You say that there is a god...

[F1fan]

Did I say they believe? I recall saying they have gods, and they serve them.

To say someone has a god is odd wording, as if they have a pet god. Gods aren’t known to exist. People believe they exist for various reasons but not due to a sound conclusion via evidence. Atheists don’t have gods. They don’t serve any gods. I’m not sure why you keep pursuing this thought.

Because they don't know what a god is, they would never know.

So atheists have gods but don’t know what they are? That’s your claim? Where’s the evidence? You offer nothing but this absurd claim.

And neither would you. Not believing in it is serving it. Void is counter-intuitive. Believing in it appears to be non-belief. It is the extreme opposite of God. The rules are very different at the extremes. Which is why the cartoon versions that are considered by atheists produce so many false understandings.

I’m not convinced your beliefs about this is correct. You are mistaken about too many things as has bee Pointed out to you. Your arrogance and contempt for others is your weakness.

 

[F1fan]

If that is actually so, then you have just stated a fact, So what? It seems that there could be a hidden assumption, that that is bad. Is that what you are going for?

So what? It would be better for the faithful to be self-aware and honest to acknowledge their beliefs are completely dependent on these assumptions. Critical thinkers know better.

I have no problem with believers wanting to believe what they want. Knock yourselves out. But when they chime in on an open debate forum then they need to be better at understanding their thinking and claims.

 

[F1fan]

No it doesn't, and no I didn't. I didn't convince myself of anything. Convincing implies doubt. I never had any doubts. It's a matter of personal feeling and belief. Too much is overthought and overanalyzed.

So without doubt how can you be sure what you accept as truth is true, and not some ideology that others want you to believe? Your explanation implies gullibility.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what? It would be better for the faithful to be self-aware and honest to acknowledge their beliefs are completely dependent on these assumptions. Critical thinkers know better.

I have no problem with believers wanting to believe what they want. Knock yourselves out. But when they chime in on an open debate forum then they need to be better at understanding their thinking and claims.

Yes, now what is your evidence that critical thinkers know better?

 

[F1fan]

Yes, now what is your evidence that critical thinkers know better?

Because they follow evidence. Critical thinkers show their work. It is evidence that determines whether ideas are true, or likely true. Without adequate evidence claims and ideas are not credible.

Theists want to think their religion is true but can’t rely on reason to justify believing. This is observable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because they follow evidence. Critical thinkers show their work. It is evidence that determines whether ideas are true, or likely true. Without adequate evidence claims and ideas are not credible.

Theists want to think their religion is true but can’t rely on reason to justify believing. This is observable.

Yeah, that is based on internal cognition in you.
Now if you could explain how you experince better in terms of sight, touch, sound, smell and taste, I would listen to you. But your text is about how you think as per norms and evaluate following norms or not.
Those 2 bold ones are about norms and subjective evaluation.

 

[ppp]

No, notice I said if.

You understand that if is the framing for a hypothetical, right?

I ask the same question of Christians who argue so vehemently that their God exists... whom are you trying to convince, me or yourself?

That is just a passive agressive insinuation about motive framed as a question to imply false or unexamined intent. It might be an effective zinge against some people, but in reality you do not have access to the inner workings of their mind, nor acumen to warrant the question.

But if you asked me to convince you, or make a case why I believe in a God I would walk away.

That's fair.

I'm not under any obligation to do so.

I agree.

Moreover, Hindus don't proselytize.

Well, Hindus proselytize their own children. (Edited for clarity)

We don't care who or what you believe in , or don't.

Externally. Internally, y'all have an interesting interplay of religion, caste and secularism. Hindutva. BJP.

 

[metis]

Except for your children.

Generally speaking, Hindus are not encouraged to proselytize.

 

[ppp]

Generally speaking, Hindus are not encouraged to proselytize.

I don't see how that contradicts what I just said. Or am I missing your point?

 

[metis]

I don't see how that contradicts what I just said. Or am I missing your point?

You were reacting to J's post: Moreover, Hindus don't proselytize.

 

[ppp]

You were reacting to J's post: Moreover, Hindus don't proselytize.

Except for their children. If they did not try to bring their children in to their beliefs, then there would be no more Hindus. If there was not significant cultural pressure to remain religious, there would be fewer Hindus.

 

[metis]

Except for their children. If they did not try to bring their children in to their beliefs, then there would be no more Hindus. If there was not significant cultural pressure to remain religious, there would be fewer Hindus.

I thought you were referring to the children of non-Hindus.

 

[ppp]

I thought you were referring to the children of non-Hindus.

I edited the post to increase clarity.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, that is based on internal cognition in you.
Now if you could explain how you experince better in terms of sight, touch, sound, smell and taste, I would listen to you.

This strikes me as an excuse to ignore my arguments. First I never claimed better senses so that is an invented problem. Second you don’t listen anyway. You’re in no position to reject critical thought when your thinking process is extreme skepticism of reasoning and knowing, but you believe in some sort of god that seems to be your own invention. I don’t notice you challenging believers of other gods. That suggests a gripe with atheists and bias.

But your text is about how you think as per norms and evaluate following norms or not

Feel free to criticize the use of norms. And then offer a better option.

Those 2 bold ones are about norms and subjective evaluation.

As if your approach is superior. You complain when your way of thinking is challenged.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This strikes me as an excuse to ignore my arguments. First I never claimed better senses so that is an invented problem. Second you don’t listen anyway. You’re in no position to reject critical thought when your thinking process is extreme skepticism of reasoning and knowing, but you believe in some sort of god that seems to be your own invention. I don’t notice you challenging believers of other gods. That suggests a gripe with atheists and bias.

Feel free to criticize the use of norms. And then offer a better option.

As if your approach is superior. You complain when your way of thinking is challenged.

I will in general challenge any claim of morality as per claimed to objective. As for challenging other religions, I will do that if I do that.
So if critical thinkers know better, but you can give no objective evidence as per observation as per external sensory experince as per the 5 external senses, then I will, unless you do give evidence, conclude that your claim is a subjective belief without objective evidence.

Now to clear it up. I have never seen any evidence for what objective reality is in itself and that includes gods, but not just gods.
But in practice it is never really about gods or no gods. It is about morality. How we ought to live our lives and for the part for gods, you know better than believers in gods. So then I would like objective evidence. You do know what objective evidence means, don't you? You demand it of others, so give objective evidence for the fact, that critical thinkers know better.

 

[wellwisher]

Subjectivity can also be objective. For example, my taste in food, may not be the same as yours. This difference between people is often called subjective food preferences. However, I am objective to my unique taste in food, based on how my body reacts with joy, when I eat certain things. There is internal cause and affect based on a very consistent testing method. There can be internal objectivity to what appear to be one's own subjective beliefs.

Objectivity in terms of science is based everyone agreeing on something through verification. This limits science to what comes into our brain via the five senses. Full objectivity also includes objectivity to your internal reactionary data; how the sensory data impacts you inside.

In Psychotherapy, the Psychologist will attempt to make the patient objective to their feelings, especially if these feeling are obsessive, depressive, and not fully rational. You can still observe these from the inside, like any other subject of an experiment. Religion and faith in God is connected to internal observation, more than external observation, although external data can come from those who walk the walk.

The philosophy of science does allow one to become fully objective to one's subjectivity, since this type of internal objectivity, cannot be verified by others. It is too easy to lie to yourself and others. Nobody can climb into your skin and brain and make sure your observations and analysis are correct. Religion allows that door to open; made unique by our faith, with many people with similar internal disposition, sharing similar data, so there is more in the way of group objectivity to subjective things like the divine.

An interesting affect comes from art. Good art can make you feel something, whether good or bad. If one wanted to become an internally objective scientist, starting with art, you would first have to recognized being moved by some art, and then observe where this takes you internally. The data ripple could be composed of feelings, sensations, it can trigger active imagination; day dreams, and even memory recall, containing parallel symbolism.

Internal Objective science, is actually the most exacting of all sciences, since you don't have the herd to prop you up, but need to do this on your own, in the laboratory of your own brain and inner world. At the same time, you do not get paid or get credit for hard work. This is why it takes a certain type of person, whose reward is the journey itself; get glimpses of the divine in all of us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh Lord, these children, so childish! When are these atheists and their bots going to learn that likes add or rest nothing to truth?

Instruct us, o wise one, but be sure that your opinion isn't just sour grapes. You don't get a lot of affirmation or validation here from other theists, and I presume that you get none from the rest of us, although I threw you a bone with a like for "Deleted for repetition."

Internal Objective science, is actually the most exacting of all sciences, since you don't have the herd to prop you up, but need to do this on your own, in the laboratory of your own brain and inner world. At the same time, you do not get paid or get credit for hard work. This is why it takes a certain type of person, whose reward is the journey itself; get glimpses of the divine in all of us.

The faithful have the herd reinforcing their belief that they experience God when they have spiritual experiences. I did. I was encouraged to believe that that was experiencing the Holy Spirit. It wasn't, but I had to discover that myself. Beside my direct, first-hand experience, my evidence included the reports of the experiences of others, including both the reports of other former believers no longer making that claim and those of present believers who still do. Who here is having trouble understanding what that says about the psychology and epistemology of atheistic and theistic belief.

I can positively ID the god reponsible for the "enlightenment" you seem to idolize.

I don't believe you. As I've explained, you are likely misinterpreting your mental state when you say that you are experiencing a god. If no god exists, you definitely are. As you know, I know this because it happened to me when I was a faith-based thinker.

your poor brain seems to be unable to attach, establish coherence, between the various [god] concepts. Personally I think it's a self imposed limitation.

The tri-omni god concept is incoherent. The concept of the supernatural is incoherent. The concepts of existing outside of time is incoherent. I'd be happy to make each of those arguments if you're interested.

The rejection of incoherent claims is the kind of self-imposed limitation all should covet for themselves if they aren't already trained in critical thinking.

not being able to fathom that you are wrong about this, is shameful, and a little ironic, because you've just defined a god hich is your "self"

Why should he consider himself wrong? Because you disagree with him? Sorry, dybmh (what does dybmh mean to you?), but you are not the measure of who is right and wrong outside of your own head. I've told you that I find your thinking is chaotic. The way you transform ideas unwittingly makes the way you process information invalid and your conclusions unsound. This undermines your credibility with me.

your argument that "if their God exists they would be more like me" fails

Here's a nice example. We can be sure that he didn't say that, but rather, something that morphed into that during processing in your mind.

If the Atheists all ignore everything that challenges them, then the likes become worthless and the conversation is nothing but an echo-chamber.

Like many other ineffective thinkers, you understand your inability to convince others a defect in your audience. Rejecting effete arguments is not ignoring them until they're rejected.

The ignore feature at first glance seems like a victory, but it's actually a retreat. The person has muted themself. And it shows they are just on the hunt for a weak victim, but cannot tolerate anything that challenges their postion.

Are you aware that when you ignore a poster, it's his posts that are hidden from you and not yours hidden from him?

And it is literally meaningless if none of you can stand up to real opposition

You flatter yourself. I have about 4-6 people on ignore. None are "real opposition." Nor are you, but your opinions are helpful, although not in the way you intend. I know that you have an interest in statistics, data sets, sample sizes, and the like, so this from an earlier post should be of interest to you. This is data analysis:

"This is atheistic humanist school for me. It's where I learn what others like me think and where we share ideas with one another. It's where I read what the scientists and the scientifically sophisticated posting here have to say about the science in their fields. We can call that the lecture section. But it's also where I see the distribution of religious types by denomination. This is the lab section. And this broad view helps me understand the effect faith and religious teaching has on minds, the atheistic humanists serving as the control group. I've come to understand that I have much in common with theistic humanists and polytheists like the Dharmics and pagans."

If you'd like to know the results of my investigations thus far, read the two paragraphs following the one cited above here.

The screenshot does not lie. I paraphrased correctly you said it was close enough.

Yes, I did say that. Did you understand "close enough" to mean that you were correct? It means that you changed it, but that the change wasn't important to state explicitly for the purpose at hand.

CONT.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

here you are complaining about not holding a concept in mind, and changing things, while simultaneously not holding what I said and changing it, you are reaffirming that absolute hypocrisy that inevitably leaks out of your posts.

Although you are likely sincere in expressing that belief, what I see is you projecting your cognitive defect onto me. As your own memories transform, you understand it as others changing their positions instead. Why? Because your opinions can be demonstrated to be evolving unknown to you. Would you like me to demonstrate that for you and the thread? If so, I will quote and link my comment, your first transformation of it - the "close enough" version - followed by your second transformation when you changed it again. It's very easy to do. Would that help you or embarrass you?

You can't do the same in return. If you could, you could be quoting me and linking, too, but you don't. You refuse to even when specifically asked to. In fact, it gets worse below when you start putting your unlinked straw man comments in quotes, also coming right up.

Every argument you've made undermines your claim that "You know what's happening with everyone's spiritual experiences because You know yourself."

You're still transforming the thoughts of others into other words that no longer reflect those thoughts with fidelity. And now you've put your words into quotes as if I said them. "I don't believe you," my position in a nutshell, is not the same as what you posted there. Incidentally, I retract my request that you quote me. Just give me the links to my words or nothing. Without the links, I wouldn't believe you got it right.

If I use your own metrics for why YOU are qualified to give advice, and why YOU consider your self a good thinker. I meet or exceed you in each and every catagory. You have no clue how unbelievably successful I am in my life. All of it earned. I accomplished all of it and had children, increasing the difficulty tremendously. And I didn't jump ship to Mexico so that my dollars could be stretched to support early retirement. I maintained a marriage. I adapted, I overcame obstacles you are completely unaware of. I suffered probably more than you can imagine. And I rose above all of it. There were times I would eat 1 meal a day so I could stay in college without accruing debt. Did you do that?

"I meet or exceed you in each and every catagory." Not in spelling, but congratulations on overcoming adversity. Now it seems you want to demean me for not raising children and expatriating upon retirement.

I also pulled my own weight. We were lower middle class, and my mother was single through much of it. We were latch-key kids.

Having children isn't difficult, and it's a bad idea if you don't really like being around them. Our lives were better without them. We travelled the world for decades, saw 100s of concerts often flying to the venues for hotel, restaurant, and concerts weekends, and collected art. My wife and I are experienced musicians who performed for years on weekends at coffee houses and restaurants. We went out for dinner every night. Say goodbye to all of that and hello to braces, college trust funds, and soccer practice if you add kids to the mix. That may give your life joy and purpose, but I liked the one we made for ourselves better.

And you're wrong about why we are in Mexico. It's not about money. We rejected American life and its apparent trajectory long ago. We began making plans to emigrate during the first Bush term. We chose Mexico because it's a happy, beautiful place and an optimistic culture whose lives are getting better even as American life and opportunity continue to wither. The low cost of living was a bonus, but more for our heirs whoever they might be than us. I'm not surrounded by enemies who want to "own" me. Religion has not been weaponized here. We are not being shot in theaters and churches. The country isn't conflicted.

And anyone who is aware of what your avatar means, and then reads your description of your so-called religious experience, which you still partake in *wink-wink*, will recognize immediately the high probablity that you are under the influence *wink-wink* that a marijuana experience = a religious experience.

You must know how amusing this is to read, but you post it anyway. I assume that you know next to nothing about the Grateful Dead or Grateful Dead culture, nor about marijuana. That should give you pause before posting publicly to those who do. You're at great risk of embarrassing yourself.

This is an audio-only recording of my wife and I covering China Cat Sunflower and I Know You Rider - classic Dead 1-2. Listen to her crunching and improvising on bass. We were a jam band. I'm playing lead guitar and singing. I hope you enjoy it:

I am in conflict with the others because they are exposing their own hypocrisy, ignorance and arrogance.

Your emotions are your responsibility. Nobody else in this thread is in conflict with anybody but you. That's another way we can use statistics to arrive at reasonable conclusions. You're the common denominator.

Well, you did. But you phased as a "well what would you do if you were me?"

I asked you to produce the quote and context. You didn't. Claim rejected pending evidence that this isn't your faulty processing of information again. Shouldn't you have known that and answered differently? Critical thinkers require evidence before belief. The evidence here is that you're probably wrong.

That's exactly what I said.

I still don't believe you.

I don't believe in spirits. You don't speak the language, so you cannot interpret what it means. Of course I'm a theist.

If you're a theist, then you believe in spirits. And yes, I can interpret your words. You apparently don't like your god being called a spirit. OK. I find the term apt. It's a disembodied mind, like an angel or a ghost. Spirit was originally associated with the breath of life, the dogma being that this spirit entered your body and caused you to start breathing until it left again and returned to be with the other spirits or entered another body in the case of demons or muses. And it's why so many theists call themselves (but not unbelievers) spiritual. And it's closely related to why when people misunderstand their inner experiences, they see a god as I once did. But it's time for the spiritual atheist to reclaim the term. Spirituality has nothing to do with spirits, and there is nothing spiritual about believing in spirits.

 

[dybmh]

To say someone has a god is odd wording, as if they have a pet god.

Hee. That's not what I said. I said they have a god and they (the atheists) serve them (the gods) .

Gods aren’t known to exist. People believe they exist for various reasons but not due to a sound conclusion via evidence. Atheists don’t have gods. They don’t serve any gods. I’m not sure why you keep pursuing this thought.

You don't know what gods are. I have given my definition, and you seem to be unaware of it, or ignoring it. Naturally if you're an atheist you can choose any defintion you like forcing your own preconceived conclusion. Atheists definitely have gods. And they serve at least one.

So atheists have gods but don’t know what they are? That’s your claim? Where’s the evidence? You offer nothing but this absurd claim.

The evidence is in this thread. Their god is void. It is what inspires creates and destroys belief and critical thinking. Anytime one of you lifts up critical thinking as an ideal you are serving the atheist-god. It's the same god you serve when promoting buddhist enlightnement. Hindu enlightment is more complex. I cannot comment on it.

Also, that none of you rose up in opposition to @Audie's outrageous support for China's invasion of tibet, an unarmed nation is the some of the strongest evidence I have seen for the atheist-god. That is worse than evil, At least I can point to her post and say, that's worst of the worst evil. Everyone can see it, the bigotry, the injustice, the disregard for other humans based on the single fact that they're religious. Totally pure unfiltered evil coming from an atheist. But at least it is on display.

The rest of you, doing nothing, is worse than that. Because you can deny deny deny, "I didn't do nuthin". Yeah you did something. You were bowing to the void, and ignoring evil 'cause, that's what you all do. Serving your god is to ignore and deny.

I’m not convinced your beliefs about this is correct.

Oh boy. You're fully in science-denier mode.

First of all, anyone can easily be effected by things they don't believe in. Just because you don't believe in a god, doesn't mean it hasn't taken up residence inside you. You just wouldn't know it. You don't have to believe in gravity, but guess what, poof, you're still on the ground.

Second, you really need evidence that the rules are different at the extremes? The first example is a black hole. Space and time are completely different in it. But there's many examples. Math, physics chemistry, biology, statistics is a great example, also economics.

And if you really want evidence of your god, I know you won't believe me, but, it's between your keyboard and the chair. You. Your posting is different. You're becoming closer to your buddhist ideal. Although, it's from pride, but none the less you're wearing the costume. That's because, I inspired you, but I did it using your god which is void. But you didn't know that's what I was doing. It's beautiful. It's not just you either. The biggest change is @ppp. Totally different tone, opening up, told his story. God helped him through the void. Which is technically a false god, but, anyway. He doesn't even know it. Even @Audie is temporarily posting in a more polite and more reasonable manner.

I knew it would work. And it doesn't matter if you believe it. God worked in your lives. The thing is, no matter how much good God does for any atheist, it will never be evidence. You'll never appreciate it. No amount of positive working in your life will do it. It would take the opposite to prove it to you. It would take torture and misery and endless unbelievable pain. Anything good that's evidence just goes down into that bottomless pit. But you asked for evidence and I delivered. I don't care if any of you hate me. Not even little. I'm happy to see you get a little something from God.

You are mistaken about too many things as has bee Pointed out to you. Your arrogance and contempt for others is your weakness.

No one has brought any evidence that I am mistaken. And each time one of them like you, makes a bald assertion without backing it up, it is evidence that I'm right. Its not ciritical thinking unless it is applied equally towards your self and your own claims. If and when any of you act like gods in a debate, you are inviting critical evaluation of the god claim. Just like any theist.

But regarding contempt. There is nothing at all wrong with having contempt or even outright hatred for evil and its partner complicity (void). Nothing. If I see someone kicking a dog, then it's good and correct to have contempt for that. And, it is good and correct to have contempt and hatred for the people standing around watching that evil while doing nothing.

Regarding arrogance, there is nothing wrong with being certain about certain types of claims. For example:

Almost a third of Americans still believe the 2020 election result was fraudulent

There's no evidence widespread fraud affected the outcome of the 2020 election, but Trump and allies have spent years undercutting the election's legitimacy.

www.nbcnews.com

Are all those people wrong? I think they are. Every single one of them. Don't you agree? The reason we can make a sweeping all inclusive statement about it is, it's a very simple issue. Yes or no, no diversity at all. Super simple. Either it was stolen or not. If not, they'r eall wrong. It's the simplicity that makes the certainty completely matter of fact and not arrogant. It's the same with atheism. It is so brain-dead simple. There is nothing to it at all. Nothing. It barely exists. There is no diversity to it. It's not a belief; it's not a postition. There is nothing there. That's why I can make a huge sweeping statement about it it's not arrogant at all. It's just a simple fact.

On the other hand god-beliefs are very diverse, extremely diverse. That's why when you or the others over simplify, and make grandiose claims about all of us it is absurd and extremelt arrogant. Our god beliefs are the opposite of your nothing-atheism. When the atheist over simplifies it is very very wrong. But when one of us makes claim about atheism, it can be simple, it can be shallow, it can be all inclusive. Because there's nothing there to demand any kind of substance.

None of you believe in gods, you'd never know if you were serving one if it were the extreme opposite of God which would be void. And once a person's god is void all sorts of other malicious gods can operate in you completely undetected. Why do you think satanists buddy up with atheists?

What you're actually observing is not arrogance, it's simply truth. Inconvenient, unpleasant truth. And it's good for you to hear it every now again. I'm not at all concerned of you or the others like it or like me. I literally do not care about that one bit.

 

[dybmh]

I asked you to produce the quote and context.

You raised some good thought provoking comments. But we need to start with this. I have brought you quotes and context multiple times. So, before moving on, please, can you see the picture below?