Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Eudaimonist]

Speaking for myself, after I met God in my spiritual rebirth, I will spend the rest of my life here AND hereafter getting to know God better, becoming more like God. This will entail a constant readjustment in the limited concepts that I have in my finite mind about God, reality and the material universe.

IOWs, you have made final conclusions. For you, God exists and that's final.

I am glad that you are making "constant readjustments" in your thought. I do that too. We have that in common.

You said "No, atheists conclude that religion is a fantasy or contain some other form of error." I took your word for it, because I get that a lot from Atheist, they talk all this high minded idealism about truth seeking and critical thought.....but its obvious that they have already made up their minds before all the evidence is in.

You seem to have made up your mind that you have "met God" despite not all of the evidence being in. I fail to see how you have the moral (or epistemological) high ground here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stevevw]

They don't, but they feel like it.

Well I am not sure about that. People report feeling like the world and their lives are at a greater risk. They feel more anxious and uneasy whether things are good or bad anyway. So there is a change in peoples psyche. Maybe its the ecomomies being so volatile or terrorism I dont know.

Also, on an aside note, the number of country leaders who are openly atheistic is very, very low. I think people in tthe USA would rather vote for a serial murderer who has accepted Jesus as his savior than for an atheist philantropist.

Well that says a lot. The inmates are running the asylums. But I am not sure religion comes into a great deal. They may feel if the person has a certain belief that thye may support that person more. But when it comes down to it religion plays very little role in the decision making. Its all political. There are deals done and compromises made all the time. You have to be politically correct and religious ideals would stand a chance of becoming law. It all sounds good but in reality it doesn't work like that. The only role religion will play is to give the image a bit of a blessing. But its still all politics.

 

[Colter]

IOWs, you have made final conclusions. For you, God exists and that's final.

I am glad that you are making "constant readjustments" in your thought. I do that too. We have that in common.



You seem to have made up your mind that you have "met God" despite not all of the evidence being in. I fail to see how you have the moral (or epistemological) high ground here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You missed my point, I've met God but like meeting any person, I'm getting to know what God is, getting to know more about this spirit reality that I experience in my conscious mind. I've begun exploring all fasciitis of his reality and his material, energy manifestation.

But at the same time, I don't know God as a absolute, no one can now or at any time in an endless career of truth exploration.

But you seem to know that those of us who have this experience in common, who report on it in a multitude of imperfect ways, who desire to share it, we are simply imagining things. So we can only respond by asking what technique it is that you use to claim to know this if we aren't allowed to claim to know the presence of God?

 

[Davian]

No, you misunderstand again, religion is the quest for truth on all levels.

This is demonstrably false, with the existence of religious dogma, such as that book you keep quoting from.

Atheism believes that religion is a fantasy, the imagination of billions of other people for ages upon ages.

For me that is a tentative conclusion, based on all the available evidence. Can you demonstrate that deities are more than a wholly man-made constructs?

So the Atheist is in a negative pursuit of potential errors or inconsistencies in the religionist explanation of his or her faith in order to prove their own faith in their own doubts.

No, atheism (no caps) is disbelief in gods. Words are defined by how we use them, not how you would like them to be.

 

[Davian]

1) ok fine,

2) hold on, that's where the faith of atheism comes in, you make conclusions of final value with only having a tiny amount of data about the universe, origins or potential. That's not the pursuit of a true scientist or a truth seeker. That's dogma.

Atheism is not a truth statement, or science. It is disbelief. How an individual arrives at this theistic position is unique to each person.

3) see above, your claim of a positive pursuit of truth is blinded by premature conclusions, so you are self deluded if you think you are really seeking all truth.

"But logic can never succeed in harmonizing the findings of science and the insights of religion unless both the scientific and the religious aspects of a personality are truth dominated, sincerely desirous of following the truth wherever it may lead regardless of the conclusions which it may reach. UB"​

I am not seeking "truth" as in "religion", I am seeking accurate descriptions of how the world around us works. All you are doing is making unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims, making religion look... rediculous.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You missed my point, I've met God but like meeting any person, I'm getting to know what God is, getting to know more about this spirit reality that I experience in my conscious mind.

I did get that point. I think you've missed mine: you have concluded that you've met God while simultaneously declaring how small human knowledge is. You have not considered that you have misinterpreted your experiences, and that additional evidence or ideas could (or should) lead you to change your mind about what you had "met".

There is more epistemological symmetry and equality than the opposite between theists and atheists on that account.

But you seem to know that those of us who have this experience in common, who report on it in a multitude of imperfect ways, who desire to share it, we are simply imagining things.

That's not actually my position. I don't think that the word "imagine" fully covers the territory. Imagination suggests an act of conscious will, and I don't think that religious experiences are usually willed.

However, I do think that naturalistic (that is, psychological) interpretations for religious experiences should be preferred instead of jumping to the conclusion that one has had personal contact with a universe-creating superbeing. It seems to me that rationality requires extraordinary evidence to support that claim, and subjective experiences just aren't enough. For instance, it is complete overkill to ascribe a permanent change of psychology in oneself to a universe-creating superbeing when a psychological change brought about by one's own brain may be enough.

So we can only respond by asking what technique it is that you use to claim to know this if we aren't allowed to claim to know the presence of God?

I don't claim to know that you haven't met God. Rather, I don't think that you've met the burden of proof to show that your experience really is that of a universe-creating superbeing. My conclusion is that your claim fails. Until then, mundane psychological explanations are preferable as a kind of default position. Or simply saying "I don't know what that was".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

I did get that point. I think you've missed mine: you have concluded that you've met God while simultaneously declaring how small human knowledge is. You have not considered that you have misinterpreted your experiences, and that additional evidence or ideas could (or should) lead you to change your mind about what you had "met".

There is more epistemological symmetry and equality than the opposite between theists and atheists on that account.



That's not actually my position. I don't think that the word "imagine" fully covers the territory. Imagination suggests an act of conscious will, and I don't think that religious experiences are usually willed.

However, I do think that naturalistic (that is, psychological) interpretations for religious experiences should be preferred instead of jumping to the conclusion that one has had personal contact with a universe-creating superbeing. It seems to me that rationality requires extraordinary evidence to support that claim, and subjective experiences just aren't enough. For instance, it is complete overkill to ascribe a permanent change of psychology in oneself to a universe-creating superbeing when a psychological change brought about by one's own brain may be enough.



I don't claim to know that you haven't met God. Rather, I don't think that you've met the burden of proof to show that your experience really is that of a universe-creating superbeing. My conclusion is that your claim fails. Until then, mundane psychological explanations are preferable as a kind of default position. Or simply saying "I don't know what that was".


eudaimonia,

Mark

"Is", trying to discover what it IS. The relationship with God is ongoing. You assume it was one psychological event followed by the creation of an imagined being.

At this point I think we have covered everything we can.

Thanks

 

[Davian]

You missed my point, I've met God but like meeting any person, I'm getting to know what God is, getting to know more about this spirit reality that I experience in my conscious mind. I've begun exploring all fasciitis of his reality and his material, energy manifestation.

But at the same time, I don't know God as a absolute, no one can now or at any time in an endless career of truth exploration.

But you seem to know that those of us who have this experience in common,

Claimed experiences, to be clear.

who report on it in a multitude of imperfect ways,

Indeed, like these experiences were products of individual imaginations, lacking the consistency that might arise from a single outside influence.

who desire to share it,

or assert it as some sort of truth...

we are simply imagining things.

That would be a tentative conclusion, supported by all the evidence at hand.

So we can only respond by asking what technique it is that you use to claim to know this if we aren't allowed to claim to know the presence of God?

Not my problem. You did not appear to put any value on my relating of my experience with Santa.

 

[Colter]

FWI:

Ignore list: ----> Archaeopteryx, Davian, Eight Foot Manchild

Never wrestle with a pig,

you will both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.​

.

 

[bhsmte]

FWI:

Ignore list: ----> Archaeopteryx, Davian, Eight Foot Manchild

Never wrestle with a pig,

you will both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.​

.

Seeking comfort?

 

[Loudmouth]

Seeking comfort?

Avoiding discomfort, more likely.

 

[bhsmte]

Avoiding discomfort, more likely.

Which can be, more comfortable.

 

[Davian]

FWI:

Ignore list: ----> Archaeopteryx, Davian, Eight Foot Manchild

Another tool to use on your way to finding "Truth"?

Never wrestle with a pig,

you will both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.
.

That's okay, I can wash up afterwards.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Is", trying to discover what it IS. The relationship with God is ongoing.

You have contradicted yourself above. You can't simultaneously claim to be trying to discover what something is, and then in the next breath imply that you already know that it is God.

You assume it was one psychological event followed by the creation of an imagined being.

I assume no such thing. I've already written that I don't think that the word imagination covers religious experience properly, and I never said anything about there being only one psychological event. There could be several such events, and your interpretation might develop from event to event.

It would be closer to my position to say that you have interpreted your religious experiences (plural) as having something to do with a divine being. Are you going to deny that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

You have contradicted yourself above. You can't simultaneously claim to be trying to discover what something is, and then in the next breath imply that you already know that it is God.



I assume no such thing. I've already written that I don't think that the word imagination covers religious experience properly, and I never said anything about there being only one psychological event. There could be several such events, and your interpretation might develop from event to event.

It would be closer to my position to say that you have interpreted your religious experiences (plural) as having something to do with a divine being. Are you going to deny that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

My relationship with God is ongoing (an ongoing religious experience) after my spiritual rebirth, I have been getting to know more about God and his creation. I genuinely don't understand why it's so difficult for to to just take that on face value without the hair splitting over analysis. I can understand that you have not been spirit born, sincerely don't believe in God, but you could at least believe that others believe.

 

[Colter]

Seeking comfort?

Letting nasty people on my ignore list know not to waste time and board space replying to me.

 

[Davian]

My relationship with God is ongoing (an ongoing religious experience) after my spiritual rebirth, I have been getting to know more about God and his creation. I genuinely don't understand why it's so difficult for to to just take that on face value without the hair splitting over analysis. I can understand that you have not been spirit born, sincerely don't believe in God, but you could at least believe that others believe.

I do not take issue with what, or that you believe.

However, if you air out your reasons for belief in this forum, they will be scrutinized.

If you misrepresent or incorrectly state others' positions, expect to be corrected.

 

[Davian]

Letting nasty people

Feel the Christian love.

on my ignore list know not to waste time and board space replying to me.

The responses are not necessarily for you to read. I lurked on this board for some time, hoping that someone would respond to individuals such as yourself. Here I am.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Letting nasty people on my ignore list know not to waste time and board space replying to me.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that we are responding to your posts for your benefit. Given that you are unwilling to listen to our comments, we clearly are not responding for your benefit at all. In fact, it has little to do with you. It's about the bad ideas you espouse.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Letting nasty people on my ignore list know not to waste time and board space replying to me.

The Urantia Book has clearly given you inner peace.