Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?

[Windwalker]

Personal experience isn't evidence of something being factual.

Please define "factual"? Consensus?

It's also very unreliable

Only if you're inept. The more knowledgeable you are of yourself, it can actually be far more reliable than our flawed analysis of the world! This complaint is one I usually hear from those who made mistakes and have no self-confidence. I run into a lot from religious fundamentalists who say "God's word says.....", ignoring the fact they are using their own subjective interpretations to understand it. It's the same thing exactly with fundamentalists who become atheists and turn to science as their new Authority. Neither know themselves and distrust themselves and are looking for something outside themselves to "trust" as reliable. It's a sad declaration.

I'm talking about real evidence like claims that can be and have been tested and shown to be true.

My experiences have been tested, again, and again, and again, and they are producing tangle results in my "lab", so to speak. That is evidence outside simply 'feeling". It manifests in the lab, to use that language.

Yes, I realize to someone as adept as you in the art of deepitudes and philosophizing nonsensically, it probably does seem that way.

It does. And it only seem nonsensical to you. It's not actually though. There are quite a number of members hear who understand exactly what I'm saying.

Nope. Not at all. All I'm saying is I realize that this concept that dominates our culture is not real. It doesn't say anything else about me. It doesn't mean I am limited in any way.

Except you've concluding God doesn't exist and therefore rule it out, any sort of rational understanding is not allowed either, as you pointed out in the last thread. God, in any form, is disallowed, or minimized as fully replaceable by scientific terms. Right?

According to any criteria you want. You set the criteria and show the evidence. No one's trying to limit you. The only request is that however you define God, you give actual evidence, not just personal experience.

Then I will fail. That's not God. You win. That God doesn't exist. I don't believe in that God however.

Here's the criteria I will set for you for your experiment.

1. Get rid of any idea you have about God. All of them. Including the one your thinking of right now. And that one. And that one too.

2. Go sit on a meditation cushion and still your thoughts. Do this until you actually do. It may take a lot of practice, and it may result in a lot of frustration for you. But keep at it until you can successfully perform the experiment.

3. Now that you can do this after training and disciplining your mind, enter deeply into that silence. Do this until you are completely quite in body and mind.

4. Keep going, deeper, and deeper still.

5. What is arising to you? Don't try to analyze it. Just observe it. Take in what ever arises and let it pass through you.

6. Empty yourself into this. Continue to do this everyday.

7. Come back and describe what that using whatever words you can find.

8. Examine your previous thoughts in light of what you have encountered.

9. Come and discuss them with other researchers perform similar experiments.

Now, that is the approach of a researcher performing the injunction, doing the experiment, and looking at the results. One can however have a spontaneous result by "accident", but these are sporadic and unpredictable. They are valid data, but they are less insightful than those who systematically approach these sorts of experiments.

BTW, you have to have personal experience. Otherwise it's just philosophical speculation without any actual data, musing if mice live on the moon because it's said to be made of cheese.

I would realize that it's just personal experience, which is unreliable and prone to errors.

Only if you're inept.

Personal experience is not sufficient evidence to reasonably prove something exists.

No? Ever single scientist has personal experience doing the research. Otherwise they're just arm-chair philosophers speculating about the nature of reality.

A lot of people have personal experience of all kinds of things, like Yahweh, the holy spirit, Allah, and many other gods.

Yes, and what does this tell you? It tells me they are experiencing "something". How they understand it can be 'better' understood using better researched models than a literal interpretation of the local myth structures. But simply saying, "it's all made up nonsense" is not scientific at all! It's religious knee-jerking taking their interpretation and evaluating it's mythic validity against science, such as you asking me for evidence of God like it's some sort of mammal, or something.

It actually doesn't mean that at all. Stop for a second and listen. The point is we're open to anything, but it has to have sufficient evidence.

Then why define yourself as "not" anything at all? This makes zero sense.

If someone can give such evidence for any god, we'll listen.

If it fits how you wish to understand God. That's the fatal flaw right there.

With that said, it seems pretty clear no one is going to come up with that evidence for Yahweh or similar gods, just like no one is going to come up with such evidence for leprechauns. I won't refuse to see it, if they do, but chances are pretty darn slim.

Yahweh = Leprechauns. You don't see a problem with the parameters of your experiment here? As a fellow researcher, I'd say you need to come up with a different model to work from.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Here's the criteria I will set for you for your experiment.

1. Get rid of any idea you have about God. All of them. Including the one your thinking of right now. And that one. And that one too.

2. Go sit on a meditation cushion and still your thoughts. Do this until you actually do. It may take a lot of practice, and it may result in a lot of frustration for you. But keep at it until you can successfully perform the experiment.

3. Now that you can do this after training and disciplining your mind, enter deeply into that silence. Do this until you are completely quite in body and mind.

4. Keep going, deeper, and deeper still.

5. What is arising to you? Don't try to analyze it. Just observe it. Take in what ever arises and let it pass through you.

6. Empty yourself into this. Continue to do this everyday.

7. Come back and describe what that using whatever words you can find.

8. Examine your previous thoughts in light of what you have encountered.

9. Come and discuss them with other researchers perform similar experiments.

I've been doing this for nearly 20 years, and have never come away with the belief in, or experience of god. I find that people generally invent, or intepret, god at step 7. In reflecting upon the experience of deep meditation, people tend to fall back on description and concepts which conform to previously formed images and labels of god(s). The experience of mediation requires no labeling, and pretty much defies accurate or meaningful semantical communication of the experience.

 

[Windwalker]

I've been doing this for nearly 20 years, and have never come away with the belief in, or experience of god. I find that people generally invent, or intepret, god at step 7. In reflecting upon the experience of deep meditation, people tend to fall back on description and concepts which conform to previously formed images and labels of god(s). The experience of mediation requires no labeling, and pretty much defies accurate or meaningful semantical communication of the experience.

This is good, and a start. What sort of meditation do you practice, and with 20 years of practice I assume you have some sort of way to speak of your experiences, as inadequate as we all know attempts to do so are. Can you describe the nature of your experiences? What forms do they take? What is the take-away for you? What effect does it have? What if any perceptions are changed? What insights are gained?

Understand this, when I speak of God I am not speaking of a literal "person" out there, but rather as a form of higher mind that one is exposed to. Perhaps this form is not part of your experience, and is more in either nature mysticism, or causal mysticism, or perhaps nondual mysticism. The God form is part of deity mysticism, and as such within that experience, it's form is archetypal. I assume you are familiar with these things?

I look forward to your sharing your insights, so we can explore this further together.

 

[Magic Man]

So, you are saying that atheism is useful to say you reject any rational view of God, ones which accept science and reason, one's which embrace progress and humanity?

Nope. I'm saying atheism is useful in indicating not being a theist.

I don't think its too much for you to provide what your reasonable criteria for evidence would be.

Criteria for evidence would be making verifiable claims about your god and having them tested and shown to be true.

Well, see right there you seem to think God is "needed" for physics to work, or something.

I'm not even sure how you got that out of what I said.

"God" to you has to look like what myth portrays.

No. I'm saying whatever your claims about God are, if they're not supported by evidence, then they're useless to me. If you believe the universe is God, or that God is the universe plus more, more power to you, but I don't find that useful unless there's some good reason to believe it.

Not "considering it God". But experiencing it as God. Whopping big difference.

Actually that's not a difference at all.

So then why are you unable to see God in the myth? Why are you saying it's all nonfactual lacking evidence, etc? Doesn't sound to me like you get myth. It's sounds like you reject is as nonfactual, end of story.

This works better if you actually try to understand what I'm saying.

Most people take the concept of God literally, as you do, and most Christians and Muslims and Jews. A literal concept of God gets it wrong. Myth isn't about literalism; it's about lessons through metaphors. Myth is not factual, and it's not supposed to be. I reject it as such, but embrace it as metaphor meant to teach lessons.

 

[Magic Man]

Please define "factual"? Consensus?

OK, factual means of or pertaining to facts. Facts are truths known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true, according to dictionary.com.

Only if you're inept.

Yeah, no. It's unreliable. That's why eye-witness testimony is becoming less and less accepted in legal trials.

My experiences have been tested, again, and again, and again, and they are producing tangle results in my "lab", so to speak. That is evidence outside simply 'feeling". It manifests in the lab, to use that language.

Cool, then just show me the tests, their results and the peer reviews of those results.

It does. And it only seem nonsensical to you. It's not actually though.

That's not an actual argument.

There are quite a number of members hear who understand exactly what I'm saying.

I'm sure there are, just as there are members here who understand literal interpretations of the Bible.

Except you've concluding God doesn't exist and therefore rule it out,

Correct. The evidence suggests the theistic god doesn't exist. I have effectively ruled it out, unless new evidence comes to light. No different from what you've done with leprechauns, I hope.

any sort of rational understanding is not allowed either, as you pointed out in the last thread. God, in any form, is disallowed, or minimized as fully replaceable by scientific terms. Right?

Nope. Other concepts of God are allowed. They're just not really useful unless they're backed up by evidence.

Then I will fail. That's not God. You win. That God doesn't exist. I don't believe in that God however.

You do. Whatever it is you believe in, define it in some way and give evidence. If you can't, then whatever it is you believe in isn't useful when talking about reality.

Here's the criteria I will set for you for your experiment.

1. Get rid of any idea you have about God. All of them. Including the one your thinking of right now. And that one. And that one too.

2. Go sit on a meditation cushion and still your thoughts. Do this until you actually do. It may take a lot of practice, and it may result in a lot of frustration for you. But keep at it until you can successfully perform the experiment.

3. Now that you can do this after training and disciplining your mind, enter deeply into that silence. Do this until you are completely quite in body and mind.

4. Keep going, deeper, and deeper still.

5. What is arising to you? Don't try to analyze it. Just observe it. Take in what ever arises and let it pass through you.

6. Empty yourself into this. Continue to do this everyday.

7. Come back and describe what that using whatever words you can find.

8. Examine your previous thoughts in light of what you have encountered.

9. Come and discuss them with other researchers perform similar experiments.

In other words, your God is whatever state you enter during meditation. That's fine, but I don't find it useful to call that God. That only makes the whole topic more confusing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Regarding the bold part:

If you read my comments here, you'd realize that's not what an atheist does. Generally atheists only reject the personal theistic god. That's why it gets confusing. Obviously we don't reject the universe, which is what pantheists believe to be God.

As for the rest, I don't know what it has to do with anything I said.

Please stop talking in generalities about atheists. The views you express tend not to apply to me - an atheist- and, IMO, create a false impression.

It would be better if you just spoke for yourselves and not for others. What you're saying about atheists is not representative of the beliefs of many atheists.

 

[raw_thought]

I am an agnostic. I debate everyone, theists and non-theists! To not care about the big issues IMHO shows a silly mundane personality. I believe in Adversarial system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It is the best route to the truth. The judge in a debate about the big issues is logic.
I love having my provisional positions proven wrong!
Theists that do not debate do not care about the fate of my soul * and so are therefore not spiritual. Jehovah Witness and Mormons knock on my door. I let them in! After an hour of A List Of Biblical Contradictions they want to leave without giving answers. As they leave I say please come back!
* I am not saying the soul exists. I am saying that if one does believe in a soul and does not try to save another person's soul one is uncaring in the extreme, considering that ( in their belief system) that means eternal torture at worst and the denial of real happiness at best.

 

[raw_thought]

OK, factual means of or pertaining to facts. Facts are truths known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true, according to dictionary.com.



Yeah, no. It's unreliable. That's why eye-witness testimony is becoming less and less accepted in legal trials.



Cool, then just show me the tests, their results and the peer reviews of those results.



That's not an actual argument.



I'm sure there are, just as there are members here who understand literal interpretations of the Bible.



Correct. The evidence suggests the theistic god doesn't exist. I have effectively ruled it out, unless new evidence comes to light. No different from what you've done with leprechauns, I hope.



Nope. Other concepts of God are allowed. They're just not really useful unless they're backed up by evidence.



You do. Whatever it is you believe in, define it in some way and give evidence. If you can't, then whatever it is you believe in isn't useful when talking about reality.



In other words, your God is whatever state you enter during meditation. That's fine, but I don't find it useful to call that God. That only makes the whole topic more confusing.

God is ineffable, in other words undefined. Definitions when applied to God is idolatry. I am investigating other routes to knowledge ( mysticism, not bending spoons etc, but the direct understanding of God without the intermediary of concepts, symbols etc) because the The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) * is bankrupt and necessary for our usual understanding of verification. We need another system of verification!
* See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/164132-truth-real-thing-2.html#post3803713 post 15

 

[Windwalker]

Nope. I'm saying atheism is useful in indicating not being a theist.

Why is that important if you are dealing with a religion that is rational? Why the need to say you're not them? Do you view them as threatening or something?

Criteria for evidence would be making verifiable claims about your god and having them tested and shown to be true.

Such as.....? Say, let's do an experiment. Do you experience love for your partner, or mother or father if you lack a partner? Can you have someone test and show this to be true? How?

I'm not even sure how you got that out of what I said.

I thought I explained that. You said, "showing something that indicates a need for your god". A "need" in what way? To explain something existing in the natural world? To explain gravity, or something? What exactly to you mean by this statement, "something that indicates a need for your god"?

No. I'm saying whatever your claims about God are, if they're not supported by evidence, then they're useless to me.

Then once again, you misuse and misunderstand what myth actually is. My views of God are not mythological. But your's clearly are. You think God is defining by the Noah's Ark story, or something like that.

Where is your evidence for love? Is that a myth?

If you believe the universe is God, or that God is the universe plus more, more power to you, but I don't find that useful unless there's some good reason to believe it.

You are absolutely right. It is not useful from a scientific inquiry point of view. But is that all you do in life, pretend to be Mr. Spock? If not, then it actually may be useful to you in the other non-rational parts of your existence as a living human being.

Actually that's not a difference at all.

From my perspective it's a big a difference as the moon is from a tree. But that you can't see that, is simply because you have no frame of reference to work from. It's all conceptual to you. Reality is completely the models you've created in your mind which you spend your time thinking about. That's not how I see the world. I see those for what they are - concepts, not reality.

This works better if you actually try to understand what I'm saying.

Most people take the concept of God literally, as you do,

Now, I think you need to understand better what I'm saying. "As you do"? I do not take the concept of God literally. You apparently haven't been reading my words and trying to understand them, but rather just make snap judgments and knee-jerk reactions and thing you have me "all figured out". On a scale of 1-100, you score zero at this point. Shall we try again?

A literal concept of God gets it wrong.

Then what is the "right" concept of God according to you? What is a more rationally compatible way of conceptualizing God? Do you know? (And I don't mean saying God doesn't exist because Noah's Ark is shown to by non-factual).

Myth isn't about literalism; it's about lessons through metaphors. Myth is not factual, and it's not supposed to be. I reject it as such, but embrace it as metaphor meant to teach lessons.

Excellent!!! Now we're getting somewhere! What does the mythology of God point to? Please tell me? And don't say it's simply nothing more than guessing at the natural world because humanity lacked modern science. I'll spit out that explanation like so much Ayn Rand.

 

[Windwalker]

OK, factual means of or pertaining to facts. Facts are truths known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true, according to dictionary.com.

Bingo! You were saying what about experience is invalid?

Yeah, no. It's unreliable. That's why eye-witness testimony is becoming less and less accepted in legal trials.

That's memory you're talking about in this citation. But let's get back to this whole self-dissociation I brought up of not trusting your subjectivity, of dismissing it, of burying it, hiding from it by looking to Science as the Word of God, in effect as something outside yourself because you lack any self-knowledge you feel you can "trust". "Know thyself" is considered the highest attainment of our humanness. To be a self-actualized individual is utterly impossible if you don't learn to trust yourself. It's it to live in a tragic disassociation. Never knowing yourself because of self-distrust.

Cool, then just show me the tests, their results and the peer reviews of those results.

Talk to mystics. They will tell you the same things. Don't incorrectly talk to lab scientists. That's the wrong domain. You no more ask a scientist to use science to make pronouncements about God than you would ask to use science to make pronouncements on Shakespeare's Hamlet.

I'm sure there are, just as there are members here who understand literal interpretations of the Bible.

You said my philosophical views are "nonsense". If they were, no one would understand them. You simply lack exposure to these. Don't be such a rude partner in discussion if you lack understanding. Own it. Ask for clarification, rather than trying to say I speak nonsense, which I don't.

BTW, the philosophical ground I'm speaking from, since you are unaware of it, is Integral Philosophy and Integral Theory. Calling it "nonsense" is nonsense.

Correct. The evidence suggests the theistic god doesn't exist. I have effectively ruled it out, unless new evidence comes to light. No different from what you've done with leprechauns, I hope.

The evidence suggests it how? Please explain in detail and specifics. I want to hear this evidence. We all do.

Nope. Other concepts of God are allowed. They're just not really useful unless they're backed up by evidence.

They are backed up by evidence. But what do you consider evidence? Once again, I ask, and will continue to until you actually make a specific set of criteria of evidence that everyone can agree on are valid parameters. We have to start there, rather than you just repeating non-fact as fact.

You do. Whatever it is you believe in, define it in some way and give evidence. If you can't, then whatever it is you believe in isn't useful when talking about reality.

God is a word we use to describe Ultimate Reality. It doesn't need to be "God". It can be Buddha Nature, Emptiness, the Void, OM, Love, Oneness, etc. But these are NOT scientific areas of inquiry, so to say "where's your evidence" as some sort of Mantra of the religion of Scientism, is foolish. Science does not deal with the Absolute. It deals with the relative.

You want evidence for the Absolute? You are. But how to you encounter and know that Absolute, or God? That is the single question you are not asking. Why?

In other words, your God is whatever state you enter during meditation. That's fine, but I don't find it useful to call that God. That only makes the whole topic more confusing.

No, I did not say that nor do I believe that. Those states expose the nature of the Absolute, but are not the Absolute itself.

So, once again, how do you define God?

 

[Magic Man]

Please stop talking in generalities about atheists. The views you express tend not to apply to me - an atheist- and, IMO, create a false impression.

It would be better if you just spoke for yourselves and not for others. What you're saying about atheists is not representative of the beliefs of many atheists.

So you reject all forms of God, rather than just the common personal god concepts? If so, I'd be interested to hear why. But even if that's the case, it's not the case for atheists in general. For the most part, atheism is only a reaction to the common personal god concepts. That's why I use the term "generally". It leaves open the possibility that some atheists go further, but indicates what is the case for most of the group.

 

[Magic Man]

God is ineffable, in other words undefined.

Most versions of God are defined. If it's not defined and in fact ineffable, it's not a very useful concept.

 

[Magic Man]

Why is that important if you are dealing with a religion that is rational? Why the need to say you're not them? Do you view them as threatening or something?

There is no real need right now. As I said, there could be a need if that religion was the dominant one.

Such as.....? Say, let's do an experiment. Do you experience love for your partner, or mother or father if you lack a partner? Can you have someone test and show this to be true? How?

1) You can test it and see that there is something going on in the brain.

2) If your god is just an experience, then I suggest "God" is not the best label for it.

I thought I explained that. You said, "showing something that indicates a need for your god". A "need" in what way? To explain something existing in the natural world? To explain gravity, or something? What exactly to you mean by this statement, "something that indicates a need for your god"?

As in, whatever it is that exists or happens in the world would require your god to exist. If your god didn't exist, that thing or experience wouldn't exist, or the universe wouldn't exist as it is.

Then once again, you misuse and misunderstand what myth actually is. My views of God are not mythological. But your's clearly are. You think God is defining by the Noah's Ark story, or something like that.

Clearly I'm not the one here who misunderstands myth.

From my perspective it's a big a difference as the moon is from a tree.

Then that's a pretty crazy and unhelpful perspective.

 

[Magic Man]

Bingo! You were saying what about experience is invalid?

Yup, personal experience is invalid for reasonably proving something is more than just what you subjectively perceived. Notice how it doesn't say "personal". What it's saying is that it's something that is observed and experienced by everyone and anyone.

I'm going to cut to the chase with the rest of this. Apparently your definition of God is an experience you can have when meditating. That's fine, but it's a hugely different concept from an actual being who created and controls the universe. It's so different that I don't think using the same term for both things is very helpful for communication.

Also, some or even a lot of atheists do meditation and might have an experience similar to yours. They might still consider themselves atheists, though, because they don't see any value in labeling that experience "God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you reject all forms of God, rather than just the common personal god concepts? If so, I'd be interested to hear why.

I don't "reject" most god-concepts. There are only a few that I reject outright; for most, I just don't accept the arguments given for them.

In some cases (e.g. most personal gods), I don't accept a god-concept because I don't believe in the concept described. In others (e.g. sun-worship, pantheism), I don't accept the god-concept because I even though I believe in the thing being described, I don't believe that it can reasonably be called a "god".

But even if that's the case, it's not the case for atheists in general. For the most part, atheism is only a reaction to the common personal god concepts. That's why I use the term "generally". It leaves open the possibility that some atheists go further, but indicates what is the case for most of the group.

But it's not the case for most of the group. Not in my experience, anyhow.

In any case, when you say "atheists generally do this" or "atheists generally believe that", you're speaking for me and I wish you wouldn't.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't "reject" most god-concepts. There are only a few that I reject outright; for most, I just don't accept the arguments given for them.

In some cases (e.g. most personal gods), I don't accept a god-concept because I don't believe in the concept described. In others (e.g. sun-worship, pantheism), I don't accept the god-concept because I even though I believe in the thing being described, I don't believe that it can reasonably be called a "god".

I'm confused. This is all I've been saying atheists generally do.

But it's not the case for most of the group. Not in my experience, anyhow.

In any case, when you say "atheists generally do this" or "atheists generally believe that", you're speaking for me and I wish you wouldn't.

Really? I find that what you described above is the case for the majority of the group. I'm surprised you've had a different experience.

I don't think I'm speaking for you, though. I'm just speaking for the majority of atheists, which is why I don't say "all atheists" or just "atheists". However, as I said above, what you described as your stance is what I've been attributing to the group of atheists in general, anyway.

 

[Windwalker]

There is no real need right now. As I said, there could be a need if that religion was the dominant one.

So, as I said. IF the dominant religion is rational, you will feel some need to say "That's not me!"? Why?

1) You can test it and see that there is something going on in the brain.

And you can't when someone claims to be experiencing God? Umm, yes you can. So what's the difference?

2) If your god is just an experience, then I suggest "God" is not the best label for it.

"Just an experience". Everything that enters into your awareness whatsoever, is an experience. Your thoughts and ideas are experiences. Your emotions are experiences. Your bodily sensations are experiences. What else do you propose? Help me out here. :help:

As in, whatever it is that exists or happens in the world would require your god to exist. If your god didn't exist, that thing or experience wouldn't exist, or the universe wouldn't exist as it is.

Oh, okay. The material world is a manifestation of God. It functions according to the laws of nature science investigates in physics. Life emerges following evolutionary processes. Do you wish for proof that nature exists? Again, that is not a scientific view, nor does it need to be.

Clearly I'm not the one here who misunderstands myth.

I fully understand myth and it's a candystick topic for me. What I'm saying, is you are not applying it to this area, and are guilty of taking myth literally in your rejection of the God of the Bible. You have not answered my questions directly put to you, but instead are tying to make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about. Can you answers my questions, or not?

Then that's a pretty crazy and unhelpful perspective.

Because you don't understand.... it's therefore crazy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm confused. This is all I've been saying atheists generally do.

No, it hasn't been. Maybe there's a disconnect between the message you intend and your actual words, but I see significant differences between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

As I pointed out - and as you ignored - I don't *reject* very many gods at all.

Really? I find that what you described above is the case for the majority of the group. I'm surprised you've had a different experience.

You know many pantheist atheists?

I don't think I'm speaking for you, though. I'm just speaking for the majority of atheists, which is why I don't say "all atheists" or just "atheists". However, as I said above, what you described as your stance is what I've been attributing to the group of atheists in general, anyway.

Again: no, it isn't. And "generally" doesn't just refer to a simple majority; it implies something that's so common that it would be rare to find an atheist who disagrees.

 

[Windwalker]

Yup, personal experience is invalid for reasonably proving something is more than just what you subjectively perceived.

Wait, you just cited how personal experience is valid, and now it's not? To quote you:

OK, factual means of or pertaining to facts. Facts are truths known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true, according to dictionary.com.

Here you are now saying, "Yup, personal experience is invalid" right after you just sited, "factual means... truths known by actual experience". Me smells a rat! :no: You can't have it one way when it suits you, then flip it around and deny it when it doesn't.

Notice how it doesn't say "personal". What it's saying is that it's something that is observed and experienced by everyone and anyone.

OMG! You've got to be kidding me? It doesn't say personal? It doesn't what you completely fabricated and jammed in there to suit your argument. "Actual experience" is personal experience. It means you actually, not theoretically, not hypothetically, but actually, personally experience something. It's not someone else's experience. It says nothing about others in there.

And it says "actual experience" OR, note OR, observation. But now, you say it must be based on observation? OK. Once again, what is your critera of what one should observe to see God? Please, if you're going to be scientific about this, that please do so. What should you expect to see?

If you cannot answer this, you're entire "show me evidence" is a complete smokescreen.

I'm going to cut to the chase with the rest of this. Apparently your definition of God is an experience you can have when meditating.

Nope. I'm saying that you are exposed to the transcendent while meditating. I don't have any definitions of that which is transcendent. It is also fully immanent. It is also nothing. It is also everything. I'm saying that your ordinary consciousness of what you perceive to be "reality" is shown to be partial in the extreme, an illusion is a better term. If anything I'd 'define" God is, is *real* Reality.

One can know this even in the mundane, if you're eyes are open.

That's fine, but it's a hugely different concept from an actual being who created and controls the universe. It's so different that I don't think using the same term for both things is very helpful for communication.

All comes forth from God. I don't know. Is that really different when you strip away the trappings of mythologies of a 6 day creation, man created by spit and dirt, woman from a rib, etc? Isn't the underlying message that the world comes forth from God?

Isn't the mythic image of God that of the Absolute or the Ultimate? Isn't this the same in all views of what people call God? It doesn't have to be called God, as I said before, but God is a better word than just saying its reality as defined and understood by science. Those are not adequate terms. It's not replaceable by scientific language. Nor does science even begin to address concerns of this magnitude. Tillich best described God as "That which is of ultimate concern".

Also, some or even a lot of atheists do meditation and might have an experience similar to yours. They might still consider themselves atheists, though, because they don't see any value in labeling that experience "God".

This is true. I never said you "have" to call it God. But it is a language that works well for many, and is useful especially in the practice of deity mysticism (a symbolic archetypal practice, not literal mythic dogma). I'm saying that to simply say it's renaming the scientific or the mundane is inadequate. God can be understood beyond myth. I'm certainly evidence of that!

 

[Magic Man]

No, it hasn't been. Maybe there's a disconnect between the message you intend and your actual words, but I see significant differences between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

As I pointed out - and as you ignored - I don't *reject* very many gods at all.

Here is what I said that you first responded to:

Generally atheists only reject the personal theistic god. That's why it gets confusing. Obviously we don't reject the universe, which is what pantheists believe to be God.

Here is what you said in your explanation of your position:

I don't "reject" most god-concepts. There are only a few that I reject outright; for most, I just don't accept the arguments given for them. In some cases (e.g. most personal gods), I don't accept a god-concept because I don't believe in the concept described. In others (e.g. sun-worship, pantheism), I don't accept the god-concept because I even though I believe in the thing being described, I don't believe that it can reasonably be called a "god".

Can you explain what the differences are? I said atheists generally only reject the personal theistic god (like Yahweh). You said there are only a few god-concepts you reject outright. You don't accept other god-concepts because either you don't believe the being exists or because you don't believe it can reasonably be called "god". I've said atheists generally don't reject those other god-concepts; they just may not agree with calling them god. That's why I used the example of the universe. Atheists don't reject the universe, we just reject calling it "god".