[wizofoz]

I'd love to continue this discussion, fellow travellers, but I have to go for a three hour drive right now. Work calls.

I look forward to seeing some replies when I can next get back on line.

[les3547]

That does not compute Les. The proposition (that a deity exists or not) is either true or not. Feeling that something may or may not be true is no proof, and is not enough for my emperical minded thinking.

I am not suggesting mere emotion, or developing a full-blown God-concept from some unidentifiable sense. Also, I wouldn't want to suggest that one's empirical mind isn't a trustworthy tool (I value my own immensely). But there are three ideas I will put forth.

One is that while the empirical mind is capable of discovering a great deal about the physical world, that doesn't it mean it can discover all there is to know.

The second is, by "feeling" I meant the practice some have developed of becoming so quiet inside one's sensitivity is greatly enhanced (practiced, say, by meditating an hour or two daily over the course of many years). This enhanced sensitivity becomes capable of "feeling" a presence that seems behind manifest reality. That many practitioners have reported experiencing this presence is easily verified by studying the long history of inner prayer, prayer of the heart, union prayer, samadhi (the practice goes by several names) that spans over 2500 years across the globe.

Third, the heart of empirical epistemology is to verify by experience. One doesn't prove relativity, for instance, by reason alone; one might form a logical hypothesis using reason but the proof is in experience (observation). Similarly, the best inner practitioners are empiricists (or should I say experientialists), and will not try to prove the existence of a presence through reason. Why? While the science empiricist is concerned with the external world, the inner subject by its very nature cannot be externalized for study.* So the empiricism of inner practitioners is that each individual must prove it to himself and himself alone.

*As a afterthought I'd add, you might ask if these experientialists are feeling a presence (which is presumed to be everywhere), is that not external to the practitioner? Yes, but the practice is to join or merge with the presence through one's own inner being. Since one comes to know it through that inner doorway, and there is no outer doorway (known), then the subject really becomes "is there an actual inner doorway inside each human being."

[gokenin]

Find it funny that the O/P ends by saying Merry Christmas I am guessing it's a joke but if it's not shouldn't you be calling it something like "Happy Secular excuse to spend money day". Would've thought that would be more in the atheist view as the real reason for the season wouldn't be? Just my take on this thread please go back to the bashing of all the ignorant faithful.

[JohnBee]

Merry xmas

This part made me laugh

[Ratmagiclady]

OK. Here we go again.

Part of the problem here is that *certain* religions act all threatened by 'nonbelievers' when they mean 'Not believing in *their God and rationale,' ...then so many atheists turn around and say, 'All 'religionists' are the same as those certain religions.'

Neither is either particularly spiritual, rational, nor very big on the 'emotional IQ.'

The suppositions of that 'Christians-versus-nonbelievers-in-Christianity' debate are missing the point of both reason and Spirit precisely because those distinctions are dogmatic, not based in human experience.

The whole 'argument' is constructed on the premise that believers-or-non-believers in a *certain* kind of religion impose and then claim is 'universal. But they aren't. The 'argument' so-framed is *only* about making sure that one form of religious authority's assertions and worldviews are the *center of attention, whichever 'side' you take. It's like some endless game of football they think will 'prove' something, in which people forget there's anything outside the stadium. That 'game' is all about the primacy of monolithic words, authorities, precedents, sources, and demands. And the premise that 'belief' does a certain thing somehow.

It's not everyone's game.

The reason some are so fearful of 'nonbelievers' (in their 'thing' ) is *not about* logic or spirituality. It's about authority and a sense of *control.*

When I don't trust someone cause they express atheism-as-authority or authoritarian 'religion' as-authority... it's not really cause they believe or don't believe some particular thing: it's when they think their belief *overrides* human interaction and decency. If a Christian says, 'You know I'm being an honest used car dealer cause I'm a Christian,' you have to wonder what they think of *you* and why that wasn't just a matter of claiming authority... which any liar could do... ....Likewise, when an atheist says, 'Whatever I say is smarter than you cause I call you a non-believer in my disbelief in what I label 'supernatural,' ...you really have to wonder why their reason needs *that* prop. (Reason is great: atheism doesn't necessarily confer *skill* at it.)

I have my religious beliefs, and spiritual experience, (And they aren't based on authorities or any of that, but it sure is interesting what turned up in history books and various records-not-accessible-before-the Net... ) ....but I know what they 'prove' to me, what they could 'prove' to someone else, and what they couldn't possibly 'prove' to anyone. *Reason* is about knowing the difference.


(And, yes, there is a difference, by the way: much of the difficulty here is, 'what is information,' ...All 'theories' are not equivalent, but I can prove something to *myself* with all due scientific rigor, say by researching obscure details of stuff I was born remembering: even if I can't prove to someone *else* that I didn't look it up *first.* There may be several possible theories on how that could happen, but, say you manage to catch a thylacine: spend some time with it, get a real good look, ....if you lose that thylacine, say in an unforeseen dirigible crash or ninja raid, you can't 'prove' to anyone else that you aren't making it all up, (and you shouldn't expect to,) but it doesn't mean you'd be a fool to believe *yourself* (And I just included ninjas and dirigibles cause it was more fun. Not to trivialize what constitutes 'proof' and to whom. )

It's not 'carrot and stick' in my world. When someone thinks it *is,* you've gotta wonder what their 'price' is. Just like people who 'believe' life is all carrot and stick can't imagine people can be honorable *without* those threats and rewards.


Mistrust about 'belief' has a lot to do with what *premises* people are operating on. Or are perceived to.

Christians and 'hard atheists' are actually more alike to me than different. You both think your 'fight' is about the same couple of things out of the whole 'Verse and out of all ways of human experience. On the same kinds of terms. Obviously, the sources of 'data' are not of equivalent merit as far as that goes, but as much as I personally credit scientific observation more than I do translations of some 'revelation' by a long shot, ...a lot of you folks are still 'fighting' over the same damn things. Like that's all there is.

[kswier]

it always amazes me the degree to which people are put off by not buying into any of the many antiquated myths.

Perhaps this is why. When you call somebodies beliefs "antiquated myths." or course they will be put off by you.

I am not particularly religious, but I did grow up in a fairly religious family. One thing I notice is that many atheists tend to come across in a way where they thing they are intellectually above religious people (In a similar way that religious people often think that people who follow their religion are morally superior to others). I agree that there are religious communities that should not discount science so easily and become more tolerant, but I think that some atheists need to become more tolerant as well. The world is a place with diverse people with diverse beliefs and cultures. This is what makes the world interesting,

[Nesster]

Originally posted by Nesster Quote
And when examined closely logic tends to at base rely on feeling/experience. Human brains are funny that way.
Can you show me any proof of this claim?

Just look up modern brain / perception research.

Excellent point Les:the same goes the other way re belief.

I disagree. It is not relative, it is definative. The deity, (in whatever form one conceives it) either exists and can be proved to exist or it does not. To believe anything without at least the hint of proof defies logic. I make no claim either way, I simply await proof.

But look at what you just wrote. Can you conceive that you - or some number of people - can conceive of a diety in a way that is abundantly real - as real as our consensus external reality, and consistent with science? This diety is not the Judeo-Christian (etc) one that you assume here - and which functions as a straw man to atheists. Do you understand that the problem as specified is political rather than epistemological. Change definitions and the problem does not exist.

Also, Buddhism does not require a diety in that sense, ie. is an agnostic religion. I'll add that I've known atheist Quakers.

[Nesster]

Find it funny that the O/P ends by saying Merry Christmas I am guessing it's a joke but if it's not shouldn't you be calling it something like "Happy Secular excuse to spend money day". Would've thought that would be more in the atheist view as the real reason for the season wouldn't be? Just my take on this thread please go back to the bashing of all the ignorant faithful.

Funny. But a well adjusted atheist is like a well adjusted mystic: both will understand 'hidden' meanings while mouthing commonplace words such as Merry Christmas. Those without ears to hear and eyes to see are blissfully ignorant

[Nesster]

I am not particularly religious, but I did grow up in a fairly religious family. One thing I notice is that many atheists tend to come across in a way where they thing they are intellectually above religious people (In a similar way that religious people often think that people who follow their religion are morally superior to others). I agree that there are religious communities that should not discount science so easily and become more tolerant, but I think that some atheists need to become more tolerant as well. The world is a place with diverse people with diverse beliefs and cultures. This is what makes the world interesting,

In defense of the faith debunkers: many scientists are aware that religious fundies (of any stripe) will inevitably seek to un-fund and out-law what to them is heretical and Godless. So in addition to the usual psychology there is that additional feeling of threat - not quite paranoia - that makes some quick and eager to attack.

[les3547]

Do you understand that the problem as specified is political rather than epistemological. Change definitions and the problem does not exist..

I often think it is epistemological too in that a great many intelligent people have assumed sense experience is the only way to experience, and consequently that the sense-dependent proofs of science are the only way to know. That is why discussions about God between the faithful and atheists often turn into demands for proofs. We are always looking for new frontiers "out there," but inside us might be a realm of experience undeveloped in humanity as a whole. Will the experience reveal God? The Buddha had something to say about that.

Also, Buddhism does not require a deity in that sense, ie. is an agnostic religion.

Buddhism might be agnostic, but what the Buddha taught was slightly different. For example, when questioned by a wanderer about God, whether the universe is permanent and infinite, if the soul and body are the same, and if the realized being exists after death the Buddha answered, “[I have not declared these things because] that is not conducive to the purpose, not the way to embark on the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to higher knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana. That is why I have not declared it.”

There might be a God, there might be life after death, but do not speculate about such things, says the Buddha, experience and know. In this sense, the Buddha was a great scientist for relying on experience to know and teach, while limiting explanations primarily to how to progress in the experience that leads to knowing.

[Ratmagiclady]

I used to be an atheist until I came to the realisation that atheists and god botherers both espouse something that cannot be proved either way. I then became agnostic and willing to be convinced of the truth with cogent, irrefutable argument either way. I'm still waiting

*Claims* depend on 'proof.' Faith ...really doesn't, you know. (A lot of people think 'faith is believing something really hard,' whether they like the idea or not. I don't think that's what it is, never mind as advertised. ) Faith, I'd say, is accepting that you may *not* know something and trust anyway. Some people mix the two up and don't see anything alive about any of it. Like the argument is definitive or is somehow what comes first. But, sometimes the medium is the message, and some think this really *is* about what words have authority, or 'trying to prove something' one way or another. Cause we're *talking.*

Anyone following that?

[Nesster]

I often think it is epistemological too in that a great many intelligent people have assumed sense experience is the only way to experience, and consequently that the sense-dependent proofs of science are the only way to know. That is why discussions about God between the faithful and atheists often turn into demands for proofs. We are always looking for new frontiers "out there," but inside us might be a realm of experience undeveloped in humanity as a whole. Will the experience reveal God? The Buddha had something to say about that.

Very true this. However, I don't discount the science / out there philosophical method - I see it as something like analog / digital, in that a rigorous materialist and empirical examination of the universe will get you to a similar ultimate point as a rigorous internal and experiential examination of the same. This makes sense too, as long as we keep in mind that our thinking and experiencing are both on the same substrate, and thus at the base are the same. Of course the 'feeling' and experience might be different between 'out there' and 'in here' but that to me ultimately doesn't mean a whole lot.

Either one values or doesn't value experiential input - if not, we tend to filter via culturally and karmically determined parameters. I.e. we simply reject sensory input. On the other hand, the experience of the 'divine' or 'extrasensory' (there's a culturally filtered term!) can be just as tangible and real as the experience of, say, rain.

*Claims* depend on 'proof.' Faith ...really doesn't, you know. (A lot of people think 'faith is believing something really hard,' whether they like the idea or not. I don't think that's what it is, never mind as advertised. ) Faith, I'd say, is accepting that you may *not* know something and trust anyway. Some people mix the two up and don't see anything alive about any of it. Like the argument is definitive or is somehow what comes first. But, sometimes the medium is the message, and some think this really *is* about what words have authority, or 'trying to prove something' one way or another. Cause we're *talking.*

Anyone following that?

Good points, RML. I'll go in three directions with this...
1) how many of us truly grok the science vs. going on 'faith' that the scientists know what they are saying?
2) There is value in 'religion' - the artifacts of someone's access to the 'extrasensory' (again, cultural term) - in that it gives us a) a common language and b) a kind of a map of a territory. Before we have direct experience we can still partake of the fruits of anothers' direct experience. There is a tendency, as in all human things, to put the words and persons into authority.
3) Faith belief isn't hard, though secular science seeks to explain much of this through a disease / dysfunction model. (That's more evidence of a cultural bias in science, as a true scientist might be open to more types of interpretation. Even in physics, the scientific method acts as a filter on what is examined and how.)

Personally, I have to learn to have 'faith' in things that I haven't directly experienced. Once I have an experience, it acts as a key to the other things - stuff that didn't resonate or have meaning for me now starts to make sense, and I can take on 'faith' the extension of possibility beyond what I have as yet experienced.

I read something very wise somewhere online recently. The guy said something like we need to try to avoid repeating or recreating something that triggered a transcendent experience, as that is a form of clinging and will close an opportunity to experience this via some other trigger. Actually he said it better, but I don't think I can find it now...

[Clavius]

Atheïsm is a belief, just like Christianity. Because Atheïsts, just like Christians, believe in something they cannot prove. ...So no need to have any more or less prejudice towards them then the others.

[mikemike]

I say I am an athiest, but I am sort of agnostic I think there is an infinitesimally small chance that there is a god but zero chance that any of the religions know a damn thing about any potential actual god. If I had lived in a time and place where one religion had a virtual monopoly on my known world, I would have probably accepted it by the same logic of Pascal's Wager but the condition of multiple competing religions which claim absolute knowledge of the divine and demand monotheism changes the terms of that in such a way that it is not advisable to believe in religion or god(s).

Perhaps this is why. When you call somebodies beliefs "antiquated myths." or course they will be put off by you.

I am not particularly religious, but I did grow up in a fairly religious family. One thing I notice is that many atheists tend to come across in a way where they thing they are intellectually above religious people (In a similar way that religious people often think that people who follow their religion are morally superior to others). I agree that there are religious communities that should not discount science so easily and become more tolerant, but I think that some atheists need to become more tolerant as well. The world is a place with diverse people with diverse beliefs and cultures. This is what makes the world interesting,

There are some things that are subjective, then there are some things which are objective. Religion does not today and has not in the past limited the extent of its authority to dealing with purely subjective subject matters. The history of religion is built upon ancients stories of creation myths, stories which exaggerate reality and/or try to ascribe the divine to natural phenomenons.

From Judaism where people who live for hundreds of years, and a small boat is built to hold every species of life on earth. Even if you tried to cram 2 specimens of each of the 2 million species scientists have cataloged onto the largest boats created today, you would fail and of course you would need to go all around the world to gather them. In christianity, as I mentioned before, the idea of spontaneous pregnancy is absolutely absurd. Many of Jesus's other "miracles" are quite possible with medicinal treatments that might have been discoverable at those times. If Jesus were actually just someone who would be a doctor or pharmacist today and instead of sharing his medicinal knowledge to treat horrible diseases used his power to gain religious disciples, would people still revere him or revile them as they do big pharma? I have empirically experienced some "trips" (talk about a sense of oneness with the universe) as fantastic as what Mohommad described experiencing during the Isra and Mi'raj, Joeseph Smith described, or L Ron Hubbard describes but I don't think those hallucinations make me some kind of prophet or any of them a prophet but they managed to convince people that they hallucinated and transcribed word-for-word messages from god.

[deadwolfbones]

Find it funny that the O/P ends by saying Merry Christmas I am guessing it's a joke but if it's not shouldn't you be calling it something like "Happy Secular excuse to spend money day". Would've thought that would be more in the atheist view as the real reason for the season wouldn't be? Just my take on this thread please go back to the bashing of all the ignorant faithful.

Haven't seen much bashing of the faithful in here (granted, I've just been skimming).

Christmas as a holiday has as much to do with non-religious celebration as it does the birth of Christ, anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#History