The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Loudmouth]

*There exists a great cosmic gulf between matter and thought, and this gulf is immeasurably greater between material mind and spiritual love. Consciousness, much less self-consciousness, cannot be explained by any theory of mechanistic electronic association or materialistic energy phenomena.

400 years ago we couldn't explain lightning with any theory of mechanistic electronic association or materialistic energy phenomena.

You are arguing for a God of the Gaps which really isn't a very good argument.

*The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God.

We are going to need more than your say so.

 

[Colter]

Conceptions of 'god' are immensely varied, and contradict each other. This is exactly what I would expect to see if your 'god' was purely imaginary, because everyone's mind is different.

So again, by what means is your 'knowledge of god' distinguishable from imagination?

Remember not to steal from logic or science when you provide your answer.

This addresses your point that due to the subjective nature of the religious experience, there are so many variations expressed by so many different religionists:

1. Philosophy of Religion​

(1129.8) 103:1.1 The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.

(1130.1) 103:1.2 When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

(1130.2) 103:1.3 While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

(1130.3) 103:1.4 Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

(1130.4) 103:1.5 That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

(1130.5) 103:1.6 The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman."Urantia Book 1955

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This addresses your point that due to the subjective nature of the religious experience, there are so many variations expressed by so many different religionists:

This does absolutely nothing to answer my question.

By what means is your 'knowledge of god' distinguishable from something you may merely be imagining?

 

[Colter]

400 years ago we couldn't explain lightning with any theory of mechanistic electronic association or materialistic energy phenomena.

You are arguing for a God of the Gaps which really isn't a very good argument.



We are going to need more than your say so.

I don't have any miraculous signs or proofs that will satisfy you. Jesus demonstrated that such anomalies still aren't enough for the professional skeptic. If you are ever going to search for God (which would illustrate that you have already found him) uncertainty will still persist. You will need to take the path yourself, there are no shortcuts.

In the case of Jesus, when pressed for authority to teach as he did, he replied that no sign shall be given, but then he said "tear down this temple (pointing to his body) and in three days I will raise it up again." He did just that, but even for us disciples we still grapple with living the same faith life that Jesus lived.

 

[Colter]

This does absolutely nothing to answer my question.

By what means is your 'knowledge of god' distinguishable from something you may merely be imagining?

Btw, to be consistent, should I assume that because there are so many variations among philosophers, scientist, humanists, Atheists etc. that they are just imagining things?

For me the spirit birth altered my perceptions of reality from the inside out, it was like a "light" that came on and never went out. I have a creative imagination but that is more like a tool that I can cut on and off, the spirit is always on, it may dim at times and shine brighter other times.

I doubt that's a satisfactory answer.

 

[Chany]

Btw, to be consistent, should I assume that because there are so many variations among philosophers, scientist, humanists, Atheists etc. that they are just imagining things?

For me the spirit birth altered my perceptions of reality from the inside out, it was like a "light" that came on and never went out. I have a creative imagination but that is more like a tool that I can cut on and off, the spirit is always on, it may dim at times and shine brighter other times.wrl

I doubt that's a satisfactory answer.

It is not the variety of beliefs. It's the fact that no one, not even yourself, can distinguish the difference between an imagined and actual faith event. You asking me to respect your position, but your position asks me to elevate the insane up as well.

Just because you strongly feel something or strongly believe in something does not matter because the insane also believe their delusions as well.

The reason science and empiricist (I'm referring to the epistemological position, not the metaphyical one) philosophers emphasize the need for concrete, tangible evidence and testable hypotheses is the very problem of subjective experience.

I'm sorry, when I can listen to the insane man and the spiritual man and hear the same amount of reason to support their statements, I will treat their statements as the same: empty assertions with nothing to back them up besides the personal conviction and emotions of the claimant.

 

[True Scotsman]

Maybe I dismiss the "existence exist" like the majority of philosophers do. To say existence exist doesn't explain anything.


*There exists a great cosmic gulf between matter and thought, and this gulf is immeasurably greater between material mind and spiritual love. Consciousness, much less self-consciousness, cannot be explained by any theory of mechanistic electronic association or materialistic energy phenomena.

*The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God. Finite creatures, high and low, may propound theories, and have done so, as to the necessity of the finite in the cosmic economy, but in the last analysis it exists because God so willed. The universe cannot be explained, neither can a finite creature offer a rational reason for his own individual existence without appealing to the prior acts and pre-existent volition of ancestral beings, Creators or procreators." UB

To say existence exists doesn't even address origin's, a time before time. You seem to be saying that you just exist, are conscious and the sum total of all that is primacy.

It is not meant to explain anything. It is the first premise. It is simply an affirmation of what is implicitly known from an early age. Stuff exists. All the rest of knowledge follows from this first axiom. The Objectivist metaphysics is simply the development of the corollaries of the axioms. To deny it is absurd but that is exactly what you have done in denying the Objectivist axioms. I always like to point out to those who have a knee jerk reaction to Objectivism what exactly it is that they are denying when they reject the axioms.

Yes a great many philosophers have denied that existence exists which is ridiculous because if nothing exists there's nothing to disagree about. Many atheists that I have talked with do in fact because they are skepticists. They tell me we can't be certain of anything forgetting that they are making a knowledge claim.

In fact Objectivism is unique in that it is the only philosophy in history which upholds the primacy of existence principle fully and consistently and self consciously. Most if not all other philosophies hold to some version of the primacy of consciousness, which is observably false.

Every observation of the world affirms the truth of this principle. We have literally trillions upon trillions of observations affirming its truth and not one affirming its opposite, the primacy of consciousness, and yet this is the principle that religions affirm and the principle you affirm.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Of course it's difficult to talk to an atheist. It's always difficult when you have to justify your bald assertions. It's much easier when you can just mouth off and have people accept the noise that emanates from it.

 

[True Scotsman]

Maybe I dismiss the "existence exist" like the majority of philosophers do. To say existence exist doesn't explain anything.


*There exists a great cosmic gulf between matter and thought, and this gulf is immeasurably greater between material mind and spiritual love. Consciousness, much less self-consciousness, cannot be explained by any theory of mechanistic electronic association or materialistic energy phenomena.

*The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God. Finite creatures, high and low, may propound theories, and have done so, as to the necessity of the finite in the cosmic economy, but in the last analysis it exists because God so willed. The universe cannot be explained, neither can a finite creature offer a rational reason for his own individual existence without appealing to the prior acts and pre-existent volition of ancestral beings, Creators or procreators." UB

To say existence exists doesn't even address origin's, a time before time. You seem to be saying that you just exist, are conscious and the sum total of all that is primacy.

This is a nonsensical question to ask what was here before time or before existence. What was here before anything was here? There was no time before existence. You look at the world and say I know that existence exists but I'm not satisfied starting with what exists. Let me go outside of existence to an unknowable, unexplainable, unobservable cause. This does not solve any logical problems and in fact puts an end to any rational inquiry. No quest for origins can logically lead to a realm that contradicts everything we can observe in nature.

I look at the world and affirm that existence exists and then I go from there validating each step of the way corollaries and implications of this first principle.

Existence does not need an explanation. It is an absolute. It is what we look to for explanations. It is, always will be and always was and could not have been any different. It does not need to be analyzed or accounted for.

It is very interesting to me that theists have no problem starting with something that is uncaused as long as it is a form of consciousness. If you keep the objective orientation of the subject/ object relationship (the primacy of existence) then you will see that this problem of origins melts away. It is the improper primacy of consciousness view that leads to this problem and it also leads to the problem of Divine Lonesomeness or a consciousness with no objects which is a contradiction.

 

[znr]

Simple poor sentence structure problem on top of trying to communicate on a smart phone: meant to say "trying to force". Yes I can see how that seemed insulting, but it is just a symptom of trying to be coherent using a smart phone to communicate on an intellectual forum.

How does one force anyone (believer or not) to believe anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The man child barged in on post #115 and made this assertion:

"Religion has no epistemology whatsoever, and has gleaned zero facts about anything."

Ive responded with some quotes from he UB:

"Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, logic the proof of philosophy, but revelation is validated only by human experience. Science yields knowledge; religion yields happiness; philosophy yields unity; revelation confirms the experiential harmony of this triune approach to universal reality."<----the Uranta Book 1955​

But this is what Atheistic scientist types do, they come out from behind their barricade of cold facts and test tubes, make subjective assertions about the spiritual truth content of a religionist experience, then run quickly back to the lab and pretend as if they spend their days running all their decisions through rigorous logical proofs.

"If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation."​

"If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts."​

Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.​

Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical. <-----the Urantia Book 1955.​

I'm more interested in your response to the question, not quotes from yet another holy book. Why isn't it enough for Eight Foot Manchild to merely make the assertion? Should he be held to an epistemic standard? Your question to him seems to imply that you think he should. Why, given that you apparently feel that you are exempt?

 

[Colter]

It is not the variety of beliefs. It's the fact that no one, not even yourself, can distinguish the difference between an imagined and actual faith event. You asking me to respect your position, but your position asks me to elevate the insane up as well.

Just because you strongly feel something or strongly believe in something does not matter because the insane also believe their delusions as well.

The reason science and empiricist (I'm referring to the epistemological position, not the metaphyical one) philosophers emphasize the need for concrete, tangible evidence and testable hypotheses is the very problem of subjective experience.

I'm sorry, when I can listen to the insane man and the spiritual man and hear the same amount of reason to support their statements, I will treat their statements as the same: empty assertions with nothing to back them up besides the personal conviction and emotions of the claimant.

You have your own technique for intuitive truth perception. If in our discussions you cannot distinguish me from an insane person, therefore any religious person that you may encounter, for an insane person, then I am forced to reply that the problem is you.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Btw, to be consistent, should I assume that because there are so many variations among philosophers, scientist, humanists, Atheists etc. that they are just imagining things?

The difference, once again, is that science has a workable epistemology and proven methodologies with an immensely productive history of results, which you're demonstrating right now by utilizing technology. There are very easy means of distinguishing when someone is engaging in sound scientific pursuit vs. when they are imagining or lying about results, or simply have come to a wrong conclusion, and an objective means by which to resolve conflicting conclusions.

Religion has nothing like this.

For me the spirit birth altered my perceptions of reality from the inside out, it was like a "light" that came on and never went out. I have a creative imagination but that is more like a tool that I can cut on and off, the spirit is always on, it may dim at times and shine brighter other times.

None of this answers my question. All you've done is rephrase your initial assertion.

I doubt that's a satisfactory answer.

You doubt correctly. It doesn't even begin to approach an answer.

 

[Colter]

This is a nonsensical question to ask what was here before time or before existence. What was here before anything was here? There was no time before existence. You look at the world and say I know that existence exists but I'm not satisfied starting with what exists. Let me go outside of existence to an unknowable, unexplainable, unobservable cause. This does not solve any logical problems and in fact puts an end to any rational inquiry. No quest for origins can logically lead to a realm that contradicts everything we can observe in nature.

I look at the world and affirm that existence exists and then I go from there validating each step of the way corollaries and implications of this first principle.

Existence does not need an explanation. It is an absolute. It is what we look to for explanations. It is, always will be and always was and could not have been any different. It does not need to be analyzed or accounted for.

It is very interesting to me that theists have no problem starting with something that is uncaused as long as it is a form of consciousness. If you keep the objective orientation of the subject/ object relationship (the primacy of existence) then you will see that this problem of origins melts away. It is the improper primacy of consciousness view that leads to this problem and it also leads to the problem of Divine Lonesomeness or a consciousness with no objects which is a contradiction.

Finite lonesomeness, your philosophy sets the parameters for existence to the exclusion of any cause or any other effect potential. It's a benign closed minded philosophy. Your premise is that existence is unqualified. It comes from nothing, means nothing and goes nowhere. Its like Dawkins sad conclusion, the universe is really cool, then you die. Rands philosophy is a perpetual God denier machine.

 

[Colter]

The difference, once again, is that science has a workable epistemology and proven methodologies with an immensely productive history of results, which you're demonstrating right now by utilizing technology. There are very easy means of distinguishing when someone is engaging in sound scientific pursuit vs. when they are imagining or lying about results, or simply have come to a wrong conclusion, and an objective means by which to resolve conflicting conclusions.

Religion has nothing like this.



None of this answers my question. All you've done is rephrase your initial assertion.



You doubt correctly. It doesn't even begin to approach an answer.

In essence the materialist asserts that he is just a machine, that each day science gets closer to proving that man cannot be supermaterial, that he doesn't really transcend the material when observing it or valuing the worth of another's observations and experiences. Your persistent hypocrisy is that you leave "sound scientific pursuit" when you come out to make a value judgment of me, but then run back and pretend that you are dedicated to thoughts and ideas that are strictly scientifically provable.

There is a great deal of evidence that the meme of Christ has had a tremendous effect of history and continues to effect the lives of his disciple's today.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In essence the materialist asserts that he is just a machine, that each day science gets closer to proving that man cannot be supermaterial, that he doesn't really transcend the material when observing it or valuing the worth of another's observations and experiences. Your persistent hypocrisy is that you leave "sound scientific pursuit" when you come out to make a value judgment of me, but then run back and pretend that you are dedicated to thoughts and ideas that are strictly scientifically provable.

Not once, anywhere, have I made a 'value judgement' of you. What I've done is point out that you haven't substantiated your assertions, which anyone with the ability to read can plainly see.

It is extremely telling of the religious mindset that requests for substantiation, which are utterly banal in any other context, are seen as personal attacks.

And people dare wonder why religion is dying.

There is a great deal of evidence that the meme of Christ has had a tremendous effect of history and continues to effect the lives of his disciple's today.

Firstly, this is utterly irrelevant.

Secondly, this is evidence of the existence of a belief, not the truth of the content of that belief.

Lastly, you've contradicted yourself by stealing from empiricism, which you've categorically written off.

 

[Colter]

I'm more interested in your response to the question, not quotes from yet another holy book. Why isn't it enough for Eight Foot Manchild to merely make the assertion? Should he be held to an epistemic standard? Your question to him seems to imply that you think he should. Why, given that you apparently feel that you are exempt?

Lets go back to the original post:

I said:

That's true, holy books aren't documents of perfection, and unlike science, religion doesn't really have a technique for discarding old antiquated ideas to everyone's satisfaction.

Because a so called scientist becomes a philosopher when he leaves the purely scientific method and makes value judgments of the truth content of spiritual experience. Myself, I enjoy the observations of the material realm as well as the spiritual realm. When one starts out upon the spiritual path with the gift of faith then we to have our own distinctions to make (within the realm of the spirit) between truth and error just like the scientist does in his discipline.

I don't disparage science as a legitimate, important field of study in the cosmic economy, true religion is concerned not with science but with the scientist.

Correct. They are certainly not the same.

Science has an epistemological framework and demonstrably reliable methods for gleaning facts about reality.

Religion has no epistemology whatsoever, and has gleaned zero facts about anything.

 

[Colter]

Not once, anywhere, have I made a 'value judgement' of you. What I've done is point out that you haven't substantiated your assertions, which anyone with the ability to read can plainly see.

It is extremely telling of the religious mindset that requests for substantiation, which are utterly banal in any other context, are seen as personal attacks.

And people dare wonder why religion is dying.



Firstly, this is utterly irrelevant.

Secondly, this is evidence of the existence of a belief, not the truth of the content of that belief.

Lastly, you've contradicted yourself by stealing from empiricism, which you've categorically written off.

I didn't mean to imply a personal value judgment, rather you judge the value on my subjective spiritual experience. A machine doesn't do that, a conscious living being does that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I didn't mean to imply a personal value judgment, rather you judge the value on my subjective spiritual experience.

You are presenting your subjective experience (I won't call it a 'spiritual experience' as that is the very point under contention) as if it is indicative of the truth of your religious beliefs. It isn't. They remain unsubstantiated in any meaningful fashion.

A machine doesn't do that, a conscious living being does that.

Which might be a problem for me if there were the slightest shred of evidence for a 'supernatural' component to consciousness, which there isn't. Not that it matters because this point is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lets go back to the original post:

I said:



Because a so called scientist becomes a philosopher when he leaves the purely scientific method and makes value judgments of the truth content of spiritual experience. Myself, I enjoy the observations of the material realm as well as the spiritual realm. When one starts out upon the spiritual path with the gift of faith then we to have our own distinctions to make (within the realm of the spirit) between truth and error just like the scientist does in his discipline.

I don't disparage science as a legitimate, important field of study in the cosmic economy, true religion is concerned not with science but with the scientist.

That's nice, but it doesn't actually answer my question. Your question to Eight Foot Manchild, about how he knows that you do not know God, implied that you wished to hold him to some sort of epistemic standard. My question is simply why? Why when he could claim, like you, to have ascertained this knowledge from the spiritual realm? Shouldn't that be enough?