best ones are. But it's not necessary to be informed to have an opinion, and it's not always possible.

 

[Badran]

That is lacking the facts, though. It does not speak to lacking belief.

Knowledge is not the same thing as belief: you can be either gnostic or agnostic about your beliefs.

I mis-worded my post. What i was trying to say was that i neither know, or have anything to suggest either answers, and as such, i have nothing to base a belief upon.

IOW, i don't have any reason to embrace either in anyway.

Do you think it equally likely that a meteor is about to crash on Earth as it is that one isn't?

I'm of course answering the question as an example aimed at something. If we take the question literally, then no, as i'm more likely to have stumbled upon such news than not.

But if we assume that i was in a cave somewhere for some time (isolated, or lacking any info about the subject), when someone comes along and asks me that question that answer would be i don't know, and both answers would be equally likely.

 

[Willamena]

I mis-worded my post. What i was trying to say was that i neither know, or have anything to suggest either answers, and as such, i have nothing to base a belief upon.

IOW, i don't have any reason to embrace either in anyway.

As long as the words strung together in the question make some modicum of sense and your understanding is such that you can envision the possibility of it happening, or why it would not happen, there is something on which to base a belief.

 

[Badran]

We want our opinions to be informed, and all the best ones are. But it's not necessary to be informed to have an opinion, and it's not always possible.

I agree.

And that was the case for me before. I had hope in an idea of a god, and i embraced it.

However, i changed and no longer found that hope to be enough reason to embrace the idea. I no longer felt that i believe that there is a god. I simply don't know whether or not there is one, and am stuck at that position (not unwillingly).

 

[Badran]

As long as the words strung together in the question make some modicum of sense and your understanding is such that you can envision the possibility of it happening, or why it would not happen, there is something on which to base a belief.

Again i agree. But that is not what was being suggested.

What was being suggested was that then, there'd be a necessity of having a belief.

There is something to base upon a belief, but that thing(s) is not enough for all people.