Is it fair to call belief in YHWH an illusion?

[Rolling_Stone]

The only other alternative that I can think of is that God and Aphrodite and Thor and all the others actually exist.

Pathetic.

 

[MaddLlama]

Pathetic.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Mister_T]

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that many people (including Christians) still do regard an experience of god as part of the basis of their faith. The argument I made with regards to the neuroscience experiment applies to those people.

Then we apply such a thing to only those individuals and not the entire, or even majority of the group.

Logically, the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. and that virtually all cultures had an instinctive belief in a higher power is not proof that belief in God is valid. Don't you agree?

Not really. It depends on what side you're looking from. To a theist, probably. To an atheist, probably not. It could be used as proof or evidence in favor of a higher power, BUT proof/evidence does not necessarily equal to truth or fact.......which is the point which you seem to be missing.

I guess it could be said to be evidence of a disembodied spirit....but then it is also evidence for aliens and hidden baby monitors and fraud and natural phenomena and anything else we can possibly imagine that would produce a noise that sounds like crying.

As hard as it may be for you to accept, natural phenomenom and fraud had been ruled out. As far as your other "choices, aliens had not been witnessed nor were their any baby monitors. The were sightings of seeing a girl around when there were no children in the building. Unlike your examples, the theory of a little girls ghost has backing.

"You're hearing what you want to hear" is a strawman that mischaracterizes this part and conveniently ignores this stuff.

1)The part in brown was a reiteration of the previous post above that (which was addressed), which is why it was not addressed in that response
2)I had already offered my apologies if you felt I had misinterpreted your post. There'so need to continue to chastize someone for it.

3)Regardless of how you interpret the blue part, it's still not a good or compelling counter argument, in my opinion.

I was looking for cases--as in, ghost-stories or other paranormal claims--that have been thoroughly investigated and did not rely on parties that were interested, unexperienced, superstitious, etc.

Umm...my answer's still the same.

I already have, numerous times throughout this thread. I'll go back and quote the relevant parts of my previous posts, if you like.

Refresh my memory.

I wonder why. Are ghosts afraid of crowds?

It's possible.

 

[Yerda]

If you can't see your own contradictions, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

lol, I guess we'll have to let our dedicated readers decide.

For the record, I didn't note any contradiction in the text referred to in the quotes above.

Carry on lads, it's jolly good reading!

 

[Mister_T]

For the record, I didn't note any contradiction in the text referred to in the quotes above.

Carry on lads, it's jolly good reading!

No, you're right, I see it now. The wording threw me off and I didn't read it carefully. My apologies Spinkles.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Then we apply such a thing to only those individuals and not the entire, or even majority of the group.

Yes. As I said in post 113:

For some, faith has a lot to do with an experience in which the person felt the presence of God or a lost loved one. The neuroscience experiment I cited demonstrates that there need not necessarily be a God for these experiences to arise. This does not prove my argument, but it is one piece of the puzzle, i.m.o.​

And in post 118:​

My point about the neuroscience experiment was to address one aspect of the faith of some (but not all) people.​

Not really. It depends on what side you're looking from. To a theist, probably. To an atheist, probably not. It could be used as proof or evidence in favor of a higher power, BUT proof/evidence does not necessarily equal to truth or fact.......which is the point which you seem to be missing.

Well, this is a little bit confusing because now you're using 'proof' and 'evidence' interchangably, though they are two very distinct animals. In any case, we are talking about the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until around the 6th century B.C. I'm not really interested in whether or not that "can be used as proof or evidence" by atheists or theists; I'm interested in whether or not, from an objective perspective, it really is proof/evidence. To me, it seems very clear that it is not.....for example, I can imagine a world in which Atheism is our natural inclincation but the Greek gods do in fact exist. Or, I can imagine a world in which god-belief is our natural inclincation even though no gods exist.

But I CAN'T imagine a world in which belief in YHWH and the Ten Commandments spread via missionaries and conquerors if said belief popped up in ancient South America and ancient Israel simultaneously......that is why such an event WOULD be evidence for YHWH.

Do you see the difference?

As hard as it may be for you to accept, natural phenomenom and fraud had been ruled out. As far as your other "choices, aliens had not been witnessed nor were their any baby monitors. The were sightings of seeing a girl around when there were no children in the building.

I didn't realize that natural phenomena and fraud had been ruled out....I thought you said they labeled the phenomenon as "unexplainable". This sounds very interesting.

Okay....so how did they rule all these other possibilities out? Who saw the girl? Was it videotaped? Can anyone independently confirm details of the girl's appearance (e.g. she had glasses and long hair or two pony tails and braces, she looked 3 years old or 12 years old)? (By the way, how did they know that the girl they saw "when there were no children in the building" was not, in fact, a little girl? That would explain the crying....."I can't find my Mommy and everyone keeps screaming and running away from me.....whaaaaa!" lol )

Also, I'm still wondering how they determined that it was a girl's voice crying and not a boy's voice. I wouldn't be surprised if there were voice analysis experts or software in the world that could determine if the sound was even human.

1)The part in brown was a reiteration of the previous post above that (which was addressed), which is why it was not addressed in that response
2)I had already offered my apologies if you felt I had misinterpreted your post. There'so need to continue to chastize someone for it.

3)Regardless of how you interpret the blue part, it's still not a good or compelling counter argument, in my opinion.

Sorry, I didn't mean to chastize you, I was just trying to explain myself clearly.

Why don't you think it's a good or compelling counter-argument?

Umm...my answer's still the same.

I was really looking for cases/claims, not groups of people. Are you saying that everything TAPS has investigated has been thoroughly investigated and has not relied on interested, inexperienced, etc. parties?

Refresh my memory.

Very well....your request was:

Tell me what you would consider "evidence" so I can see what I can what I can bring to the table.​

In post 118:

The type of evidence that is conclusive is generally the type that does not require much "acceptance". For example, an experiment in a peer-reviewed journal will normally detail the methods and instrumentation used, cite sources for more information, and use formulas, equations, and numerical data to quantify the results. There's not much there that I have to "accept", and even if I don't accept it, I could repeat the experiment myself and verify their results.​

In post 102:

I could imagine the possibility of very convincing evidence here. For example, a timestamped recording of EVP revealing a voice that says "Clark Thompson of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida will be killed by a shark tomorrow" followed by the fulfillment of the prediction. Or, if a full-bodied apparition appeared in downtown NY city and was witnessed and photographed by hundreds of people as it smashed storefront windows and caused general mayhem.​

.....

I don't believe in "proof", but I would accept as very very very VERY compelling evidence the same things that most people accept as compelling evidence. If tornadoes exist, I expect to see things that are best explained by a tornadoe, like a 3-mile path of destruction, cars upside down and 100's of yards from where they were parked, etc.; I expect simultaneous eyewitness testimony from seperate, disinterested parties providing confirming details of other testimony and what is shown in photos and videos.​

As far as "ghosts", I guess you'd have to define what a "ghost" is, first. If a ghost is a disembodied spirit that spends most of its time causing splotches of light to appear on film that are indistinguishable from unfocused dust particles or lens artifacts, then I don't think it is even possible to gather "evidence" for such things. In any case, how could you distinguish ghosts from demons, faries, or highly advanced extra terrestrials?​

On the other hand, if "ghosts" are disembodied spirits that are a little more active than that, then I could imagine all sorts of compelling evidence. A chair flying around in the air outdoors in front of dozens of eyewitnesses and captured on high resolution video, accompanied by a disembodied voice that could communicate with people and reveal intimate, verifiable details of its former life--that would do it. It would be even better if the chair flew into a tree or a house or something and caused some damage, and if the event occurred day after day in front of scientists, news media--everyone--and great attempts to uncover fraud were unsuccessful.​

In post 110:

Consistency of testimony is only compelling in certain circumstances--namely, when the parties involved are not aware of the testimonies of others. Bigfoot sightings, alien abduction stories, and Native American encounters with the prankster god Coyote all have a consistency of testimony that one might expect, from a cultural delusion standpoint, when people have already heard lots of previous testimonies, so they can copy them or interpret events to fit them.​

On the other hand, consistency of testimony would be compelling in my "Aztec example", since the ancient Aztecs and Hebrews did not have any contact with one another.​

In post 92:

To take an example, if belief in the Abrahamic god had NOT spread by missionaries and conquerors; if instead YHWH had appeared to BOTH the Aztecs and the Hebrews and given them each identical lists of the Ten Commandments before peoples from Eurasia and the Americas ever made contact; then that would be pretty good evidence AGAINST the idea that belief in YHWH is product of culture.​

In essence: I would accept as evidence for ghosts anything that actually does a pretty good job of *ruling out* fraud or natural phenomena (I've provided some imaginative examples that would do the trick to demonstrate what I'm talking about here); cases that do not rely heavily on anectotal evidence; cases where the methods of investigation have been documented and are reproducible, and preferably confirmed by independent investigators; cases where specific details are *independently* confirmed through video or audio data, or seperate witnesses/incidents. That kind of thing.

It's the same criteria that I would use to admit acceptable evidence for any claim, not just ghosts.

 

[Mister_T]

Yes. As I said in post 113:

Yes, but it seems that you think that the majority of these groups mentioned have based their faith off of feelings. Am I wrong?

Well, this is a little bit confusing because now you're using 'proof' and 'evidence' interchangably, though they are two very distinct animals. In any case, we are talking about the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until around the 6th century B.C. I'm not really interested in whether or not that "can be used as proof or evidence" by atheists or theists; I'm interested in whether or not, from an objective perspective, it really is proof/evidence. To me, it seems very clear that it is not.....for example, I can imagine a world in which Atheism is our natural inclincation but the Greek gods do in fact exist. Or, I can imagine a world in which god-belief is our natural inclincation even though no gods exist.

But I CAN'T imagine a world in which belief in YHWH and the Ten Commandments spread via missionaries and conquerors if said belief popped up in ancient South America and ancient Israel simultaneously......that is why such an event WOULD be evidence for YHWH.

Do you see the difference?

I think I've been seeing the difference.

I think I've mentioned this before, but my intention for the "Atheism in 6 B.C." bit was to poke a hole in your argument, not as supportive evidence for the God of Abraham.

Why don't you think it's a good or compelling counter-argument?

To me it's too dismissive. It seem like you're scraping the barrel for an answer that fits your ideology, when it really isn't that simple: When something of this nature is labeled as unexplainable (or even a potential ghost), you can be sure that the evidence was looked at from every possible angle before it is given that label.

I was really looking for cases/claims, not groups of people. Are you saying that everything TAPS has investigated has been thoroughly investigated and has not relied on interested, inexperienced, etc. parties?

I can't say that T.A.P.S. isn't interested. Of course they're interested in this stuff, that's why they're doing it. Do they want to get paid for doing this? Absolutely. Wouldn't you want to get money for doing something you love? From my understanding they started out as a small group (2 plumbers who investigated in their spare time) and eventually grew into what they are now.

Very well....your request was:

I'll get you some links tomorrow. It's late and I haven't eate dinner yet.

 

[YmirGF]

What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

If it is genuine belief then sure, why not?

If someone believes in something that is, in your opinion, imaginary, is that person necessarily unintelligent or childish?

I would likely label them as delusional and endeavor to understand why they have fixated on this thing be it Flying Spagetti Monsters or the tooth fairy. I know this is part of my mission here on RF to try to understand the needs of people for their god concepts.

When, if ever, is it fair to consider another person's belief an illusion?

Well... technically speaking everything in this little universe of physical reality is an illusion however when it comes down to brass tacks it is dicey from person to person. In order to say "Your invisible friend is an illusion." you must understand the nature of the illusion and what has precipitated a fixation on that illusion. As well you should be familiar with various views of what "invisible friends" in fact are. If you can manage to do just that then you are miles above me, lol. I generally do not tell people they are following illusions because illusions can be powerful motivators however I am not quite so shy to label others as being delusional and have stated on occasion that every living person to one extent or another is in fact delusional.

I hope that makes sense. :sad:

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Would you care to elaborate?

Nothing can be said that hasn't already been said a thousand times in a thousand different ways. Haven't you been paying attention? (This is one of the reasons I no longer visit RF nearly as much. Between the mental gymnastics and repetition, there's not much here.)

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I said the statement, “The only other alternative that I can think of is that God and Aphrodite and Thor and all the others actually exist” is pathetic. Asked to elaborate, I replied:

Nothing can be said that hasn't already been said a thousand times in a thousand different ways. Haven't you been paying attention? (This is one of the reasons I no longer visit RF nearly as much. Between the mental gymnastics and repetition, there's not much here.)

How many times has it been said in RF that God is not a being, but Being itself? Someone here even uses a signature saying the same thing. Having been said countless times and then for someone to compare That to Aphrodite and Thor and then ask for evidence or proof of God’s existence is pathetic. Accepting the remark as respectable discourse is to give it respect it isn’t due. This response does the same.

While many may claim they do not believe in God, what they really mean is that their beliefs do no fall in any religious category or conform to any theological pattern of thought. But they believe in life, which is but another name for God. They believe in mind and intelligence, which is also God’s. For nothing but God is.

Science has probed so deeply into matter that there is a consensus that matter does not exist as such. Catch a ball and you do not touch it; read a book and you do not see it. Why, then, is it widely accepted that the flesh is sufficient to deal with Truth? If human intellect is your basis for your deductions, the lamp you carry will be covered with black sackcloth. You will be lost to the Real.

 

[Yerda]

How many times has it been said in RF that God is not a being, but Being itself?

Perhaps we should ask more frequently then what that sentence means.

But they believe in life, which is but another name for God. They believe in mind and intelligence, which is also God’s. For nothing but God is.

You make 'God' sound as vague as 'thing'.

 

[MaddLlama]

Nothing can be said that hasn't already been said a thousand times in a thousand different ways. Haven't you been paying attention? (This is one of the reasons I no longer visit RF nearly as much. Between the mental gymnastics and repetition, there's not much here.)

I was asking for clarification, because the way I interpreted your post, it sounded as if you were saying that anyone who does believe those gods are real are "pathetic", or that belief in those gods is "pathetic".

Maybe next time you ought to do some mental gymnastics of your own and post something more than one word so the rest of us know what you're trying to say. Unless of course you'd rather that I just assume you're trying to be a jerk and respond accordingly without asking for clarification. Because, I can do that too.

Or, if you think there's nothing left to say because it's repetition, then just don't post.

 

[Random]

While many may claim they do not believe in God, what they really mean is that their beliefs do no fall in any religious category or conform to any theological pattern of thought. But they believe in life, which is but another name for God. They believe in mind and intelligence, which is also God’s. For nothing but God is.

You're right here, as usual. I miss your posts, RS. You are one of only a few people here I would consider to be possessed of an enlightened intelligence.

Science has probed so deeply into matter that there is a consensus that matter does not exist as such. Catch a ball and you do not touch it; read a book and you do not see it. Why, then, is it widely accepted that the flesh is sufficient to deal with Truth? If human intellect is your basis for your deductions, the lamp you carry will be covered with black sackcloth. You will be lost to the Real

...which is precisely what spirituality is: a journey towards the Real, yes. Well said...frankly there aren't enough frubals in all the world to sufficiently reward such a brilliant post. Peace, and be well my friend.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, but it seems that you think that the majority of these groups mentioned have based their faith off of feelings. Am I wrong?

What do you mean by "these groups mentioned"? If you mean anyone with faith....I honestly don't know if the majority base their faith off of "feelings". I am certain, however, that many people base their faith in part off of powerful experiences they've had where they felt god's presence, the presence of a loved one, or where they felt god answered their prayers, etc.

I think I've been seeing the difference.

I think I've mentioned this before, but my intention for the "Atheism in 6 B.C." bit was to poke a hole in your argument, not as supportive evidence for the God of Abraham.

How does it poke a hole in my argument that....

To take an example, if belief in the Abrahamic god had NOT spread by missionaries and conquerors; if instead YHWH had appeared to BOTH the Aztecs and the Hebrews and given them each identical lists of the Ten Commandments before peoples from Eurasia and the Americas ever made contact; then that would be pretty good evidence AGAINST the idea that belief in YHWH is product of culture...

​

....? I just don't see any connection whatsoever between my argument and your "Atheism in 6th century B.C." bit. Can you explain?

To me it's too dismissive. It seem like you're scraping the barrel for an answer that fits your ideology, when it really isn't that simple: When something of this nature is labeled as unexplainable (or even a potential ghost), you can be sure that the evidence was looked at from every possible angle before it is given that label.

But that doesn't really address the concerns I raised in my argument. I said:

The sound, you say, is clearly the sound of the ghost of a little girl crying. But, is it really? How do you know it's not a little boy ghost? How do you know it's not an interdimensional alien? How do you know it's not a bird or drafts or creaks? How do you know it's not just a trick of the mind? Experiments have shown that our minds will very often project recognizable patterns onto random noise or visuals.....subjective judgements like "it sounds like crying" are not compelling, i.m.o.
​

I asked HOW do you know, for example, that it wasn't a bird or drafts or creaks. Your response is just a reassertion that you know, because we "can be sure that the evidence was looked at from every possible angle". Okay, but HOW was this done in such a way as to rule out aliens or birds or drafts or creaks? What was their METHOD to accomplish this? To simply assert that none of these possibilities should be taken seriously--THAT is dismissive, i.m.o.

Here's an idea: get recordings of actual crying, recordings from the supposedly haunted room, and recordings from a non-haunted room with no crying. Maybe get some recordings of some random noises for good measure. Mix them up and let people listen to them without telling them which one is which. See if random people can consistently identify the recording of the supposedly 'haunted' room as the sound of a girl crying. (Of course, bear in mind that I have no knowledge of what the recording sounds like....if the sound of the crying is obvious enough, then this might not be necessary.)

I can't say that T.A.P.S. isn't interested. Of course they're interested in this stuff, that's why they're doing it. Do they want to get paid for doing this? Absolutely. Wouldn't you want to get money for doing something you love? From my understanding they started out as a small group (2 plumbers who investigated in their spare time) and eventually grew into what they are now.

No, I see what you're saying. The fact that someone makes money from what they are doing does not necessarily mean that what they are doing cannot be trusted.

But what I would suggest is this: there will always be a temptation in any media (TV, radio, etc) to embellish. A story that suggests a paranormal event or strange creature (like bigfoot or nessie) is legitimate will always be more popular than a story that suggests such things are not legitimate. An expeditionary team looking for the Yeti that comes back empty-handed is not big news; an expeditionary team that comes back with "possible evidence!" of the Yeti is media gold. The ratings will be higher, the money for advertizements will be greater, and the temptation will be, in many cases, irresistable.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Perhaps we should ask more frequently then what that sentence means.

Pathetic.:slap:

 

[Yerda]

Pathetic.:slap:

I rather suspected you would respond like that.

Why would you deem it pathetic (and worthy of a slapping no less!) to enquire the meaning of a statement?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I rather suspected you would respond like that.

Why would you deem it pathetic (and worthy of a slapping no less!) to enquire the meaning of a statement?

Perhaps the slap was premature. If kittens raised in an environment without vertical line can’t see objects with a vertical dimension (like a chair with legs) and bump into them, it seems likely that humans, too, filter out what they consider extraneous information--like the difference between something that has being and being itself.

The word “pathetic” is still appropriate, however.

 

[MaddLlama]

Did it occur to you that maybe this discussion could occur between people who don't see God the same way as you do, and therefore have no need to regard their ideas as "pathetic"? Plenty of people don't believe that God is "being itself" and believe that God is a being. Plenty of people do actually believe in the Gods that were worshiped before the mass-spread of Christianity.

Just because your perspective has been said before doesn't mean everybody agrees with it. To assume that everyone does or should is pathetic, and small-minded to boot.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Did it occur to you that maybe this discussion could occur between people who don't see God the same way as you do, and therefore have no need to regard their ideas as "pathetic"? Plenty of people don't believe that God is "being itself" and believe that God is a being. Plenty of people do actually believe in the Gods that were worshiped before the mass-spread of Christianity.

Just because your perspective has been said before doesn't mean everybody agrees with it. To assume that everyone does or should is pathetic, and small-minded to boot.

A proper discussion requires a shared understanding of terms, not political correctness. Someone who stumbles in a conversation because they are unwilling recognize the difference between a god that has being and One that is Being Itself deserves a slap on the head. If, on the other hand, they don’t know the difference (which really is pathetic), one might as well be talking about flagpoles to a kitten blind to objects with a vertical dimension.

 

[MaddLlama]

A proper discussion requires a shared understanding of terms, not political correctness. Someone who stumbles in a conversation because they are unwilling recognize the difference between a god that has being and One that is Being Itself deserves a slap on the head. If, on the other hand, they don’t know the difference (which really is pathetic), one might as well be talking about flagpoles to a kitten blind to objects with a vertical dimension.

So, essentially you're saying "If someone doesn't believe the same way I believe about God, then they're stupid".

How, exactly, is that a "proper discussion"? And why does there have to be a "shared understanding of terms"? I thought this was a thread about defining terms.

Besides, this thread has nothing to do with whether or not god is "being itself".

Are people who don't believe that god is "being itself" pathetic?

Why exactly is a debate about the differences of different god-forms stupid? Just because you think it's useless (because you've made up your mind) doesn't mean that nobody else can have a debate or discussion about it.