Atheism

[Ken-1122]

No. I never even asked you to agree with me. I pointed out that you had said you would give zero weight to the testimony of transcendent experinces of billions. That's either stubborn or foolish. Either motivation would preclude your serving on a jury.

First of all I doubt there are billions of Christians who make such a claim. You gotta realize the vast majority of Christians are not like you.

Second when you consider the reason I give zero weight to such a testimony, is because I researched the claims myself and discovered the claims are unfounded.

I am unaware of anyone who claims to have experientially verified the flatness of the earth, are you?

I am unaware of anyone who claims to have scientifically verified the existence of your idea of God; are you?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

That is incorrect, unless the definition of "tiny" changed overnight.

First of all, as I mentioned before, you need to realize most Christians are not like YOU. I realize approx 25% of the world’s population may consider themselves Christian, but most of these Christians don’t take their religion seriously enough to pray, read their bibles, or even go to church on a regular basis; these Christians do not go around claiming to have actually experienced the God they believe in, they just believe and go on about their lives as if this God didn’t even exist. Most of the people I work with (for example) would consider themselves Christian but only 1 or 2 take their religion seriously like you or the other Christian respondents on this forum; the rest are like the above mentioned.

So when I said “only a tiny fraction of the world’s population has experienced your concept of God; I meant a small fraction of 25% is a tiny fraction of the whole.

Like what? What do you think is "wrong," for example, with Jimmy Carter?

I don’t know the man, so I wouldn’t claim anything is wrong with him, (even though I would consider the possibility as with anyone else I don’t know) but I believe he is seriously mistaken concerning his claims about God.

Ken

 

[GryffinSong]

...I pointed out that you had said you would give zero weight to the testimony of transcendent experinces of billions...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have a comment. I have no doubt that there are many people who have experiences that feel transcendent. What I doubt is the interpretation that people put on those experiences. If a shaman has an experience that feels transcendent, he might attribute it to a spirit guide or journey. A christian might attribute it to god or angels. A buddhist to meditative enlightenment. A pagan to a goddess. And so on. Each of them has had an emotional, subjective experience. Then each layers an interpretation of that experience over it, based most likely on the culture in which they were raised.

Transcendent experiences: cool.

Specific interpretations that insist it's the one and only way to interpret said experiences: not so much.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Contradiction? You don't even attempt to list one. I can ony assume your thinking goes something like this:

If a Methodist claims to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ, it must have been a qualitatively different experience he is claiming, than one from a Baptist who claims the same.

I would have thought the contradictions would have been obvious enough, I'm talking stuf like say..

The people that 'experienced the reality of jesus' that claim hell is real.
And the people that experienced the same thing but say there is no hell.

 

[Crusader05]

How about the example of another world religion.

There are roughly 1 Billion people in the world who practice the Hindu faith. They claim to experience the real, transcendent power of dieties like Shiva, Vishnu etc. Many devote time and energy to temple ceremonies, meditation and pilgramages. Some devote their entire lives to their faith and live as ascetics, showing incredible devotion and self-denial, to a much greater extent then most christians.

So I ask, why discount the experiences of the world's 1 billion Hindus? Why is their experience of god any less real then that of christians?

I find it interesting how when I was a christian I would look down on the adherents of other faiths, as if they were fooling themselves or misguided. I assumed that their experiences were not as fulfilling or 'real' as my experiences of the Jesus.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I am unaware of anyone who claims to have scientifically verified the existence of your idea of God; are you?

Since science deals with the empirical realm, it would be a strange thing indeed if empirical methods could be employed to verify the existence of that which by definition transcends the empirical.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I would have thought the contradictions would have been obvious enough, I'm talking stuf like say..

The people that 'experienced the reality of jesus' that claim hell is real.
And the people that experienced the same thing but say there is no hell.

I fail to see how that is relevant. If I doubt the existence of Australia until six million people testify through having visited it, I will hardly be dissuaded if some call the Australians friendly, while some say they are rude.

 

[stiggywiggy]

How about the example of another world religion.

There are roughly 1 Billion people in the world who practice the Hindu faith. They claim to experience the real, transcendent power of dieties like Shiva, Vishnu etc. Many devote time and energy to temple ceremonies, meditation and pilgramages. Some devote their entire lives to their faith and live as ascetics, showing incredible devotion and self-denial, to a much greater extent then most christians.

So I ask, why discount the experiences of the world's 1 billion Hindus?

Indeed why?? It would be highly irrational to DISCOUNT the beliefs of millions when considering whether or not to give any weight whatsoever to the even remote possibility that there could be something to it.

I find it interesting how when I was a christian I would look down on the adherents of other faiths, as if they were fooling themselves or misguided.

Perhaps your mistake was in "looking down" on those who at the time you probably thought had not receieved what you had received through no merit of your own.

 

[Davian]

Well, even though you do not accept the reality of transcenedent experiences, you are hopefully smart enough to recognize this:

IF there is a transcendent God, this alleged God SHOULD be able to manifest his reality in a convincing manner to those to whom he does so, as opposed to those to whom he has not yet done so, e.g. you.

You may be sincere in your claims of what you think this deity of yours can do, or may be able to do IF it existed, but one should always consider parsimony when considering these claims.

Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09 - YouTube

Indeed what? You're answering your own questions to me?

Wrong guy. I never tod you a thing about my experiences.

You claimed they were 'transcendent'. What does that mean?

And yet I can. You mean I haven't, I guess.

Here you said "I can't".

What inability? I sure have the ability to relate my experiences to those whom I know would not automatically dismiss them with 100% certitude that they were deceptions. That would leave you out.

Relate, but not demonstrate. You deleted that bit, I see.

If you have nothing, you leave me out of nothing.

 

[stiggywiggy]

You claimed they were 'transcendent'. What does that mean?

They transcend the empirical realm. I thought that would be obvious.

Here you said "I can't".

Correct. It would be impossible (by definition) to be able to prove by empirical means that there is a reality that transcends the empirical.

Relate, but not demonstrate. You deleted that bit, I see.

If so, it hardly matters. Transcendent phenomena cannot (by definition) be "demonstrated" by empirical means.

If you have nothing, you leave me out of nothing.

?? I can't make sense out of that comment.

 

[Davian]

They transcend the empirical realm. I thought that would be obvious.





Correct. It would be impossible (by definition) to be able to prove by empirical means that there is a reality that transcends the empirical.




If so, it hardly matters. Transcendent phenomena cannot (by definition) be "demonstrated" by empirical means.





?? I can't make sense out of that comment.

And I cannot make sense of yours.

What is the difference between 'transcendent' and 'non-existent'?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I fail to see how that is relevant. If I doubt the existence of Australia until six million people testify through having visited it, I will hardly be dissuaded if some call the Australians friendly, while some say they are rude.

More like when some say the entire country of australia is a desert, and others say its covered in ice?

Thats the kind of difference you have between accounts. You'd be well adviced to be atleast skeptical that these people are both talking about the same thing..

 

[juvenissun]

How about the example of another world religion.

There are roughly 1 Billion people in the world who practice the Hindu faith. They claim to experience the real, transcendent power of dieties like Shiva, Vishnu etc. Many devote time and energy to temple ceremonies, meditation and pilgramages. Some devote their entire lives to their faith and live as ascetics, showing incredible devotion and self-denial, to a much greater extent then most christians.

So I ask, why discount the experiences of the world's 1 billion Hindus? Why is their experience of god any less real then that of christians?

I find it interesting how when I was a christian I would look down on the adherents of other faiths, as if they were fooling themselves or misguided. I assumed that their experiences were not as fulfilling or 'real' as my experiences of the Jesus.

Nobody say it is not real. Theirs are simply not powerful enough, and they will not be helpful at the end.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Nobody say it is not real. Theirs are simply not powerful enough, and they will not be helpful at the end.

Did you just say the hindu gods are not powerful enough to stand up to jehova in the end?
I might have missunderstood.

 

[stiggywiggy]

And I cannot make sense of yours.

What is the difference between 'transcendent' and 'non-existent'?

A realm that transcends this physical empircal world would be "transcendent."

Whether it is non-existent has been the subject of the part of the thread I have been involved in since I entered it.

If you think they are synonymous, you are only declaring,

"I don't believe there is anything beyond this physical world," which whether true or not, is not a very interesting statement, since by defintion it is a statement that any atheist would make.

.

 

[stiggywiggy]

More like when some say the entire country of australia is a desert, and others say its covered in ice?

No, not really. I've never met anyone who claimed to have experientially verified that Australia is made of ice.

Thats the kind of difference you have between accounts.

No. I don't think so. But even if there were "differences" in accounts, to disregard a million accounts of a particular phenomenon simply because of of disparities within accounts, to disregard them as giving no weight whatsoever to even the remote possibility that they COULD be true, is irrational.

You'd be well adviced to be atleast skeptical that

There is a world of difference between skepticism and complete dismissal.

 

[GryffinSong]

...to disregard a million accounts of a particular phenomenon simply because of of disparities within accounts, to disregard them as giving no weight whatsoever to even the remote possibility that they COULD be true, is irrational.

There is a world of difference between skepticism and complete dismissal.

I think most atheists will give weight to the idea that those people experienced something. We just disagree with the interpretations that christians have placed on those experiences.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I think most atheists will give weight to the idea that those people experienced something. We just disagree with the interpretations that christians have placed on those experiences.

Fair enough, but I was addressing those who specifically stated that they would give equal weight (i.e. zero) to the testimony of millions as opposed to a handful, in regard to whether those testimonies impact even the remote posssibility that they could be valid.

Do you agree with me that those in this thread who have been taking this position are taking an irrational one?

 

[Ken-1122]

Since science deals with the empirical realm, it would be a strange thing indeed if empirical methods could be employed to verify the existence of that which by definition transcends the empirical.

My point is; just because millions believe something to be true, doesn't mean it should be given an ounce of credibility; especially when you consider the contridictions when it comes to the details of this belief.

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

According to the first United Nations international statistics report on the UFO phenomena in 1978, five percent of all Americans, more than fifteen million people, claimed to have seen a UFO. The UFO statistics registered only 1.2 percent of these cases. Then, a USA Gallop poll in 1996 showed the number jumped dramatically to 12% (roughly thirty-six million citizens specifically in the United States) of people who claimed to have seen a UFO. The Global number was then added up to about 50,000,000 (million) people.

Since then, reports have been getting better and more numerous. The "claims" of sightings from polls seem more or less the same in number, however. There's no way to be certain; statistics vary slightly from each place. Photo and video recordings of UFO's have undoubtedly increased significantly, due to the much larger number of owned digital cameras and implementation of cameras in every day devices. Along with the rise of technology of course also comes the rise inevitable fakes and hoaxes, but there is no way to cancel out a particular percentage. For the moment, keeping track of the number of UFO sightings remains quite difficult. It's now expected be around 100,000,000 Worldwide today (in 2010).

Read more: How many people have seen a UFO


So, does this prove that there are space aliens visiting Earth? That is, after all, a very popular interpretation of those sightings. Must we assume that if so many people believe that they've seen an alien spacecraft, that they are interpreting their experiences correctly?

Presumably, it is hard evidence that will demonstrate that space aliens are really visiting Earth. If they aren't, that doesn't mean that those 100,000,000 million people are crazy. They had simply misinterpreted what they had experienced because they didn't have the tools, or knowledge, or the presence of mind to question their experience.

It gets even worse when the experience is fully subjective. It's not like most people have a brain scanner and a team of neuroscientists handy at the time to figure out what was taking place in one's brain in order to find alternate explanations for the experience. Most people jump to the first "explanation" at hand, which isn't any more trustworthy than concluding space aliens from some unexplained phenomenon in the skies.


eudaimonia,

Mark