Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[PureX]

We know as a taoist/christian, whatever that means, that you are predisposed to the notion that a god HAS to exist, but in reality it does not. Not in a spiritual sense, not in a philosophical sense, not in a literal sense. I love the sense of gentle compassion for the ignorant I detect in the tones of the apologists. We aren't the ones that beleive in magic and mysticism, souls and karmas and chis and thetans. We beleive and agknowledge what is real and substantial. By the very nature of your explanation, God is complex, God is dynamic, he exists in a philosophical sense, he expresses his self through trees and oceans, God is insubstantial. It's all nonsense. The ocean is a mass of salinated water that covers most of the Earth. The trees are photosynthetic organisms. The mountains are formations of rock caused by volcanoes, tectonic shifts and other natural events. Basically, using your logic, I could say atheism is an expression of God.

It is.

Do you imagine that because you can explain to yourself what's in an ocean that you have explained away it's mystery?, have dismissed it's character?, and rendered it dead matter?

You can't destroy "God" by explaining it away any more than you can destroy beauty, or love, or justice. And what kind of a fool would even want to?

 

[Commoner]

It is.

Do you imagine that because you can explain to yourself what's in an ocean that you have explained away it's mystery?, have dismissed it's character?, and rendered it dead matter?

You can't destroy "God" by explaining it away any more than you can destroy beauty, or love, or justice. And what kind of a fool would even want to?

PureX, you're the only one here that thinks that explaining something (removing the "mystery") could render it dead and ugly.

This emotional pleading is quite nonsensical. I thought we were here presenting evidence.

 

[Atheologian]

I understand that people really want to relate to some religion out there, there just has to be one that gets it right. Or, in PureX's case, combine a few together to get what you want. Really wanting it to be true doesn't make it so. The common misconception is, that atheist's are all agnostic. We just say we don't beleive in some higher realm, some etherial existance, but all we need is a "soul moving experience". We just need to "witness a miracle". "Open our minds". If we could just reach down deep, into the depths of our psychie, there is this common element that ties all humankind together, and that has to be God. Well, I have bad news. We know what that link is, it's called matter. It's made up of subatomic particles that combine in different quantities to form the various elements. We don't need to "go into hypnosis" or "meditate" to test this theory. It makes technology in the 21st century possible, I can prove this theory with anything from space shuttles to rubber balls. Meanwhile the religious need "faith", because no space shuttle or rubber ball is going to prove the existence, or relevance, of Shiva, Mohammed, Jesus or Budha.

 

[Atheologian]

Originally Posted by Atheologian
We know as a taoist/christian, whatever that means, that you are predisposed to the notion that a god HAS to exist, but in reality it does not. Not in a spiritual sense, not in a philosophical sense, not in a literal sense. I love the sense of gentle compassion for the ignorant I detect in the tones of the apologists. We aren't the ones that beleive in magic and mysticism, souls and karmas and chis and thetans. We beleive and agknowledge what is real and substantial. By the very nature of your explanation, God is complex, God is dynamic, he exists in a philosophical sense, he expresses his self through trees and oceans, God is insubstantial. It's all nonsense. The ocean is a mass of salinated water that covers most of the Earth. The trees are photosynthetic organisms. The mountains are formations of rock caused by volcanoes, tectonic shifts and other natural events. Basically, using your logic, I could say atheism is an expression of God.

It is.

Do you imagine that because you can explain to yourself what's in an ocean that you have explained away it's mystery?, have dismissed it's character?, and rendered it dead matter?

You can't destroy "God" by explaining it away any more than you can destroy beauty, or love, or justice. And what kind of a fool would even want to?

Well, if Atheism is an expression of God, and that expression is that he doesn't exist, and that everything can be explained scientifically, wouldn't that kind of tell you something about religion?

 

[Atheologian]

What I am asking, is how those same theists, answering your question, would feel if there were hard feelings for the religion afterwards. Starting a new thread for that would be rediculous. I would have to restate your question, and then pose mine.


lol wow wrong topic.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not suggesting you were rude, though, just that the usual argument for a theist is: "You couldn't understand if you tried, so just have faith."

That kind of argument usually doesn't cut it in the General Debate sections.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Our perception of it is all we have. So how can we know that a reality exists apart from our perception of it?

PS, in the future, if you want me to respond to your posts, stop with the snide comments. That goes for all of you. And I will promise to do the same.

It wasn't a snide comment at all. If - IF I say - you actually believe that nothing exists outside your brain that everything around us and all of history is just vain imaginings you REALLY ARE in a kind of twilight zone. Such a position is just NOT rational or supportable by anything but more imaginings.

Be careful with sharp objects. They have certain characteristics that do NOT depend on your imagination.

 

[Willamena]

PureX, you're the only one here that thinks that explaining something (removing the "mystery") could render it dead and ugly.

This emotional pleading is quite nonsensical.

Not the only one. Words have power.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Words have power.

Only what you give them.

 

[Willamena]

I understand that people really want to relate to some religion out there, there just has to be one that gets it right. Or, in PureX's case, combine a few together to get what you want. Really wanting it to be true doesn't make it so. The common misconception is, that atheist's are all agnostic. We just say we don't beleive in some higher realm, some etherial existance, but all we need is a "soul moving experience". We just need to "witness a miracle". "Open our minds". If we could just reach down deep, into the depths of our psychie, there is this common element that ties all humankind together, and that has to be God. Well, I have bad news. We know what that link is, it's called matter. It's made up of subatomic particles that combine in different quantities to form the various elements. We don't need to "go into hypnosis" or "meditate" to test this theory. It makes technology in the 21st century possible, I can prove this theory with anything from space shuttles to rubber balls. Meanwhile the religious need "faith", because no space shuttle or rubber ball is going to prove the existence, or relevance, of Shiva, Mohammed, Jesus or Budha.

You should perhaps get to know a person before you caricaturize him.

 

[Willamena]

Only what you give them.

They have the power to deceive us into thinking that they hold the truth. So, yes, you're right.

 

[PureX]

I understand that people really want to relate to some religion out there, there just has to be one that gets it right. Or, in PureX's case, combine a few together to get what you want. Really wanting it to be true doesn't make it so.

What you don't understand is that I don't care. And neither do millions of other theists. I can't know if God exists apart from my idea of God or not. And neither can you. What I can know is that the idea of God that I have developed works for me. Through it I am able to transcend myself. The value of this is far greater than any materialist based illusions of truth you could offer.

And what exactly ARE you offering? And why?

The common misconception is, that atheist's are all agnostic. We just say we don't beleive in some higher realm, some etherial existance, but all we need is a "soul moving experience". We just need to "witness a miracle". "Open our minds". If we could just reach down deep, into the depths of our psychie, there is this common element that ties all humankind together, and that has to be God. Well, I have bad news. We know what that link is, it's called matter. It's made up of subatomic particles that combine in different quantities to form the various elements. We don't need to "go into hypnosis" or "meditate" to test this theory. It makes technology in the 21st century possible, I can prove this theory with anything from space shuttles to rubber balls. Meanwhile the religious need "faith", because no space shuttle or rubber ball is going to prove the existence, or relevance, of Shiva, Mohammed, Jesus or Budha.

I have no clue whatever what any of this has to do with the existence or non-existence of God. Are you implying that because science has discovered the threshold between matter and energy that somehow it has explained away "God"?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They have the power to deceive us into thinking that they hold the truth. So, yes, you're right.

Words are simply tools to communicate ideas. They can only decieve you if you do not know how to critically analyze what is being communicated.

 

[PureX]

It wasn't a snide comment at all. If - IF I say - you actually believe that nothing exists outside your brain that everything around us and all of history is just vain imaginings you REALLY ARE in a kind of twilight zone. Such a position is just NOT rational or supportable by anything but more imaginings.

Why not just formulate a question, and then ask me it, instead of making up these extreme scenarios and applying them to me just so you can insult me?

 

[autonomous1one1]

Thank you for your comments, Themadhair. Your continuance with this thread and response at my slow pace is appreciated. One works slowly when giving careful consideration to understand the posts of another.

I’m not following you here. Doesn’t the fact that different people having similar experiences reach vastly different conclusions not scream conformational bias? I’m not denying the experiences exist, what I am questioning is the interpretation being offered for those experiences.

No wonder that you are not following, for somehow your interpretation is the exact opposite of what was intended in my previous posts. (My writing is definitely not the best.) You state in essence 'different people, similar experiences, with different conclusions' and my posts were meant to convey 'different people of broadly different backgrounds, similar experience, and similar essential conclusions.' The point is well documented and is significant towards evidence against conformational bias.

Think about what you are doing here. You are doubting the experiences of Scientologists solely because they interpreted their experiences differently than yours. It is worth noting that those experiences really did cause “dramatic transformational characteristics including a paradigm shift in one’s perspective of reality” for those Scientologists – they just reached a different conclusion than yours.

If your only reason for doubting those experiences is because of a differing conclusion, then doesn’t that lend weight to the charge of conformational bias?....

Thank you for your suggestion here, Themadhair. My mind spent over two hours thinking about what i was doing and examining your point to see if conformational bias had crept into my own thinking. My conclusion is 'no' because the way Scientologists interpret their experiences has not come into play here. Let me explain.

Doubt comes in because you are the one conveying the information in this case (and this is not meant to reflect negatively). The presupposition to the significance of any interpretation here is that the experiences are the same. You ask me to accept at face value your view that has come through your subjective filter and perspective based upon your discussions with Scientologists that the experiences are the same without any other evidence. This is given in the face of much written evidence offered about similar experience with similar conclusion included in my posts. One would desire to take another look at your point if you could direct me to some writings of Scientologists about this experience.

There are other considerations too. Although on the rise, this Mystic Experience is still quite rare and it is not probable - not impossible - but not likely that you have run into someone with the realization. In fact, the Experience is rare enough that you should have some question kept in mind if my posts even come from a valid source and i know what i am talking about.

We all recognize that one only can interpret and understand within one's own perspective. The Mystic Experience is extraordinary because it has the power to change the perspective within which it is interpreted.

Regards,
a..1

 

[Willamena]

Words are simply tools to communicate ideas. They can only decieve you if you do not know how to critically analyze what is being communicated.

Or [they can't decieve you] if you don't give power away.

 

[Atheologian]

I think proving or disproving god is irrelevant. It's the relevance of god that matters, and we can blow that out of the water every time. The religions that are associated with whatever God you choose, are generally full of misinformation, bogus history and science, false explenations of natural occurances and rare events, etc. etc. When You take away the religion that holds him on the pedestal, shouldn't the God and the pedestal fall too? This is why deists are foolish, in my opinion.
They cling to that pedestal, that notion of a higher power, while there's nothing there to hold it up.
No amount of metaphorical metamorphysis of scripture is going to hide the fact that you are jumping halfway into the pond of ignorance, and telling the rest of us how cool it is to be half wet. We know, you're enlightened.

 

[Atheologian]

What you don't understand is that I don't care. And neither do millions of other theists. I can't know if God exists apart from my idea of God or not. And neither can you. What I can know is that the idea of God that I have developed works for me. Through it I am able to transcend myself. The value of this is far greater than any materialist based illusions of truth you could offer.

And what exactly ARE you offering? And why?
I have no clue whatever what any of this has to do with the existence or non-existence of God. Are you implying that because science has discovered the threshold between matter and energy that somehow it has explained away "God"?

exactly

 

[Atheologian]

God has nothing left to explain, his usefulness has run out.

 

[Atheologian]

I realize that's a gross oversimplification, but I stand behind it.