Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[sojourner]

I'll take that as a resounding "NO", then. Thanks for playing.

Your snark is duly noted. This displayed attitude is PRECISELY why I don’t wish to waste my time. You don’t really care to know, you simply want to poke fun. I’m not playing that game.

 

[sojourner]

It is nothing about what I "feel".
If I feel anything in this context, it is that you
made no effort to say anything sensible here, or earlier.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

 

[Polymath257]

Consider that the Divine isn’t a radio wave or a neutrino.

OK, what is it?

False. Different people have different perspectives an different cultural images that carry meaning for them.

So? How does that affect whether they are correct or not?

Of course it is, otherwise metaphor wouldn’t exist.

Metaphor is *useful* but not *necessary*. Sometimes analogies help to convey a meaning that wasn't immediately seen. But it is always possible to NOT use the analogy to describe the same thing.

 

[sojourner]

Meditation is not technology in any remote sense of the word.

And smoking dope is quicker and easier than meditation.

I’m sorry you think so.

 

[sojourner]

There may be a middle ground between "take a book" and
a children's song.

Or they may not be.

I hold that anyone who understands their topic can find
that middle ground, in normally comprehensible words.

And has no need for making statements of fact not in evidence.

I’m sorry you think so.

 

[Polymath257]

Meditative techniques. Not foolproof, but “public” and widespread enough for us To know that there is something beyond what we call “normal” experience which most of us call “Divinity.” “Deities” are metaphors. I’m not talking about a narrow, arbitrary definition of “God.”

On the contrary, meditative techniques are good for showing what the brain can do. And it can certainly make up things under some conditions. They hardly show anything outside of the mind, though.

Normal experience is just that: what we commonly experience. is there something beyond normal experience? Of course there is. Drugs can give such experiences, as can meditation, or extreme physical exertion.

The question is whether these experiences are simply the brain deluding itself or whether they actually say something about reality (other than that the brain can delude itself).

What do you mean, 'Deities are Metaphors'? That, to me, justifies saying they are fictional: that they are a literary device. But I suspect that isn't your intent.

 

[sojourner]

OK, what is it?

Dunno. Do you?

So? How does that affect whether they are correct or not?

Because metaphors aren’t universal absolutes. There’s no “correct metaphor.” There are simply metaphors.

Metaphor is *useful* but not *necessary*. Sometimes analogies help to convey a meaning that wasn't immediately seen. But it is always possible to NOT use the analogy to describe the same thing

Ok. Point conceded. It is possible to experience the Divine without metaphor. But it sure is useful in creating language to talk about those experiences.

 

[dfnj]

The atheists will LIE with answer their no doubt.
If there is no God, then we should have evidence for it. What evidence do they have?

Why can't it be the case God does exist AND there is no evidence for the existence of God? Isn't this the reason why we have faith?

You cannot have evidence for the non-existence of something. I don't understand why theists make this argument. I can't prove monkeys will never fly out of my butt. It could happen at some point in my life probably without my permission. But I can't prove it will never happen. You can't prove a negative. No one can prove God does NOT exist. It's logically impossible.

If you are going to argue a pro-God position with these intellectually superior (at least in their own minds) atheists, then please take care with the logic you are using in your arguments. It's embarrassing to humanity when you say something that is simply logically impossible.

Atheists do not "LIE". Here is another embarrassment. Please be mindful that opinions cannot be "lies". Just because atheist have a different opinion or subjective judgment on your beliefs does not mean they are lying. It just means they choose differently than you do.

 

[Polymath257]

You’ve historically dismissed every experience that has been thrown at you here.

How about excluding experiences where we *know* the brain is under stress and likely to give wrong information?

Have you ever seen an optical illusion? EVERYONE experiences them, but the experiences don't accurately reflect reality. That's because we *know* the brain misinterprets those images.

 

[sojourner]

On the contrary, meditative techniques are good for showing what the brain can do. And it can certainly make up things under some conditions. They hardly show anything outside of the mind, though

The Divine is within. Who said God stands as an exterior object we can observe and measure? That’s YOUR definition — not mine.

Normal experience is just that: what we commonly experience. is there something beyond normal experience? Of course there is. Drugs can give such experiences, as can meditation, or extreme physical exertion

Sure. Those things can be gateways or windows. And what is the common nomenclature for these experiences that take us beyond our limits?

The question is whether these experiences are simply the brain deluding itself or whether they actually say something about reality (other than that the brain can delude itself).

Depends on what one considers to be reality.

What do you mean, 'Deities are Metaphors'? That, to me, justifies saying they are fictional: that they are a literary device. But I suspect that isn't your intent

Nope. That’s my intent. The Divine isn’t an invisible sky daddy, a person with an elephant’s trunk, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Those are metaphors — avatars.

 

[Polymath257]

Dunno. Do you?

I have no idea. But then, I'm not the one claiming it exists, either.

Because metaphors aren’t universal absolutes. There’s no “correct metaphor.” There are simply metaphors.

Universal absolutes???

Sorry, but metaphors are a literary or pedagogical technique. they do NOT accurately reflect reality.

Ok. Point conceded. It is possible to experience the Divine without metaphor. But it sure is useful in creating language to talk about those experiences.

Why not just invent a language that actually talks about them as opposed to using metaphor?

 

[Polymath257]

The Divine is within. Who said God stands as an exterior object we can observe and measure? That’s YOUR definition — not mine.

If deities are simply some psychological game we play with ourselves, then they are only interesting to me as an aspect of human psychology. They are a curiosity of how humans can program themselves.

Sure. Those things can be gateways or windows. And what is the common nomenclature for these experiences that take us beyond our limits?

No experience 'takes us beyond our limits'. There are extraordinary experiences, ranging from eating a well-spices meal, to laying under the stars with a loved one, etc.

Why should they have only one designation?

Depends on what one considers to be reality.

Nope. That’s my intent. The Divine isn’t an invisible sky daddy, a person with an elephant’s trunk, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Those are metaphors — avatars.

OK, if they are only metaphor, I really don't care. If they are not *reality*, then I don't care. But the same is true of proposed subatomic particles.

 

[sojourner]

I have no idea. But then, I'm not the one claiming it exists, either

I’m not claiming that “it” “exists.” That’s YOUR straw man that you’re knocking down. This is exactly what I was trying to get across to Audie. There are so many misconceptions that it would take a book to straighten them all out so that we could begin to actually converse, rather than talking past each other. But you all seem so hellbent on stuffing me into a box that you’re just going to dismiss everything I say. Who has time for that crap?

Universal absolutes???

Sorry, but metaphors are a literary or pedagogical technique. they do NOT accurately reflect reality

Isn’t that what I said? God isn’t a man with an elephant’s trunk.

Why not just invent a language that actually talks about them as opposed to using metaphor

Who would understand it?

 

[firedragon]

What difference? Since none of you theists have EVER produced ANY god to accept?

They are synonymous in usage: You cannot "accept" what you have no belief in.

Do YOU accept The Flying Spaghetti Monster as Your Lord and God?

If not-- why not?

Though your argument is the same old entry level argument, its still better than the one you think you are defending.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Therefore your living by faith just as much as those who believe in God and the existense of God.

How is your elephant which lives in your house? What? No elephant in your house?

 

[Polymath257]

I’m not claiming that “it” “exists.” That’s YOUR straw man that you’re knocking down. This is exactly what I was trying to get across to Audie. There are so many misconceptions that it would take a book to straighten them all out so that we could begin to actually converse, rather than talking past each other. But you all seem so hellbent on stuffing me into a box that you’re just going to dismiss everything I say. Who has time for that crap?

OK, so what *do* you mean when you use the word 'God' or 'deity'?

Is it just some psychological trick we play on ourselves?

Or is it something external to ourselves like a chair?

 

[firedragon]

To the religious it is, but to one who actually knows
what it is to be an atheist, it is not.

But do tell how belief and acceptance are different.

Good answer. It showed how religious you are and the same display of tribalism that a lot of theists display. My clan vs yours.

 

[sojourner]

If deities are simply some psychological game we play with ourselves, then they are only interesting to me as an aspect of human psychology. They are a curiosity of how humans can program themselves

Again with the “deities.” I’m not talking about deities.

No experience 'takes us beyond our limits'. There are extraordinary experiences, ranging from eating a well-spices meal, to laying under the stars with a loved one, etc.

Why should they have only one designation

And there’s the sense that there’s something grander than we can wrap our minds around. And that something does carry more than one designation. I said there’s a common nomenclature — not that there’s a unique nomenclature.

OK, if they are only metaphor, I really don't care. If they are not *reality*, then I don't care. But the same is true of proposed subatomic particles

And we can’t really perceive them. We can only perceive images (metaphors) of them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really an athiest or athiesm according to the Oxford dictionary which is the same as many other dictionary definitions is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. So if someone does not believe in the existence of God or gods is still a belief just the same as someone that believes in God is a belief. Now both do not have evidence for their belief so the only conclusion is that both beliefs are not based on evidence therefore their beliefs are based on faith (no evidence; unproven) IMO.

Not having a belief is not a belief. There is no faith required in not being convinced of something.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, you are using a fallacious argument of semantics. The atheists here are not.

Let me explain your error to you. It is even worse than having an unsupported belief as you have. "Accepting God" involves a false belief that his existence has been proven somehow. It is a belief in a lie.

True. I dont agree with semantics like that. I think its a stupid argument.

You should read what one person is writing without having prejudice and maybe you will understand what they are saying first.