Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[Tyrathca]

Martyrs are murdered for their convictions. They don't murder for them. An enormous difference. Yet overlooked by atheists.

Not overlooked, I am very aware of the horrible strategies employed by some Muslims in their crusade. But Islam (along with other religions big and small) has its fair share of those non-violent martyrs too. However that is irrelevant as your restriction on martyrdom is arbitrary and without explanation. If the key feature you think a martyr had to make their testimony believable isn't that they died for their belief then what is? Whatever it is I challenge you to show it is unique to your religion.

 

[PureX]

As I see it Jamie, human beings from all around the world, whether from isolated or large communities, typically have a perhaps innate dualistic desire to suppose in the existence of a higher power, and have accordingly all developed their own versions of religious belief. They will all of course want to believe that their own particular religious belief is superior to all the rest.

What is it, do you think, that all these humans are perceiving that causes them to conceptualize this 'higher power'? And why does the fact that they all conceptualize it in their own way cause you to then dismiss it?

Given that only one truth exists could any one of these beliefs be true?

The truth is 'what is', including what we believe it is. In that sense, all beliefs are true, or rather, are part of the truth.

The truth is that nearly all human beings perceive a 'spiritual realm' that seems to embody some kind of 'higher power'. It's also true that although we can somehow perceive it, we cannot clearly identify or articulate our perceptions of it. So that we can never be certain that this realm is "real" or just an illusion created by/in our own minds. One thing is for certain, and that is that the phenomena is real. And that in itself stands as evidence that can't be dismissed as an aberration without proof of it being an aberration. Any more than it can be accepted as 'objective reality' without there being proof of it being objectively real.

Personally however I rather doubt that any are (true).

So what is going on if the majority of religious belief, if not all, is so misplaced and false?

Your doubt is exactly as unfounded as the 'believer's' insistence that his conceptualization of "God" is the only accurate one. The phenomena of 'spirituality' exists. That is true. So your dismissing it is a dismissal of reality: of the truth of what is.

If, as I believe, we are evolved beings then just as we evolved arms and legs we have also evolved mental traits such as a tendency to unite around a common culture and spiritual belief.

This is almost certainly true, but that in no way invalidates the beliefs that evolved. ALL our perceptions and subsequent beliefs evolved as we evolved. "God" is no different.

None of it need be true of course from a Darwinian perspective, it only has to work better as a group than as individuals all doing their own thing.

Which neither validates nor invalidates the accuracy of any perception or belief.

So is your particular belief really any better than all the others?

"Better" relative to whom? We all judge the 'truthfulness' of our beliefs by their effectiveness in our lives. If 'God-belief' works for someone, how can you convince them that it's untrue? Why would you even want to?

It's not for others to argue against your Christian ideas or Christ, the onus is rather on you to demonstrably show your truth and not to just assert and preach it, as all the others do that we can both agree are false.

But you're trying to argue with/demand proof for a kind of conceptual Doppler Effect. The believer believes because believing 'works' for him. You don't believe because not believing 'works' for you. How can he convince you of something that you have already found to be untrue because it does not 'work' for you in your experience of life? And how can you possibly do likewise to him? You each "hear" the truth from a different relative perspective, and so the truth sounds different to you than it does to him.

 

[Jose Fly]

A loving relationship with the creator of the universe, and further unity with Him through His Prophet Mohammed. Is different than all religions. Saying Islam can't be true because others say theirs is true is no argument against Allah and His Prophet. You all can pretend you don't want and need His love, but you know that is not true. It is a need of all humans that no one can satisfy except Him.

Does that make anyone want to convert to Islam?

 

[alwight]

As I see it Jamie, human beings from all around the world, whether from isolated or large communities, typically have a perhaps innate dualistic desire to suppose in the existence of a higher power, and have accordingly all developed their own versions of religious belief. They will all of course want to believe that their own particular religious belief is superior to all the rest.

What is it, do you think, that all these humans are perceiving that causes them to conceptualize this 'higher power'? And why does the fact that they all conceptualize it in their own way cause you to then dismiss it?
The truth is 'what is', including what we believe it is. In that sense, all beliefs are true, or rather, are part of the truth.

Hi PX
I think I can reasonably thereby dismiss all human religious constructs as spurious and unlikely to match with the ultimate truth. I grant them with the equal status of being plain wrong, but I don't dismiss the possibility of a "higher power", I just don't pretend that I know exactly what it is.

Given that only one truth exists could any one of these beliefs be true?

The truth is that nearly all human beings perceive a 'spiritual realm' that seems to embody some kind of 'higher power'. It's also true that although we can somehow perceive it, we cannot clearly identify or articulate our perceptions of it. So that we can never be certain that this realm is "real" or just an illusion created by/in our own minds. One thing is for certain, and that is that the phenomena is real. And that in itself stands as evidence that can't be dismissed as an aberration without proof of it being an aberration. Any more than it can be accepted as 'objective reality' without there being proof of it being objectively real.

There are perhaps two main issues here. The first is whether a sense of a "higher power" has been correctly intuited by humans everywhere or not, or secondly do humans only feel that way because evolution has tricked them into a behaviour pattern that better suites the producing of offspring?
I don't know which, but I lean toward the latter since evolution doesn't care what actually is true it only has to work.

Personally however I rather doubt that any are (true).

So what is going on if the majority of religious belief, if not all, is so misplaced and false?

Your doubt is exactly as unfounded as the 'believer's' insistence that his conceptualization of "God" is the only accurate one. The phenomena of 'spirituality' exists. That is true. So your dismissing it is a dismissal of reality: of the truth of what is.

I don't need to doubt that most religious belief is wrong given that there is only one truth, so by the same token and without special evidence for any one then it must be reasonable to think that indeed all are baseless and wrong.

If, as I believe, we are evolved beings then just as we evolved arms and legs we have also evolved mental traits such as a tendency to unite around a common culture and spiritual belief.

This is almost certainly true, but that in no way invalidates the beliefs that evolved. ALL our perceptions and subsequent beliefs evolved as we evolved. "God" is no different.

I would suggest that beliefs are invalidated by not having demonstrable evidential support above other similar beliefs.

None of it need be true of course from a Darwinian perspective, it only has to work better as a group than as individuals all doing their own thing.

Which neither validates nor invalidates the accuracy of any perception or belief.

It wasn't meant to validate or invalidate anything, just a passing comment on the workings of Darwinian evolution.

So is your particular belief really any better than all the others?

"Better" relative to whom? We all judge the 'truthfulness' of our beliefs by their effectiveness in our lives. If 'God-belief' works for someone, how can you convince them that it's untrue? Why would you even want to?

"Better" than other religions at matching what is actually true. Why shouldn't I conclude that there is nothing to choose between them if they can't actually demonstrate any superiority?
This is after all a thread about being an atheist not trying to convince anyone that their particular religion should be ditched.

It's not for others to argue against your Christian ideas or Christ, the onus is rather on you to demonstrably show your truth and not to just assert and preach it, as all the others do that we can both agree are false.

But you're trying to argue with/demand proof for a kind of conceptual Doppler Effect. The believer believes because believing 'works' for him. You don't believe because not believing 'works' for you. How can he convince you of something that you have already found to be untrue because it does not 'work' for you in your experience of life? And how can you possibly do likewise to him? You each "hear" the truth from a different relative perspective, and so the truth sounds different to you than it does to him.

I'm simply saying that I will remain an atheist until something tangible convinces me otherwise, but if believers have nothing other than the preaching of empty assertions and platitudes then perhaps they should just believe away and keep it to themselves?

 

[PureX]

Hi PX
I think I can reasonably thereby dismiss all human religious constructs as spurious and unlikely to match with the ultimate truth. I grant them with the equal status of being plain wrong, but I don't dismiss the possibility of a "higher power", I just don't pretend that I know exactly what it is.

I still think you're being very loose and reckless with this idea of "truth". People developed those conceptual paradigms to give structure and cohesion and meaning to their experience of 'spirituality'. Just as they developed other aspects of their particular cultures relative to their particular experience of life in their time and place. Yet you don't just summarily dismiss the other aspects of their human culture, do you? I mean, the idea of money also developed the world over, and each culture developed their own unique version of that, too. But I don't see you dismissing the idea of money, or disrespecting their particular versions of it just because they are culturally unique. And if you did, I think it would be a grave error, as it would cause you to miss the deep and significant impact that idea has had on humanity, and on you.

I understand that you reject most religions as fact. So do I. But I think it's a grave error to reject religion as a human cultural phenomena, and as a tool for both insight and healing. It's like rejecting Christmas because you don't believe in the literal existence of Santa Claus.

There are perhaps two main issues here. The first is whether a sense of a "higher power" has been correctly intuited by humans everywhere or not, or secondly do humans only feel that way because evolution has tricked them into a behaviour pattern that better suites the producing of offspring?

I'm not sure how these are different. Has nature "tricked" me into liking the curves of a woman's body, or do I like the curves of a woman's body because they're really so likable?

I don't know how to separate my sense of the divine from the existence of the divine; my wonder at the phenomena of transcendence from the phenomena of transcendence. These are part of my reality. Why would I single them out from the rest of my experience of reality, and doubt them in particular?

I don't know which, but I lean toward the latter since evolution doesn't care what actually is true it only has to work.

There is no truth beyond what 'works' in our reality. That's how we determine truth. The truth is what is.

I don't need to doubt that most religious belief is wrong given that there is only one truth, so by the same token and without special evidence for any one then it must be reasonable to think that indeed all are baseless and wrong.

Christmas is still Christmas regardless of the "untruth" of Santa Claus. Even Santa Claus is still Santa Claus regardless of his physical non-existence. I guess I just don't see the significance of whatever it is that you're rejecting. Once we get past the idea that Santa Claus isn't "physically real", everything still remains the same. So what's the significance of Santa's "unrealness"?

I would suggest that beliefs are invalidated by not having demonstrable evidential support above other similar beliefs.

A lack of validation is not invalidation, no matter how intensely we presume it to be. People "feel" God. Until that feeling is shown to be invalid, it remains valid. Just as until they can validate their special claims about God, those claims remain speculations.

Why shouldn't I conclude that there is nothing to choose between them if they can't actually demonstrate any superiority?
This is after all a thread about being an atheist not trying to convince anyone that their particular religion should be ditched.

I agree that it makes sense to remain skeptical. But most atheists do not. They choose to believe that the human experience of God (divinity/spirituality) is "invalid".

I'm simply saying that I will remain an atheist until something tangible convinces me otherwise...

I don't think that's a rational position. You're invalidating the human "God-experience" based on nothing.

 

[alwight]

Hi PX
I think I can reasonably thereby dismiss all human religious constructs as spurious and unlikely to match with the ultimate truth. I grant them with the equal status of being plain wrong, but I don't dismiss the possibility of a "higher power", I just don't pretend that I know exactly what it is.

I still think you're being very loose and reckless with this idea of "truth". People developed those conceptual paradigms to give structure and cohesion and meaning to their experience of 'spirituality'. Just as they developed other aspects of their particular cultures relative to their particular experience of life in their time and place. Yet you don't just summarily dismiss the other aspects of their human culture, do you? I mean, the idea of money also developed the world over, and each culture developed their own unique version of that, too. But I don't see you dismissing the idea of money, or disrespecting their particular versions of it just because they are culturally unique. And if you did, I think it would be a grave error, as it would cause you to miss the deep and significant impact that idea has had on humanity, and on you.

I understand that you reject most religions as fact. So do I. But I think it's a grave error to reject religion as a human cultural phenomena, and as a tool for both insight and healing. It's like rejecting Christmas because you don't believe in the literal existence of Santa Claus.

But I'm still not denying religion exists or that for many people it does work, my point is that they can't all be correct, their culture isn't the issue. In fact most people would probably accept that only one could be correct.
Money otoh can exist quite happily with other forms and is in no way mutually exclusive as religion is. I can own and use dollars and pounds simultaneously without any cognitive dissonance at all.

There are perhaps two main issues here. The first is whether a sense of a "higher power" has been correctly intuited by humans everywhere or not, or secondly do humans only feel that way because evolution has tricked them into a behaviour pattern that better suites the producing of offspring?

I'm not sure how these are different. Has nature "tricked" me into liking the curves of a woman's body, or do I like the curves of a woman's body because they're really so likable?

I don't know how to separate my sense of the divine from the existence of the divine; my wonder at the phenomena of transcendence from the phenomena of transcendence. These are part of my reality. Why would I single them out from the rest of my experience of reality, and doubt them in particular?

Are we really sensing a higher power or do we just think we are?
I suggest if you were a woman you wouldn't find women's bodies have quite the same effect on you unless you were gay perhaps. Clearly evolution has influenced our minds here so why not make us think we sense a higher power if it tends to subtly make us act in a certain way? If we functioned simply on instinct there would be no need for any such clever trickery.

I don't know which, but I lean toward the latter since evolution doesn't care what actually is true it only has to work.

There is no truth beyond what 'works' in our reality. That's how we determine truth. The truth is what is.

But if a higher power is actually unknowable then all we have are many differing religious beliefs all claiming to know the unknowable whatever the real truth is. We should perhaps accept when we don't know, not make up another false religion anyway?

I don't need to doubt that most religious belief is wrong given that there is only one truth, so by the same token and without special evidence for any one then it must be reasonable to think that indeed all are baseless and wrong.

Christmas is still Christmas regardless of the "untruth" of Santa Claus. Even Santa Claus is still Santa Claus regardless of his physical non-existence. I guess I just don't see the significance of whatever it is that you're rejecting. Once we get past the idea that Santa Claus isn't "physically real", everything still remains the same. So what's the significance of Santa's "unrealness"?

I don't deny Christmas either.
I'm not saying anything other than the likelihood of all bar one religion being false is as close to absolutely certain as makes no difference, and imo even with that one included there probably isn't much change to that. But then again some people see value in religion for its own sake not because there is a truth at the end of it, I have no problem with that. So you tell me, what exactly do you think I'm rejecting? I'm not saying that having a divinity based religion is wrong I'm saying that the doctrine it teaches is ultimately wrong.

I would suggest that beliefs are invalidated by not having demonstrable evidential support above other similar beliefs.

A lack of validation is not invalidation, no matter how intensely we presume it to be. People "feel" God. Until that feeling is shown to be invalid, it remains valid. Just as until they can validate their special claims about God, those claims remain speculations.

I can't agree, should I have to accept something as valid which relies on empty assertions and is just one of many similar others until I can invalidate it? The onus isn't mine.

Why shouldn't I conclude that there is nothing to choose between them if they can't actually demonstrate any superiority?
This is after all a thread about being an atheist not trying to convince anyone that their particular religion should be ditched.

I agree that it makes sense to remain skeptical. But most atheists do not. They choose to believe that the human experience of God (divinity/spirituality) is "invalid".

Yes I think most atheists presume like me that all gods are invalid until it is shown to be otherwise, I at least have no intension of ever trying to invalidate all possible gods.

I'm simply saying that I will remain an atheist until something tangible convinces me otherwise...

I don't think that's a rational position. You're invalidating the human "God-experience" based on nothing.

So should I try to deceive myself that a specific god of some kind exists or do you recommend plumping for one at random?

 

[PureX]

But I'm still not denying religion exists or that for many people it does work, my point is that they can't all be correct ...

OK, now set these side-by-side: religion works for many people/they can't all be correct.

Which of these matters?

If you think it's the latter, please name a circumstance in which we can all be correct?

In fact most people would probably accept that only one could be correct.

Perhaps, but that would be silly. Reality is far greater in scope, breadth, and depth than we are. So there's always going to be many "correct" human perspectives on it and experiences of it at any given time.

Money otoh can exist quite happily with other forms and is in no way mutually exclusive as religion is.

Sure it is. Try buying a big mac with some glass beads. I live 30 miles from Canada, and most businesses in my town will not accept Canadian money.

Are we really sensing a higher power or do we just think we are?

How are these different? Aren't they one and the same experience? Can we "just think" something is beautiful? But it's not really beautiful? Can we "just think" something is meaningful, or right, but it's not "really" meaningful or right? My point is; aren't there some experiential phenomena that's simply self-evident? Does that somehow make it less valid?

I suggest if you were a woman you wouldn't find women's bodies have quite the same effect on you unless you were gay perhaps. Clearly evolution has influenced our minds here so why not make us think we sense a higher power if it tends to subtly make us act in a certain way? If we functioned simply on instinct there would be no need for any such clever trickery.

How does evolution's part in my appreciation for the curves of a woman's body "invalidate" my appreciation for the curves of a woman's body? This is the part I'm not understanding: that if we can explain the mechanisms of the experience, that it somehow becomes an "invalid" experience. Do you like sex any less because there is a biological mechanism that causes you to like it? Does our appreciation of sex become 'unreal' in some way because it is the result of a biological mechanism?

So why does our experience and appreciation of "God" become invalid in your mind if you can find some biological/evolutionary mechanism causing us to experience it? There is a biological/evolutionary mechanism for everything we experience.

But if a higher power is actually unknowable then all we have are many differing religious beliefs all claiming to know the unknowable whatever the real truth is. We should perhaps accept when we don't know, not make up another false religion anyway?

I think it is "knowable", but to each in his own way. That's just a peculiarity of this particular phenomena. It's not that dissimilar to our perceptions of beauty. Some we share (like the curves of a woman) and some are unique to us. Sometimes we experience it together and sometimes we experience individually. But this doesn't make beauty unreal, or invalid, or non-existent, or insignificant. So why dismiss it as if it were?

I don't deny Christmas either.

I know. I was just making a point.

I'm not saying anything other than the likelihood of all bar one religion being false is as close to absolutely certain as makes no difference, and imo even with that one included there probably isn't much change to that.

My point is that a religion's 'right-ness' is relative to it's (positive) effectiveness, not to it's relation to material factuality. And I truly do not understand why atheists can't (or won't) understand this.

But then I truly don't understand why there are so many theists that don't understand this, either.

But then again some people see value in religion for its own sake not because there is a truth at the end of it, I have no problem with that. So you tell me, what exactly do you think I'm rejecting? I'm not saying that having a divinity based religion is wrong I'm saying that the doctrine it teaches is ultimately wrong.

I'm, just pointing out that the 'doctrines' are to religion what Santa Claus is to Christmas: a kind of mythical iconography people use to try and make positive sense of their spiritual experiences. Unfortunately, it's very common among we humans that we confuse our icons with the deeper mysteries that they are meant to represent and help us understand. And so we get confused and end up making them into false idols. Most religions become false idols for at least some of the people who engage in them. And they are often encouraged to do so, by others, for all sorts of nefarious reasons.

But this unfortunate tendency toward idolization really is a separate human phenomena that effects us in other endeavors besides religion, and so should not be considered intrinsic to religion, or used to dismiss it en masse.

I can't agree, should I have to accept something as valid which relies on empty assertions and is just one of many similar others until I can invalidate it? The onus isn't mine.

Forget the silly dogmatic assertions, as you would (and do) about Santa Claus. And look to the whole phenomena. Religion is much more than those silly dogmatic assertions. And "God" is a very real experience for a great many human beings. You might be one of them if you could set aside the various religious dogmas and open your heart and mind to that aspect of your own human experience.

Or maybe not. Maybe you're one of the few among us that simply doesn't experience "God" by any conceptualization.

Yes I think most atheists presume like me that all gods are invalid until it is shown to be otherwise, I at least have no intension of ever trying to invalidate all possible gods.

You're still confusing the reality of God as a human experience with people's religious dogmas. I don't understand that.

So should I try to deceive myself that a specific god of some kind exists or do you recommend plumping for one at random?

I think you might consider letting go of other people's ideas and dogmas about "God", and just feel it for yourself. Then go from there.

 

[PureX]

I think most human beings hope for mostly the same things: peace, security, prosperity, joy, positive accomplishment, and to love and be loved. I don't think atheists or even most theists worry about being right or wrong all that much. But a web site like this one will tend to attract the ideologues, and will tend to hash and rehash some of the same themes, obsessing over who's right and who's wrong. I personally don't think it matters, much. I think it matters that we consider it, though. And I think it matters that we grow and change when we receive new insight, and not just auto-defend, endlessly.

I guess in the end I think it's better to be wrong than to be right. Because when we're wrong, we can learn. When we're right, we think we don't need to.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

As I see it Jamie, human beings from all around the world, whether from isolated or large communities, typically have a perhaps innate dualistic desire to suppose in the existence of a higher power, and have accordingly all developed their own versions of religious belief. They will all of course want to believe that their own particular religious belief is superior to all the rest.

As a non-believer I can still have some spiritual feelings myself and even sometimes suppose that a supernatural higher power nevertheless exists, but imo pretty much all humans seem to have a spiritual side to their nature. Clearly then wherever you go human cultures have all expressed their own individuality and spirituality in their own way through their various religious institutions, supernatural beliefs and customs.

Given that only one truth exists could any one of these beliefs be true?
Yes, I suppose so, maybe. Personally however I rather doubt that any are.

So what is going on if the majority of religious belief, if not all, is so misplaced and false?

If, as I believe, we are evolved beings then just as we evolved arms and legs we have also evolved mental traits such as a tendency to unite around a common culture and spiritual belief. None of it need be true of course from a Darwinian perspective, it only has to work better as a group than as individuals all doing their own thing.

So is your particular belief really any better than all the others?

It's not for others to argue against your Christian ideas or Christ, the onus is rather on you to demonstrably show your truth and not to just assert and preach it, as all the others do that we can both agree are false.

The innateness I agree is present.

Of course the Darwinian theory has philosophical implications as you have aptly put it. Of course I don't buy into Darwin's theories for many reasons. Such as Sir Francis Crick's use of probability to show there hasn't been enough supposed time for human DNA to evolve as complex as it is, to whole DNA strands or chromosomes being added or subtracted by one DNA strand not copying correctly and getting improvements. When that happens humans have downs syndrome. To name a few.

Never the less you make a point, I touched on. Demonstrating Christ's truth. It can only be done through love. You know that. God knows that. I know that. Unfortunately many proclaiming Christians have missed that point in Christ and His word. From my standpoint it's easy to see that without consistent love, a quote Christian could not have experienced love from Him or understood what His word says.

I hope to come off as someone who is genuinely concerned for all on here I come in contact with, because I am. It is hard with words alone and arguments that say you are wrong. The Bible implores gentleness in this regard and I am sorry if my deep convictions may have offended you or others.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Please stop being obnoxious and find someone else to preach at. If you cannot hold a rational conversation without the sermons then we are done. I don't like using this sites ignore feature but you are getting really close.

Give it a rest!

How is it that you proclaiming your view, your experiences, and your persuasion isn't preaching; but mine is? I'll listen to anything you have to say.
The aversion to Christ. Its seen everywhere. Makes you wonder...

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

You mean your imagination, right? Or prove it isn't. And please don't preach!!!!!!!

You mean do I have other witnesses to corroborate my story, my experiences with Christ. I do. But in your courtroom witness testimony means nothing. I'm glad you are not a judge.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Not overlooked, I am very aware of the horrible strategies employed by some Muslims in their crusade. But Islam (along with other religions big and small) has its fair share of those non-violent martyrs too. However that is irrelevant as your restriction on martyrdom is arbitrary and without explanation. If the key feature you think a martyr had to make their testimony believable isn't that they died for their belief then what is? Whatever it is I challenge you to show it is unique to your religion.

'died for their belief' is not the same as murdered for their belief. Of course this has happened with other religions. But others do not have 11 men who were martyred for their testimony that they saw the risen Jesus and He is Lord.

 

[Hedshaker]

How is it that you proclaiming your view, your experiences, and your persuasion isn't preaching; but mine is? I'll listen to anything you have to say.
The aversion to Christ. Its seen everywhere. Makes you wonder...

You haven't listened to a word I've said. Typically you quote my full text, but then, instead of addressing the points made, you go on to preach how your God changed your life and how I should also succumb to your invisible friend and how I would see your "truth" if only I did, and blah blah blah, shudder! Well guess what, I don't want to be like you. I value my rationality and my free thinking mind too much to fill it with someone else's flimflam. (look it up )

I asked you to explain why others have changed their lives for the better following a different belief system or no belief system at all and your only reply seems to be, well they're all wrong and I'm right because I just am. That's just blanket assertion and as such warrants dismissal.

It may be different in your neck of the woods but were I come from persistent god-talkers are only useful for rapidly emptying rooms. People can hold conversations without constantly preaching at people you know, even on a theology forum.

 

[Granite]

You haven't listened to a word I've said. Typically you quote my full text, but then, instead of addressing the points made, you go on to preach how your God changed your life and how I should also succumb to your invisible friend and how I would see your "truth" if only I did, and blah blah blah, shudder! Well guess what, I don't want to be like you. I value my rationality and my free thinking mind too much to fill it with someone else's flimflam. (look it up )

I asked you to explain why others have changed their lives for the better following a different belief system or no belief system at all and your only reply seems to be, well they're all wrong and I'm right because I just am. That's just blanket assertion and as such warrants dismissal.

It may be different in your neck of the woods but were I come from persistent god-talkers are only useful for rapidly emptying rooms. People can hold conversations without constantly preaching at people you know, even on a theology forum.

That's why I've described her as the bot. Seriously. There's no discussion going on here at all. I'm not sure if there's any "there" actually there, if you know what I mean.

 

[Hedshaker]

You mean do I have other witnesses to corroborate my story, my experiences with Christ. I do. But in your courtroom witness testimony means nothing. I'm glad you are not a judge.

You just don't get it, do you? Your experience with Christ is no different from some one else's experience with Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti and others Lists of deities.

And btw, they all have their witnesses too and they are all just as convinced of their convictions as are you. Yours is no different no matter how much you protest it is. To prove yours is different takes evidence, not preaching but honest, falsifiable evidence. But you have non of that so what you are left with is a faith based belief, just like the others. And I'm fine with that. What I object to is this bald claim to some ultimate truth.

I accept your belief, you're welcome to it. But Truth! Nope.

 

[Hedshaker]

That's why I've described her as the bot. Seriously. There's no discussion going on here at all. I'm not sure if there's any "there" actually there, if you know what I mean.

I know what you mean and this feeling of talking to a brick wall is so frustrating. I'm just about at the end now. I'll give last word and bow out I think.

 

[alwight]

But I'm still not denying religion exists or that for many people it does work, my point is that they can't all be correct ...

OK, now set these side-by-side: religion works for many people/they can't all be correct.

Which of these matters?

If you think it's the latter, please name a circumstance in which we can all be correct?

I simply think that with this in mind I can reasonably discount all the gods as presented by religions without having to invalidate them all individually.

In fact most people would probably accept that only one could be correct.

Perhaps, but that would be silly. Reality is far greater in scope, breadth, and depth than we are. So there's always going to be many "correct" human perspectives on it and experiences of it at any given time.

I think it's rational for an atheist to assume that probably no religious belief has any knowledge of any gods and can thus all be discounted as indicative of anything other than cultural social institutions.

Money otoh can exist quite happily with other forms and is in no way mutually exclusive as religion is.

Sure it is. Try buying a big mac with some glass beads. I live 30 miles from Canada, and most businesses in my town will not accept Canadian money.

But you can go to Canada and buy a Big Mac without discarding all your American dollars. I currently have over $50 in my possession which my bank will be pleased to exchange for £s. All money is as good as the bank that issued it.

Are we really sensing a higher power or do we just think we are?

How are these different? Aren't they one and the same experience? Can we "just think" something is beautiful? But it's not really beautiful? Can we "just think" something is meaningful, or right, but it's not "really" meaningful or right? My point is; aren't there some experiential phenomena that's simply self-evident? Does that somehow make it less valid?

One suggests that an actual higher power exists while the other is only a delusion. It is possible that a delusion is all it is so why shouldn't the atheist just assume that it probably was until something evidential suggested otherwise?

I suggest if you were a woman you wouldn't find women's bodies have quite the same effect on you unless you were gay perhaps. Clearly evolution has influenced our minds here so why not make us think we sense a higher power if it tends to subtly make us act in a certain way? If we functioned simply on instinct there would be no need for any such clever trickery.

How does evolution's part in my appreciation for the curves of a woman's body "invalidate" my appreciation for the curves of a woman's body? This is the part I'm not understanding: that if we can explain the mechanisms of the experience, that it somehow becomes an "invalid" experience. Do you like sex any less because there is a biological mechanism that causes you to like it? Does our appreciation of sex become 'unreal' in some way because it is the result of a biological mechanism?

We like anything because that is how our brains happen to be wired. How much rational reasoning is involved in anything is a moot point.

So why does our experience and appreciation of "God" become invalid in your mind if you can find some biological/evolutionary mechanism causing us to experience it? There is a biological/evolutionary mechanism for everything we experience.

I don't know about your mind but I've simply not validated any god while I await reasonable godly evidence.

But if a higher power is actually unknowable then all we have are many differing religious beliefs all claiming to know the unknowable whatever the real truth is. We should perhaps accept when we don't know, not make up another false religion anyway?

I think it is "knowable", but to each in his own way. That's just a peculiarity of this particular phenomena. It's not that dissimilar to our perceptions of beauty. Some we share (like the curves of a woman) and some are unique to us. Sometimes we experience it together and sometimes we experience individually. But this doesn't make beauty unreal, or invalid, or non-existent, or insignificant. So why dismiss it as if it were?

If a real god personally contacts me I would perhaps then have the knowledge that I currently don't think is knowable.
I don't see any problem with there being a perceived beauty within a fantasy, but that isn't what this is all about. We can have our fantasies but personally I still need to touch base with reality from time to time.

I don't deny Christmas either.

I know. I was just making a point.

I'm not saying anything other than the likelihood of all bar one religion being false is as close to absolutely certain as makes no difference, and imo even with that one included there probably isn't much change to that.

My point is that a religion's 'right-ness' is relative to it's (positive) effectiveness, not to it's relation to material factuality. And I truly do not understand why atheists can't (or won't) understand this.

But then I truly don't understand why there are so many theists that don't understand this, either.

Life can be hard to understand sometimes.
I'm an atheist simply and only because I don't happen to believe in any god, whether a theist's beliefs have "effectiveness" or not is rather beside the point.

Quote:

I can't agree, should I have to accept something as valid which relies on empty assertions and is just one of many similar others until I can invalidate it? The onus isn't mine.

Forget the silly dogmatic assertions, as you would (and do) about Santa Claus. And look to the whole phenomena. Religion is much more than those silly dogmatic assertions. And "God" is a very real experience for a great many human beings. You might be one of them if you could set aside the various religious dogmas and open your heart and mind to that aspect of your own human experience.

Or maybe not. Maybe you're one of the few among us that simply doesn't experience "God" by any conceptualization.

Why shouldn't some of us just stick to their own spiritual notions and hopes without having to invoke a theistic belief in a supposed deity? If a deity comes along fine I'm game.

Yes I think most atheists presume like me that all gods are invalid until it is shown to be otherwise, I at least have no intension of ever trying to invalidate all possible gods.

You're still confusing the reality of God as a human experience with people's religious dogmas. I don't understand that.

I don't think so, it's what being an atheist is all about, not making up any conclusions about gods other than they probably don't exist.

So should I try to deceive myself that a specific god of some kind exists or do you recommend plumping for one at random?

I think you might consider letting go of other people's ideas and dogmas about "God", and just feel it for yourself. Then go from there.

Actually I think I do just that, but I can still talk to people about what they believe and why they have specific religious beliefs, such as YECs.

 

[alwight]

The innateness I agree is present.

Of course the Darwinian theory has philosophical implications as you have aptly put it. Of course I don't buy into Darwin's theories for many reasons. Such as Sir Francis Crick's use of probability to show there hasn't been enough supposed time for human DNA to evolve as complex as it is, to whole DNA strands or chromosomes being added or subtracted by one DNA strand not copying correctly and getting improvements. When that happens humans have downs syndrome. To name a few.

Never the less you make a point, I touched on. Demonstrating Christ's truth. It can only be done through love. You know that. God knows that. I know that. Unfortunately many proclaiming Christians have missed that point in Christ and His word. From my standpoint it's easy to see that without consistent love, a quote Christian could not have experienced love from Him or understood what His word says.

I hope to come off as someone who is genuinely concerned for all on here I come in contact with, because I am. It is hard with words alone and arguments that say you are wrong. The Bible implores gentleness in this regard and I am sorry if my deep convictions may have offended you or others.

I will confess to not being an emotional type of person. Maybe I have a genetic defect?

Much of your claimed love and emotion just goes way over my head.
I tend to think that you need an outlet for it, and Christianity and the perceived person of Jesus Christ supplies it for you.
Personally however I doubt that in reality there is any more to it than that.

 

[Cons&Spires]

Not do you think you're right--do you hope that you are right that there is no God and therefore no ultimate justice in the afterlife?

People are atheistic for different reasons. But I'm sure they all hope their isn't divine judgement for their neglect of Him. How could one not, really.. I was once an atheist and it crossed my mind all the time.

 

[alwight]

People are atheistic for different reasons. But I'm sure they all hope their isn't divine judgement for their neglect of Him. How could one not, really.. I was once an atheist and it crossed my mind all the time.

I wouldn't neglect a god who came out from behind the curtain.
How do theists know that the real god isn't being neglected by them as well as by atheists if they happen to be attending to a false one?