Atheist here (Ask me anything)

[nicknack28]

Dragons, may I make an analogy of the sort of perspective you spoke of?

Reason is like a map. You can sail around on this map all day but it doesn't get you anywhere new. One must sail beyond the limits of the map to discover where you could be (against the odds of success). But setting out to sail somewhere new without first using your map is blind.

Does this sound about right? I love analogies. They're fun to make.

 

[Dragons87]

Thanks Dragons, I appreciate the considerate response and will keep this perspective in mind.

You are welcome. I like reasoned debate too.

 

[Dragons87]

Dragons, may I make an analogy of the sort of perspective you spoke of?

Reason is like a map. You can sail around on this map all day but it doesn't get you anywhere new. One must sail beyond the limits of the map to discover where you could be (against the odds of success). But setting out to sail somewhere new without first using your map is blind.

Does this sound about right? I love analogies. They're fun to make.

Yes, it's just that.

To take another example of great people, we can pick a sailor, to match your analogy: Christopher Colombus.

You know he didn't have to sail west to find China. If he wanted to visit China he could have taken the old way through to the east, via the time-tested Silk Road.

But he wanted to prove that there was a western sea route to China, even though there has obviously been no previous evidence to show the existence of such a route.

And so he did. But he didn't do it on a whim. No. He still used time-tested methods to plan the voyage and navigate his ships. Only with this rationally calculated preparation done could he embark on his completely unbased adventure of faith.

In the end, although he failed disastrously to reach his original goal, he discovered something completely beyond his expectation--a whole new continent! His faith may have, in hindsight, been wrongly placed, but he did have faith (again, not necessarily in God), and I think the discovery of America speaks volumes about what a small amount of faith can bring.

 

[Skeptic90]

Well...you said "ask me", so here goes:

How did you come about experiencing "it"? What did you actually experience?

Well I don't think there was a specific point were I experienced 'it'. I had it throughout my life when I was a catholic. I had dreams that I was in heaven and with my guardian angel. I felt truly loved, especially after going through tough times. I felt bad whenever I didn't go to church. But everytime I went to church and read more of the bible, I felt closer to god. I felt that I could have an intimate conversation with god. So to answer your question how, well I don't know one specific time, it just came natural for me.



What made you stop experiencing "it"? Presumably that's why you lapsed in the faith.

Well reason. For 18 1/2 years I always kept reason and faith in two complete categories. I never thought I could ever mix them both. So I went to college, I began to learn more about other peoples beliefs. So at first it started with politics, then it slowly moved on until I reached the question of god? is god real? So for weeks I was in this journey to find out the 'truth'. Slowly after applying reason and logic, I slowly started losing my 'faith'. I read the bible, thought about the existence of god, and I found so many contradictions and incompatibilities. So then I asked myself could god be imaginary, simply a human thought? The answer is yes, its possible. Then I became agostic, so I started reading things on memetics, or the study how ideas 'move', I studied philosophy, and then after much consideration, I found that god is improbable, so thats when I lost my belief in god.

What do you think today that that "it" that you experienced was?

Well it was just a creation of my own mind. Just like santa clause, but for adults. The idea of god was reinforced by my family and community I lived in. It was the 'norm'. Christianity is the 'norm'. You have so many support groups, you have a family, not just your immediate family, but all fellow christians. You have hope for a better future, heaven. You are not alone in loniest of times. The combination of these and more things just makes you reinforce the idea that god truely exists and loves you. Love is the secret ingredient.

So what did I experience? I experience love from a creation of my own reality.



"But I was talking about Christianity, and self-love is un-Christian. That's why you need to have at least two people on earth to have Christianity for real."

Yes, I agree self-love is unchristian, but the point I was trying to make is that you can still love. Atheists can still have love between two people, it doesn't matter if they are christian or buddist or hindu or any other belief. Love is universal.

Also you don't need two people for christianity to be real. All you need is one. As long that person believes, and has the idea of christianity on his head, christianity will always exist, only till its forgotten it is gone. If right now someone mmade up a religion, like lets say belief in that cats are gods, wouldn't doubt this has been done before, but as long in his reality, cats are gods, it will be 'real', until he is the last person who believes it. So what did I experience, like I said before, a creation of my own reality.

 

[Skeptic90]

Yes, it's just that.

To take another example of great people, we can pick a sailor, to match your analogy: Christopher Colombus.

You know he didn't have to sail west to find China. If he wanted to visit China he could have taken the old way through to the east, via the time-tested Silk Road.

But he wanted to prove that there was a western sea route to China, even though there has obviously been no previous evidence to show the existence of such a route.

And so he did. But he didn't do it on a whim. No. He still used time-tested methods to plan the voyage and navigate his ships. Only with this rationally calculated preparation done could he embark on his completely unbased adventure of faith.

In the end, although he failed disastrously to reach his original goal, he discovered something completely beyond his expectation--a whole new continent! His faith may have, in hindsight, been wrongly placed, but he did have faith (again, not necessarily in God), and I think the discovery of America speaks volumes about what a small amount of faith can bring.

I agree, all you need is a small amount in faith in anything. Without it, we will get nowhere. In science you need a small amount of faith that your hypothesis is, more or less, correct. Just a small degree of certainty, not comllete, but minuscule. Without it we would be beings who will do nothing but doubt and do nothing to pursue the truth.

The major difference I see between faith between atheists and theists, is how far they take it. I have a small amount of faith that god may exist, but it doesn't mean I believe it. I just think there is a small amount of chance. In the other hand, theists are sure that there is a god, they have more faith, if you would like to say, than we do. So what is different, we put faith secondary of reason, theists put reason secondary of faith. Certainty vs uncertainty.

Now the other thing that separates theists and atheists is how certain they are. We atheists live an uncertain world, and we accept that. While theists live in a certain world. [FONT=&quot] Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
[/FONT]

 

[Dragons87]

Well I don't think there was a specific point were I experienced 'it'. I had it throughout my life when I was a catholic. I had dreams that I was in heaven and with my guardian angel. I felt truly loved, especially after going through tough times. I felt bad whenever I didn't go to church. But everytime I went to church and read more of the bible, I felt closer to god. I felt that I could have an intimate conversation with god. So to answer your question how, well I don't know one specific time, it just came natural for me.

Well reason. For 18 1/2 years I always kept reason and faith in two complete categories. I never thought I could ever mix them both. So I went to college, I began to learn more about other peoples beliefs. So at first it started with politics, then it slowly moved on until I reached the question of god? is god real? So for weeks I was in this journey to find out the 'truth'. Slowly after applying reason and logic, I slowly started losing my 'faith'. I read the bible, thought about the existence of god, and I found so many contradictions and incompatibilities. So then I asked myself could god be imaginary, simply a human thought? The answer is yes, its possible. Then I became agostic, so I started reading things on memetics, or the study how ideas 'move', I studied philosophy, and then after much consideration, I found that god is improbable, so thats when I lost my belief in god.

Well it was just a creation of my own mind. Just like santa clause, but for adults. The idea of god was reinforced by my family and community I lived in. It was the 'norm'. Christianity is the 'norm'. You have so many support groups, you have a family, not just your immediate family, but all fellow christians. You have hope for a better future, heaven. You are not alone in loniest of times. The combination of these and more things just makes you reinforce the idea that god truely exists and loves you. Love is the secret ingredient.

So what did I experience? I experience love from a creation of my own reality.

Please allow me to be frank, sir. I think if we are to have meaningful conversation, especially on a Christian-themed forum, we must be honest with each other.

From my own experience of interacting with atheists, you are a "typical" case in one being an atheist who claims to have been religious. I'm not saying that you're not unique as a person, but it seems that your history of religious experience isn't one that what many Christians would call "a personal relationship with God". Without that personal relationship, no wonder the distance between you and Him increased until you stopped believing!

The first question I asked was phrased deliberately to tease out a specific answer to judge my current conclusion of your religious past, and in a sense, you jumped right into the trap, even in the first sentence of your reply!--"I don't think there was a specific point were I experienced 'it'".

Christians who have a personal relationship with God will tell you that there are specific times when they experience the hand of God, or hear Him speak. The Bible is full of examples of specific encounters with God, especially the first-time: specific, recallable encounters. I list some Biblical examples:

Moses meets God in the burning bush in Exodus 3
God calls Samuel in his sleep in Judges 3
God meets Peter on Peter's fishing boat in Luke 5
God's Spirit rests on the early church on Pentecost in Acts 2

I can also point to a specific point in which God met me. To cut the long story short, I was also raised in a Christian family, doing all the stuff that was supposed to be done: church, worship, even serving, whatever.

I got baptised when I was 14, but I tell you, the time I really met God for the first time in my life on 15 November 2009 (exactly a month ago). It would take far too long to tell the story, but it suffices for now to say that experiencing God is a very specific event, with life-changing consequences. This was true for me, as is true for Moses, Samuel, Peter and the saints--their lives were completely transformed by their encounter with God.

You, I believe, are msising that encounter, which is a massive pity. You really need to experience it to know what I'm talking about!!!

It's not to say you won't ever encounter it, but there are some conditions that have to be satisfied first. More on it if you're interested.

Yes, I agree self-love is unchristian, but the point I was trying to make is that you can still love. Atheists can still have love between two people, it doesn't matter if they are christian or buddist or hindu or any other belief. Love is universal.

Also you don't need two people for christianity to be real. All you need is one. As long that person believes, and has the idea of christianity on his head, christianity will always exist, only till its forgotten it is gone. If right now someone mmade up a religion, like lets say belief in that cats are gods, wouldn't doubt this has been done before, but as long in his reality, cats are gods, it will be 'real', until he is the last person who believes it. So what did I experience, like I said before, a creation of my own reality.

Yes, atheists can love. I do not dispute that! The distinction that I'm drawing is that atheists can love both themselves and others. But true Christians cannot love themselves. There must be two to make it work.

Christianity is not an idea, or a philosophy. It's a mode of life, an action.

But that's by the point now, I think. This specific debate won't go anywhere. Let's just agree to disagree. You may have the final word if you like, but please forgive me as I will not respond in substance, though I will note your point.

I agree, all you need is a small amount in faith in anything. Without it, we will get nowhere. In science you need a small amount of faith that your hypothesis is, more or less, correct. Just a small degree of certainty, not comllete, but minuscule. Without it we would be beings who will do nothing but doubt and do nothing to pursue the truth.

The major difference I see between faith between atheists and theists, is how far they take it. I have a small amount of faith that god may exist, but it doesn't mean I believe it. I just think there is a small amount of chance. In the other hand, theists are sure that there is a god, they have more faith, if you would like to say, than we do. So what is different, we put faith secondary of reason, theists put reason secondary of faith. Certainty vs uncertainty.

It's a great step for you to recognise not only the existence, but usefulness, of faith! Too many atheists have refused to do that, but I suppose my, or our, delivery of the explanation, was just sub-standard.

Returning to the point about me meeting God four Sundays ago, it had nothing to do with faith.

People don't just have faith because of nothing. Remember, faith is a tool to change an existing situation into something completely new, or do something that has never been done before. To be in a situation to use faith, there must be two factors:

1. The existing situation or state of affairs must be unbearable, or unacceptable. That is only reason why anyone would think of something new to do, or dream of a better future. So Washington thought that British rule was unbearable, Columbus thought that the route east to China was too expensive, and I thought that my life before meeting God was crap.

2. They must know what they want to achieve, i.e. a vision of the alternative. For Washington it was a new, fair and just nation. For Columbus it was a profitable trade route. For me, it was the kind of life that I could lead if I accepted God as my guide.

Only then will he make a plan to change the situation. Reason, which is really a logical assessment of what has gone before, and emotion, an instant judgment of what is happening now, are used in these stages.

Washington began to plan for a revolution. Columbus built his ships. I sought God.

But faith is what triggers the next step: whether the person acutally acts to change the situation, or to do the new action.

A question worth considering, about the "sizes" of faith. Do you think it requires greater faith to believe in a God, who many others already testify the existence, presence and activity of, or to believe that sailing west from Portugal will bring you to China, even though no Chinese person has ever come from the west and no European has ever gone to China by going west--basically, zero evidence that China lies at the west of Europe?

I think it's the latter. In that sense, Columbus probably had a greater faith in embarking on his trip than what I had when I found God.

Now the other thing that separates theists and atheists is how certain they are. We atheists live an uncertain world, and we accept that. While theists live in a certain world. [FONT=&quot]Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. [/FONT]

Yes, sir. But the Truth, no matter how many times, or in what direction you question it from, will remain the Truth. It is our belief in the Truth that allows Christians to live in an uncertain world. Yes, Christians know and accept that the world is uncertain, but we have the Truth to hold on to, whereas atheists have absolutely nothing to hold on to in the long term.

Unfortunately many people are just stubbornly blind to the Truth, in which case, one would have to open their eyes and prepare their heart to at least hear what the Truth has to say.

 

[nicknack28]

Forgive me for being difficult but I'm uncomfortable using terms (capitalized, even) like Truth as you have at the end of your post. If you're using it as an abbreviation for something (that the Holy Spirit of God is working in our world to bring people to Christ, for example), then I request that you specify what. I say this because I am not sure what you're talking about in the last couple paragraphs.

I also (just hot-air nitpicking here) am not sure what "believe in the Truth" is meant to mean. You can know the truth, not know the truth, believe the truth, not believe the truth... but "believe in the truth" seems to suggest something else entirely. Your wording just sounds like truth is a divine entity that someone can rely on or something. Is truth not just accurate information/reality?

That might all be just me reading into the statement too much. Sorry if it sounds like its just trying to provoke. It's not. I just found much of your wording abstract and vague near the end.

I would also like to add that your perspective of what faith is -- a tool to attain or achieve something greater than what you can using just reason -- is honestly rather heartening. If faith is viewed in this way I can see it as useful and necessary in many ways to certain degrees.

The problem I see is that many people don't seem to adopt this interpretation. Faith, to most (sorry that I can't avoid a generalization), means absolute trust. By this I mean trust in something no matter what challenges it, what support it may lack, how rational it is, whether you actually understand it or not, etc., etc. Faith is often used as absolute, unquestioning, unmoving trust in something, as if the person should have no worries, doubts, or concerns. Why do I say this? Because any time a person suggests doubt of something the response they get is the classic "Just have faith!" It is the golden glue that fixes any problem. It doesn't seem to matter what the question is or what is being doubted -- if there's doubt you've just gotta fix it with faith.

How will I know what God wants and does not want? Just have faith!
How do I know that God is listening to me? Just have faith!
What should I do when it seems God isn't there? Just have faith!
How do I know all this in the Bible is actually true? Just have faith!
How can I distinguish between the voice of God and my emotions? Just have faith!
How can I be sure my pastor knows what he/she's talking about? Just have faith!
What if my relationship with God loses its strength? Just have faith!
Why would God do this or that to whom, or when, or where, or how? Just have faith!

I don't believe I have ever met a person that considers faith to have the same qualities and function as you do (and that is unfortunate). If they did then I'm pretty certain the concept of faith would not be viewed nearly as negatively. I hope I am wrong about this assertion of how faith is treated, and please let me know if this sounds too far off the mark. I just wanted to be frank with my observations of its use.

P.S. I think that is the most spot-on way of thinking of how faith is used in general: the opposite of doubt. It at least seems to be the case with nearly every Christian I've encountered (no hostility intended here).

 

[Skeptic90]

wait what? When this become a debate? This is just a discussion on our ideas, not to put each other down. Nevertheless, I will respond to your ideas.


[FONT=&quot]"Christians who have a personal relationship with God will tell you that there are specific times when they experience the hand of God, or hear Him speak. The Bible is full of examples of specific encounters with God, especially the first-time: specific, recallable encounters."[/FONT]

Well I will be strictly scientific about this. This occurs at times of high stress or emotion. People will have hallucinations and hear things, things they want to hear, from them. In extreme cases, from a cause of a chemical unbalance of the brain. (I took some psychology classes =) ) These encounters are as meaningful as a schizophrenic having them, like I said before, a creation of their own reality, which they accept to be real. Now if everyone had this experience, or a large group of people who are not related in any way, in belief or culture, then there will be something to it. This is not evidence of a god. If the exact thing happened to me, I would say I must be having a hallucination. This is where atheists and some believers differ, what is considered evidence. I was thinking of analyzing some of these type of stories and see if there are any correlations of your experience and others experiences. If you would like to share your story, please do. I would like to more on the conditions to reach this experience. From what I heard so far, I do not have anything that points somewhere else.


[FONT=&quot]"Christianity is not an idea, or a philosophy. It's a mode of life, an action.[/FONT]"

Completely agree. Its an instruction book on how to live your life.

 

[Dragons87]

Forgive me for being difficult but I'm uncomfortable using terms (capitalized, even) like Truth as you have at the end of your post. If you're using it as an abbreviation for something (that the Holy Spirit of God is working in our world to bring people to Christ, for example), then I request that you specify that. I say this because I frankly am not sure what you're talking about in the last couple paragraphs.

I would also (just hot-air nitpicking here) argue that one cannot "believe in the Truth." You can know the truth, not know the truth, believe the truth, not believe the truth... but "believe in the truth" seems to suggest something else entirely. Your wording just sounds like truth is a divine entity that someone can rely on or something. Is truth not just accurate information?

That might all be just me reading into the statement too much. Sorry if it sounds like its just trying to provoke. It's not. I just found much of your working abstract and vague near the end.

I apologise for the confusion. Your interpretation of what I meant is spot on. Yes, the Truth (capital "T") is the divine entity that you and I can rely on.

When I used it I had this verse in mind:

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life." -- John 14:6a

The Lord Himself uses the word in that very weird way, calling Himself the Truth, which accounts for the weird way I use the word...

Interesting though, His use of the word.

As you said, when we want to say we are correct in a certain argument, we usually say, "I have the truth", "I know the truth" or "I believe the truth is".

But Jesus claims that He is the Truth, which is weird. I don't know whether anyone else who has ever described themselves in just that way. Extremely egoistic to the point of intolerable arrogance by the look of it, but we know that Jesus was the most humble of all men.

Interesting, is all I will say. You can make your own conclusion about the truth in Jesus' claim, though if you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

I would also like to add that your perspective of what faith is -- a tool to attain or achieve something greater than what you can using just reason -- is honestly rather heartening. If faith is viewed in this way I can see it as useful and necessary in many ways to certain degrees.

The problem I see is that many people don't seem to adopt this interpretation. Faith, to most (sorry that I can't avoid a generalization), means absolute trust. By this I mean trust in something no matter what challenges it, what support it may lack, how rational it is, whether you actually understand it or not, etc., etc. Faith is often used as absolute, unquestioning, unmoving trust in something. Why do I say this? Because any time a person suggests doubt of something the response they get is the classic "Just have faith!" It is the golden glue that fixes any problem. It doesn't seem to matter what the question is or what is being doubted -- if there's doubt you've just gotta fix it with faith.

How will I know what God wants and does not want? Just have faith!
How do I know that God is listening to me? Just have faith!
What should I do when it seems God isn't there? Just have faith!
How do I know all this in the Bible is actually true? Just have faith!
How can I distinguish between the voice of God and my emotions? Just have faith!
How can I be sure my pastor knows what he/she's talking about? Just have faith!
What if my relationship with God loses its strength? Just have faith!
Why would God do this or that to whom, or when, or where, or how? Just have faith!

I don't believe I have ever met a person that considers faith to have the same qualities and function as you do (and that is unfortunate). If they did then I'm pretty certain the concept of faith would not be viewed nearly as negatively. I hope I am wrong about this assertion of how faith is treated, and please let me know if this sounds too far off the mark. I just wanted to be obvious with my observations of its use.

I understand what you say. That statement in itself, while well meaning, is flawed and most unhelpful.

I don't know what kind of situations you find yourself when you hear other people say this, but I suspect that has something to do with it. For example, if you read it on an online forum such as this one, it may simply be because people don't know each other well enough to offer any kind of concrete advice, or when an issue arises that needs semi- or acutal professional advice.

I hope you will agree that faith that crumbles at the first sign of trouble or difficulty is not strong. Imagine if Washington's faith crumbled at the first sight of the Redcoats!

I recognise that an extreme level of faith that completely detaches from reality is just fantasy. But when the faith becomes "extreme" and becomes fantasy is a personal judgment call. But even so, faith is a tool, and "extreme" faith is used as a tool to achieve "extreme" goals. So the faith isn't necessarily the problem--the goal is.

I myself constantly find my faith in God being challenged, but challenged faith grows, as new experience becomes old experience, which can be recalled when I need reason to keep making new decisions with courage and faith.

For Christians, the teaching from St. Paul is that if you are strong in faith, watch that that strong faith doesn't trip up people who are of weaker faith. You can find that teaching in Romans 14.

Faith should not be the biggest component of a healthy Christian life. 1 Corinthians 13 makes it very clear. Three things remain forever: faith, hope and love, but love is the biggest, not faith. This ties in with the teaching in Romans 14: you may have great faith, but if it is tripping up people of weaker faith, out of love, abandon your claim of greater faith for the sake of the other people.

So if there's a problem in one's life, it must be fixed with love, not with faith. As I said, I met God not because of my faith, but because of His great love for me.

 

[Dragons87]

wait what? When this become a debate? This is just a discussion on our ideas, not to put each other down. Nevertheless, I will respond to your ideas.

Sorry, I mean "discussion". Really. YES! REALLY!!!

Well I will be strictly scientific about this. This occurs at times of high stress or emotion. People will have hallucinations and hear things, things they want to hear, from them. In extreme cases, from a cause of a chemical unbalance of the brain. (I took some psychology classes =) ) These encounters are as meaningful as a schizophrenic having them, like I said before, a creation of their own reality, which they accept to be real. Now if everyone had this experience, or a large group of people who are not related in any way, in belief or culture, then there will be something to it. This is not evidence of a god. If the exact thing happened to me, I would say I must be having a hallucination. This is where atheists and some believers differ, what is considered evidence. I was thinking of analyzing some of these type of stories and see if there are any correlations of your experience and others experiences. If you would like to share your story, please do. I would like to more on the conditions to reach this experience. From what I heard so far, I do not have anything that points somewhere else.

Ah! I've noticed it! Whenever people talk about science they immediately become impersonal and hypothetical. Don't know if you notice how your language changes--I do.

I think that's the problem with science. It deals with the impersonal. It tries to find non-emotional statements to explain emotional problems, which is frankly boring. And slightly offensive. Just slightly.

Noticed how you completely brushed me, as a human being, aside and presented your cold, heartless scientific theories and facts, almost suggesting that I'm schizophrenic, even though, well, you don't know me, and when you're not a professional medical practitioner. I mean no offence, but you can't just put a blanket diagnosis on religious people as a whole (or even anyone) with a few scientific theories. I suppose it could be as frustrating as someone saying "Just have faith" to you, which is equally impersonal and useless.

Mind you, I don't bear any grudge. None at all. Sorry...:o

I'm not interested in dealing with scientific explanations, especially impersonal ones. My faith requires me to deal with real people, real situations and real problems; not to analyse the surface causes, but to dig deep into the heart of each person and, if they need help, offer a hand.

I apologise if that was perceived to be rude in any way. I mean absolutely no malice.

[FONT=&quot]"Christianity is not an idea, or a philosophy. It's a mode of life, an action.[/FONT]"

Completely agree. Its an instruction book on how to live your life.

More or less, yes. Like the operating manual of a car.

 

[Skeptic90]

"I'm not interested in dealing with scientific explanations, especially impersonal ones. My faith requires me to deal with real people, real situations and real problems; not to analyse the surface causes, but to dig deep into the heart of each person and, if they need help, offer a hand."


Well I am sorry if I was offending you. I am simply making a point that there is a scientific explanation to what you experienced, and to our eyes it is not evidence to change our mind.

Well I am not a professional or anything, I simply love to study the human brain and ideas.

This simply comes to show that you take the existence of god as being certain and the truth. While I simply doubt. I am a skeptic. "To believe in luck-is skepticism"- Ralph Waldo.

I simply want to investigate to find the truth. Truth is relative. It is relative on what you believe.

Sorry if I was being cold, but I was simply trying to give an explanation to your experience, and why I don't think it isn't evidence for why god exists.

 

[nicknack28]

I won't go into scientific discussion (though I'm not opposed in the slightest -- I don't find scientific explanations impersonal, just objective), but I would like to say that I at least find personal experiences like those discussed that can be explained via psychology and the like to be of little to no value.

I do not mean this in a cold way (and yes, it's a very typical atheist thing to say). But really, if the crutch of someone's argument for something is personal experience -- something that is entirely subjective, anecdotal, and not measurable in any way -- it shouldn't be convincing. That goes for anything, not just religion.

For example, hearing one random person's tale about how their relative died from the swine flu should not be taken to imply that it's rampantly dangerous. Instead, one must look at some sort of actual evidence beyond that one person. If your neighbor says a certain football team sucks, you can't just take it at face value as enlightening. Instead, you must find some sort of actual evidence of that team being unsuccessful. If a movie is trying to convince you that the food industry is corrupt by telling you a story of single breakout of E. Coli and the sorrow it brought the people who were affected (Food, Inc. reference here...), you can't just take that view and run with it. Instead, you need further factual evidence of food mishandling, disease breakouts, and health code violations. It's generally accepted that the subjective, anecdotal, personal experiences of people can't really give you more information than opinion, even if they may have a kernel or two of truth in them. You just can't make accurate claims based upon them.

Obviously the best way to support some sort of claim is to get raw data for it. Get some statistics. Get numbers involved. Operate without bias. Get a wide and varied sample. If you're a scientist, redo your experiments many times, try variations of it with different variables, perform them double-blind, submit your experiments and findings for peer review, etc.

I honestly don't know how this sort of approach can be applied to religion or faith, but I simply want to stress that the strive for objectivity isn't cold, impersonal, or callous. It's just good thinking. We do it every day for every thing. I don't see why the strive for objectivity should stop short of religion. When we're talking about the greatest questions we can possibly ask in the history of the universe, shouldn't we consider some objectivity in the matter?

Sorry if all that sounds preachy, and I'm well aware everyone's heard the spiel countless times. I guess it's simply a strong reaction against shrugging science off as impersonal, unemotional, stale, or boring. There's a specific reason for that. If our pursuit of knowledge was personal, emotional, or contrived for its liveliness, it would not be reliable in the slightest.

 

[Dragons87]

Well I am sorry if I was offending you. I am simply making a point that there is a scientific explanation to what you experienced, and to our eyes it is not evidence to change our mind.

Well I am not a professional or anything, I simply love to study the human brain and ideas.

This simply comes to show that you take the existence of god as being certain and the truth. While I simply doubt. I am a skeptic. "To believe in luck-is skepticism"- Ralph Waldo.

I simply want to investigate to find the truth. Truth is relative. It is relative on what you believe.

Sorry if I was being cold, but I was simply trying to give an explanation to your experience, and why I don't think it isn't evidence for why god exists.

That's a fair point. I think I understand where you are coming from. However, please hear me out.

I return to a point I made: one who has not experienced a certain event cannot, even under the guise of scienctific study, judge the experience of someone who has, especially if the former doesn't even know the latter in any way, shape or form. That is highly presumptuous.

You are right in saying that I am using my subjective to judge my own experience. Yes. I agree that that's the case.

But what you are also doing is you're using your subjective to judge my subjective that I use to judge myself. I don't let others tell me what I should believe. That's the case for religious claims, and so is for scientific claims.

Without knowing me as a person, or dragging me to a psyscho-analyst, your general point is impossible to prove on the specific case of me. So while your general theoretical point is accepted as valid, there's a tight limit of your claim's usefulness.

And there's a tight limit to my claim's usefulness too, I hasten to add. You are right that I have a rock solid faith that God exists. But I cannot just say, "Oh, He exists! Believe me!" because obviously you don't believe He exists. So my experience is limited to my experience. If God exists, He will reveal Himself to you (subject to certain conditions); I cannot take His place. I'm here to...chat, really.

I won't go into scientific discussion (though I'm not opposed in the slightest -- I don't find scientific explanations impersonal, just objective), but I would like to say that I at least find personal experiences like those discussed that can be explained via psychology and the like to be of little to no value.

I do not mean this in a cold way (and yes, it's a very typical atheist thing to say). But really, if the crutch of someone's argument for something is personal experience -- something that is entirely subjective, anecdotal, and not measurable in any way -- it shouldn't be convincing. That goes for anything, not just religion.

For example, hearing one random person's tale about how their relative died from the swine flu should not be taken to imply that it's rampantly dangerous. Instead, one must look at some sort of actual evidence beyond that one person. If your neighbor says a certain football team sucks, you can't just take it at face value as enlightening. Instead, you must find some sort of actual evidence of that team being unsuccessful. If a movie is trying to convince you that the food industry is corrupt by telling you a story of single breakout of E. Coli and the sorrow it brought the people who were affected (Food, Inc. reference here...), you can't just take that view and run with it. Instead, you need further factual evidence of food mishandling, disease breakouts, and health code violations. It's generally accepted that the subjective, anecdotal, personal experiences of people can't really give you more information than opinion, even if they may have a kernel or two of truth in them. You just can't make accurate claims based upon them.

Obviously the best way to support some sort of claim is to get raw data for it. Get some statistics. Get numbers involved. Operate without bias. Get a wide and varied sample. If you're a scientist, redo your experiments many times, try variations of it with different variables, perform them double-blind, submit your experiments and findings for peer review, etc.

I honestly don't know how this sort of approach can be applied to religion or faith, but I simply want to stress that the strive for objectivity isn't cold, impersonal, or callous. It's just good thinking. We do it every day for every thing. I don't see why the strive for objectivity should stop short of religion. When we're talking about the greatest questions we can possibly ask in the history of the universe, shouldn't we consider some objectivity in the matter?

Sorry if all that sounds preachy, and I'm well aware everyone's heard the spiel countless times. I guess it's simply a strong reaction against shrugging science off as impersonal, unemotional, stale, or boring. There's a specific reason for that. If our pursuit of knowledge was personal, emotional, or contrived for its liveliness, it would not be reliable in the slightest.

I understand what you say.

However, the capital-T Truth of Christianity is not a fact that we have to search high and low for. It's not a scientific question that needs an answer. The Truth is in Christians; it should be visible in what Christians do, in how they love others. So it's here and now. I don't really know whether I'm explaining it right...

Perhaps I will explain it with the examples you used.

Suppose, as you said, a random person tells me a tale of how her relative died because of swine flu. You said you would have to go out and ascertain the truth as to whether swine flu is generally deadly.

I don't know whether what you said would be the first thought that would come to your mind, but the first thought that came to my mind when I read your example, was, "Gosh, that's horrible." I would then seek to comfort and console that random person, because for her, the death of her relative is very real. Subjective? Very. But that is how the Christian Truth is revealed.

Does it matter for me whether swine flu is deadly generally? Yes, of course it does! But does the random person's emotions over her dead relative matter more? Very much so. In that sense, the truth of the disease doesn't matter at all.

If my neighbour tells me that a certain football team sucks, even if I knew that that football team is the best in the world, I wouldn't flaunt my knowledge to put him down. No. I'll share his joy, and share his sorrow.

Does it matter which football team is better? Yes, it does, to some. But my neighbour's emotions, and the harmony between us, matters more. So I forgo the truth in order to live the Truth.

Paul puts it pretty well in 1 Corinthians chapter 8: knowledge builds our egos, but love (the Truth) edifies other people's lives. In that sense, to a Christian, knowledge of facts are relatively unimportant to the living of love; the truth of the matter is nothing compared to the Truth of life.

I don't know if that would make any sense to an atheist. Haha. I only wish for you to understand, not to accept.

I hasten to add, though, that I have long had a natural, non-religious aversion to mathematics and natural science. Humanities and people are what really interest me.

There are many scientists out there who are Christians, and obviously they would know better than I do. So please don't take my opinion is representative of the overall Christian opinion. Hehe.

 

[CoderHead]

Imagine if Washington's faith crumbled at the first sight of the Redcoats!

Faith? Or resolve? I'm not so certain that Washington fought the war he fought out of faith. If so, faith in what? A new country? Freedom? The Revolutionary War certainly wasn't a religious war. So what are you suggesting?

If God exists, He will reveal Himself to you (subject to certain conditions); I cannot take His place.

But this is also a very presumptuous statement. Is that a written guarantee? What if God never reveals Himself to any of us? Then He doesn't exist? Is that your concession? Or will your "certain conditions" prove themselves vague enough to fit any situation and explain away the lack of revelation?

 

[nicknack28]

First you described your use of Truth to be referring to Jesus. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." However, you did not offer a suggestion as to what his metaphor means. Using the word Truth, then, only suggests that you are talking specifically of Jesus.

But you've also used the word Truth to mean love. Although I understand the point you're making in your last post -- that love is a more important objective than truth -- I still am entirely unclear on why you've chosen the words you have to say this.

So far I've gathered that Truth means Jesus (that divine entity upon which we can rely, as we've both stated) and Truth means love. That means, consequently, that Jesus is love. In all frankness I have no interest in abstract language regardless of whether the Bible is the source of it. This isn't meant in offense, but if we mean Jesus let's just say Jesus and if we mean love let's just say love.

My interest in this discussion of truth is primarily concerned with people's independent personal experiences and how they use them to ascertain truth. This is one reason why I chose to speak so much on objectivity versus subjectivity (the latest discussion), where we can get using reason and using faith (map analogy), and how people can completely silence doubt in the name of faith (the "Just have faith!" discussion). All complexity of how people use certain terms aside, I'd like to return at least eventually to this, from a much earlier post of mine:

It has been brought up (I'm summarizing and interpreting at the same time) that one's religious conviction, such as that dealing with the Christian god, comes through personal experience, revelation, the influence of the Holy Spirit, etc., and cannot be achieved through simply observing evidence of this and that. I can actually respect this in a way. If someone acknowledges that their faith does not hinge upon evidence (and is aware that this isn't a generally rational way of going about things), but is dependent on personal experience alone, at least they are honest that faith cannot be reconciled with reason. They can concede that it is fundamentally irrational to believe something without evidence of it but argue that religious convictions, whether for better or for worse, must be assessed independent of reason.

This next part is what I don't understand though. If someone (aware that they are doing it) submits to subjective personal experiences rather than reason, what makes them take that next step and assign their experience to a particular god or religion? If something so profound and rapturous affects you emotionally to the point that you must deliberately abandon reason and submit to that experience's suggestion of something divine, what makes a person conclude that that experience was the influence of Holy Spirit? Or Yahweh? Or the Buddha? Or Muhammad's spirit (I have no idea what an Islamic equivalent of an influential force would be other than Allah -- approximately Yahweh).

Let me put it this way, if you were not religious at all and you one day experienced the same sort of emotional revelation/relationship with God that you do now, and it wasn't suggested to you by anyone what the cause of that experience was, how would you know that it was the influence of the god you believe in now?

The point I'm driving at is the same Skeptic made earlier. People of all religions experience something emotionally exceptional and can conclude that there actually is something divine out there. And, in the best of cases, the experiencer can even concede that in this case they actually must abandon reason (no empirical evidence of the divine) in favor of such a severe emotional influence. However, it is only because of their upbringing that they assign this divinity to Yahweh, Zeus, the Buddha, etc. If you were raised Christian you'll obviously assign this influence to the Holy Spirit. If you were raised Jewish you'll obviously assign this influence to Yahweh (and so on and so forth with all religions).

Is this not a fair assessment? If anyone has anything to add that contests this I would with true sincerity wish to pursue this topic further. I don't want to make this look like a jab-and-run post, for I'm always open to discussion.

I don't think it was ever really discussed much and it is this question that has been in the back of my mind throughout the last few pages of discussion. Even if we ultimately entertain the idea that the subjective personal experiences of people can actually lead to some form of discovery, who tells them what they've actually discovered?

If you've felt the presence of the divine (whatever it be) so strongly that you simply cannot be satisfied with a scientific explanation of your experience, what then makes a person go and assign that experience to the god of their upbringing? This harks back to the problem that nearly every religious person claims to have had some emotional revelation that led them to believe that their pet god is the actual true one. This is problematic.

I'm feeling very long-winded today (more so than usual) and repeat myself too often. I apologize. However, if it helps make discussion clearer then I won't take issue with it.

 

[Dragons87]

Faith? Or resolve? I'm not so certain that Washington fought the war he fought out of faith. If so, faith in what? A new country? Freedom? The Revolutionary War certainly wasn't a religious war. So what are you suggesting?

That he fought the war out of a certain kind of motivation, which exceeds his rational assessment of the evidence at hand, that drives him to push forward even at the worst of times.

That motivation, I call "faith".

That is it. It has nothing to do with God or religion.

But this is also a very presumptuous statement. Is that a written guarantee? What if God never reveals Himself to any of us? Then He doesn't exist? Is that your concession? Or will your "certain conditions" prove themselves vague enough to fit any situation and explain away the lack of revelation?

Yes. It is a written guarantee. Not by me, but by Him. The most simple and most popular form of the guarantee is this:

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." -- Matthew 7:7-8

There are other versions of the same guarantee littered in the Bible.

Not only does He guarantee that He will be found if He is sought, He also guarantees to active seek you too:

"this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness." -- Ezekiel 34:11-12

Again, there are other versions of the same guarantee littered elsewhere in the Bible.

About the conditions, let me put it this way. Suppose you were foreigner, and wanted to obtain American or British citizenship. The government set some criteria for you to do that. For example, to become British, you must have lived in the country for 10 years and must pass a citizenship test. If you said you wanted to get the citizenship, but either refuse to commit yourself to living here for 10 years or take the test, you simply won't get that citizenship. No matter how much you criticise how unfair the criteria may be, you still need to fulfil the requirements to obtain citizenship.

It is the same for citizenship in God's kingdom. There are specific criteria that one must fulfil before one is granted heavenly citizenship.

One of the basic conditions is that you must believe that there is a physically invisible god who is much greater than humans:

"anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" -- Hebrews 11:6

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit" -- John 4:24

This is a very basic condition. Atheists, by definition, unfortunately, do not satisfy it. If one fails at the first hurdle, why talk about the second, third or other hurdles?

But even before that condition, there is another condition that must be met--you can't try to beat a hurdle if you decide not to the race. But why would anyone start running the race?

People must first have some very minor nagging thoughts of discontent and query with the world as it is, a belief that humans do not have all the answers or solutions to questions, even though they themselves ask the questions, e.g. why is there so much suffering in the world?.

If one was completely satisfied in their own skin, they would not seek God--Jesus's sermon on the mount in Matthew 5, in addition to His other teachings, makes this clear. It is those who recognise there's something not quite right about this world or themselves who will see God.

I won't go on for too long as yet. Have a think.

 

[CoderHead]

That is it. It has nothing to do with God or religion.

That's a pretty broad, sweeping definition of faith. I suppose it could apply to anything at all.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." -- Matthew 7:7-8

My life experience tells me otherwise. But I don't want to get into the "True Christian" debate...again.

"anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" -- Hebrews 11:6

I absolutely did, without question, when I was a child.

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit" -- John 4:24

I also did this when I was a child.

But even before that condition, there is another condition that must be met--you can't try to beat a hurdle if you decide not to the race.

I had every intention of running the race. The problem is, I showed up and it appeared the race had been canceled.

If one was completely satisfied in their own skin, they would not seek God--Jesus's sermon on the mount in Matthew 5, in addition to His other teachings, makes this clear.

I suppose that's where I am now. I don't appear to be missing anything, so why seek out something obscure to fill an imaginary void? In fact, the only time I ever thought I was missing something in my life is when I was young and everybody around me kept telling me I was missing something.

It is those who recognise there's something not quite right about this world or themselves who will see God.

I definitely think there's something not quite right about this world, but the concept of God only muddies it further.

 

[Dragons87]

First you described your use of Truth to be referring to Jesus. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." However, you did not offer a suggestion as to what his metaphor means. Using the word Truth, then, only suggests that you are talking specifically of Jesus.

But you've also used the word Truth to mean love. Although I understand the point you're making in your last post -- that love is a more important objective than truth -- I still am entirely unclear on why you've chosen the words you have to say this.

So far I've gathered that Truth means Jesus (that divine entity upon which we can rely, as we've both stated) and Truth means love. That means, consequently, that Jesus is love. In all frankness I have no interest in abstract language regardless of whether the Bible is the source of it. This isn't meant in offense, but if we mean Jesus let's just say Jesus and if we mean love let's just say love.

I apologise. There simply are far too many ways to describe the Truth. John tries to do so in his Gospel, in chapter 1, but still manages to sound very confusing.

The first two verses of the Gospel of John are these:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." -- John 1:1-2

Truth = Jesus = God = light = Word = love = life ad infinitum

I don't think it was ever really discussed much and it is this question that has been in the back of my mind throughout the last few pages of discussion. Even if we ultimately entertain the idea that the subjective personal experiences of people can actually lead to some form of discovery, who tells them what they've actually discovered?

If you've felt the presence of the divine (whatever it be) so strongly that you simply cannot be satisfied with a scientific explanation of your experience, what then makes a person go and assign that experience to the god of their upbringing? This harks back to the problem that nearly every religious person claims to have had some emotional revelation that led them to believe that their pet god is the actual true one. This is problematic.

The supposition that people "grow up into the religion" is only valid where the religion has been established for a long time, and if you're a Muslim or a Jew (who, to some extent, believe that people are born Muslim or Jew).

If you look at the history of Christianity it simply is not the case. It began as a very small sect in Judaea, a Roman province. 2,000 years later it is a global religion. Surely not every Christian in history was born to a Christian and raised as a Christian! None of the 12 disciples were. Paul wasn't. St. Augustine wasn't. First generation Christians in Asia and Africa of years past weren't.

But since I myself was born to Christian parents, I cannot presume to be able to answer this in full, as a personal experience. But most Christians outside the western world are adult converts. If you find one, they'll tell you their story.

EDIT: I think though, if still working through the equation I worked out, which looks like this:

Problem --> Vision --> Action --> Solution

it depends on what vision is offered to you, and whether after the action, you reach a solution.

 

[Dragons87]

I absolutely did, without question, when I was a child.

It's most interesting you say that. One of the conditions you seek is exactly that: be a child.

'People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.' -- Mark 10:13-16

'At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.' -- Luke 10:21

You have heard the Word, my friend. But what is the status of your heart now? Is it like this?:

'This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God...The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.' -- Luke 8:11, 14

What about this?

'But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.' -- Luke 8:15

Three more conditions are introduced for one to come to God: one who has a noble and good heart, who retrains the word after hearing it, and who produces a crop by perservering through difficulty.

 

[CoderHead]

Condition after condition after condition until you get right down to the only one that matters: acceptance without scrutiny.