In debates between atheists and believers it seems to me that there are two possible kinds of atheists:
those who do not believe in God
those who do not think that God can possibly be a rational belief.

The second kind of atheism assumes that no set of experiences could give one a solid foundation for belief in God. (I think it also says something about the possibility of intuition noticing certain things which are hard to prove)

Of course many theists base their belief on faith and this opens the door for atheist to merge the above two types of athiesm. I think also that exclusionary beliefs in God - like there is no Muslim God, but there is a Christian God muddy the waters also.

But there are believers who base their beliefs on experience - not authority, not faith, not tradition, not for moral reasons.

Not to make light - but I think the issue is moot.

Not to make light - but I think the issue is moot.
How so?

It depends vastly whose perspective we're looking from -
Are we talking about atheists from their own atheist perspective?
Are we talking about atheists from a particular theist perspective?
Are we assuming it is possible to speak about all this from a neutral, objective perspective?

I'm speaking about it from a pagan's perspective. I look at the battles between athiests and theists - most of whom seem to be monotheists, some significant % base their beliefs on faith - and think that in a sense a straw man is being burned up.

Even mystics in the monotheisms: say, Buber, Rumi, Thomas Merton - do not nail down the nature of that God in the ways that many believers do. In other words many of the arguments of athiests against the beliefs of theists - even monotheists - miss the mark. The beliefs are not necessarily faith based, or even belief in the supernatural - rather a belief that some of what is natural is accessible to (some of) us but not currently verifiable by science.

I don't base my beliefs on faith. I do belief in God. I don't disbelieve in the Christian God, but I doubt that God hate homosexuals, for example. Some Christians would assume this meant I don't believe in the Christian God, but nevertheless, I do believe that some Christians are reaching contact with what I call God. They use certain metaphors and practices that have led them to certain experiences and vice versa.

I do recognize that the objection you are raising to my OP is a good one. I am trying in a way to get some objectivity in there. But I think at least in part I am pointing out something obvious. Most athiests assume that theist believe because they trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC. AND do not base their beliefs on experience. Apart from the fact that this is not true it also focuses on only a portion of theists - however dominant they are 'out there'.

I do recognize that the objection you are raising to my OP is a good one. I am trying in a way to get some objectivity in there. But I think at least in part I am pointing out something obvious. Most athiests assume that theist believe because they trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC. AND do not base their beliefs on experience. Apart from the fact that this is not true it also focuses on only a portion of theists - however dominant they are 'out there'.

I think that especially in cases like these, it is wise to remember that this is actually about general issues of human cognition as such, and not simply about atheism or theism.

How do people think? How do they make decisions? How do people develop beliefs? What is rational? - such questions are the subject of research of philosophy and especially cognitive science. In the recent decades, much attention has been devoted to these issues.

And as that research shows, these things can be very complex.

It's very difficult to get along with different people if one consistently denigrates their beliefs. I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

Baron Max

I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

Not discussing an even better one.

In debates between atheists and believers it seems to me that there are two possible kinds of atheists:
those who do not believe in God
those who do not think that God can possibly be a rational belief.

Could there not be a third type of atheist? One whose atheism is a result of rationalism? I view the world with scientific naturalism and the lack of evidence and a good reason to accept the various gods presented by the many extant and extinct religions of the world give me no reason to favor one over the other. Indeed, the rationalist in me quickly accepts that of the hundreds of extant religions who all think they are the correct religion, only 1 or less than 1 can be actually correct. n \leq 1

Nor do I think that a god cannot possibly be a rational belief. A god can most certainly be rational as a belief if sufficient evidence is presented to show one exists or that one cult's god should be favored over another's. Lacking this, I see no good reason to accept the god of any given cult of humanity until such time as evidence is presented.

It's very difficult to get along with different people if one consistently denigrates their beliefs. I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

Very often, those who complain that their "beliefs are being denigrated" confuse inquiry and fair criticism with denigration. Perhaps to them those that dare question their public claims of the supernatural is denigrating. I don't really care what people believe until their beliefs are presented as facts I'm supposed to accept. Or until those beliefs are presented as facts that my government or my daughter's school is supposed to accept as facts. Or until the progress of science and education is interrupted by superstitions.

I find that denigrating. Why do the superstitious not respect the beliefs of the rational? At least their beliefs are grounded in that which can be observed, tested, replicated, and reasonably inferred.

I find that denigrating.

Good. Then you probably know how it feels, so you won't do it anymore, right?

Baron Max

There are those for whom it is one's duty to offend. If the superstitious find their irrational claims questioned and criticized offensive or denigrating, then perhaps they aren't as sure about them as they think.

I most certainly will not discontinue criticism and inquiry of religious superstition. If you or anyone else finds it "denigrating" they have the choice not to read in the Religion subforum of a Science forum.

But I think at least in part I am pointing out something obvious. Most athiests assume that theist believe because they trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC. AND do not base their beliefs on experience. Apart from the fact that this is not true it also focuses on only a portion of theists - however dominant they are 'out there'.Possibly - but in order for the theist to show otherwise they must surely be able to explain their experience to the atheist. Otherwise the atheist will merely be appealing to the authority of the theist - which is the same logical fallacy they accuse the theist of in trusting a book.

Also, in these instances it is not experience that is the issue but the interpretation of the experience that is the issue - an interpretation that is brought about, in the majority of cases, precisely because they "trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC".

So I am not sure how you would be able to separate the subjective interpretation of the experience from the source of the subjectivity - and thus reach an objective interpretation - especially if the person who had the experience is unable to explain the nature, observations etc of that very experience.

[QUOTE]Could there not be a third type of atheist? n \leq 1 [/tex]

Nor do I think that a god cannot possibly be a rational belief.

That puts you in group 2.


A god can most certainly be rational as a belief if sufficient evidence is presented to show one exists or that one cult's god should be favored over another's. Lacking this, I see no good reason to accept the god of any given cult of humanity until such time as evidence is presented.

Evidence can be experienced that perhaps cannot be presented to another. In other words sometimes it is rational to believe in things based on one's experience despite not being able to prove something to someone else who lacks those experiences. I think this is a common confusion. That I must be irrational if I cannot prove to you this or that is true and yet I believe in it.

I should not confuse telling my experience as proof.
At the same time it should not be assumed that all true things can be proved.



Very often, those who complain that their "beliefs are being denigrated" confuse inquiry and fair criticism with denigration. This is a beef you have with someone else. I have never complained about my beliefs being denigrated.

I find that denigrating. Why do the superstitious not respect the beliefs of the rational? At least their beliefs are grounded in that which can be observed, tested, replicated, and reasonably inferred.

I don't know, but I would guess you can minimize your reading and listening to their denigrating comment.

Possibly - but in order for the theist to show otherwise they must surely be able to explain their experience to the atheist. Otherwise the atheist will merely be appealing to the authority of the theist - which is the same logical fallacy they accuse the theist of in trusting a book.

they can describe their experience, perhaps. But neither side should assume that we can always convince others of our own accurate interpretations of experiences even if our interpretations are correct.

Also, in these instances it is not experience that is the issue but the interpretation of the experience that is the issue - an interpretation that is brought about, in the majority of cases, precisely because they "trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC".

I agree. In the majority of cases. Or I should say. That is my guess. But you know. I would think that most people who believe in evolution would give very sloppy and inaccurate explanations of it and that their belief has a lot to do with their families, their circles of acquaintances and so on. They trust their intuition to know which experts are right. Evolution sounds right when they read it. (and to be very clear. I believe in evolution and I am not putting the forward as a proof against evolution or that one can't be solidly grounding in the theory. my point is that most believers in evolution would have hard time answering challenging questions about evolution. they got a general idea.)

So I am not sure how you would be able to separate the subjective interpretation of the experience from the source of the subjectivity - and thus reach an objective interpretation - especially if the person who had the experience is unable to explain the nature, observations etc of that very experience.

Here's a test. Can you think of a phenomenon that some people experienced, were told it was not possible and that they were misinterpreting their experience that later turned out, in the end, to be backed up by scientific research?

An honest look at scientific discoveries will find examples where people believed in things that seemed unlikely given current science and or technological ability. These people could relate their experiences and were told they were not correctly interpreting. Later these conjectural dismissals were seen to be false.

An honest scientist must allow for the possibility that some people, right now, are experiencing something - whatever it is, I am opening up the context - that doesn't SEEM to fit with current science and SEEMS unlikely or impossible, but will later turn out to be correct.

Give it some thought and I am sure you can come up with past examples.

That puts you in group 2.

Perhaps. And to that I can concede. I don't believe in any gods, so if #2 includes that I'm not making a positive claim that gods do not exist, I agree.

Evidence can be experienced that perhaps cannot be presented to another.

Do you have an example of this type of "experience?" If an experience cannot be quantified or qualified scientifically, is it really useful as an experience? Not in reality. It might be an experience that gives personal comfort or consolation (or even the contrary if the experience was unpleasant), but the moment that the experience predictably or noticeably affects the real world (such as statistical demonstration of the efficacy of prayer; noticeable health benefits; etc.) then it becomes quantifiable and qualifiable using science.

This is a beef you have with someone else. I have never complained about my beliefs being denigrated.

Nor have I suggested or implied that you did. This was a response to Baron Max whom I quoted very carefully.

Do you have an example of this type of "experience?" If an experience cannot be quantified or qualified scientifically, is it really useful as an experience? Not in reality. It might be an experience that gives personal comfort or consolation (or even the contrary if the experience was unpleasant), but the moment that the experience predictably or noticeably affects the real world (such as statistical demonstration of the efficacy of prayer; noticeable health benefits; etc.) then it becomes quantifiable and qualifiable using science.

Have you ever been into sports?
Have you ever mastered a skill - be it in sports, playing a musical instrument, handiwork ...?
Have you ever figured out your own training regimen?

These things can be quantified and qualified only partly, and even then, they are of direct use only to you, in your situation at the time.
Most of it is about "getting the right feel for it".

It is, for example, impossible to measure or explain to a newbie runner how much muscle pain is too much, and how much is such that he should endure if he is to make progress. They'll have to do it by trial and error, trial and success, and then play it by ear a lot.

And yet all these experiences are crucial, they are of crucial use.

Possibly - but in order for the theist to show otherwise they must surely be able to explain their experience to the atheist. Otherwise the atheist will merely be appealing to the authority of the theist - which is the same logical fallacy they accuse the theist of in trusting a book.

Exactly.


Also, in these instances it is not experience that is the issue but the interpretation of the experience that is the issue - an interpretation that is brought about, in the majority of cases, precisely because they "trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC".

Yes, exactly. And all this and the above would not matter were it not that God is often claimed by monotheists to be knowable for all, that all are subject to God and that all must obey God or they will be sent to hell.

IOW, we could satisfy ourselves with the subjective experiences and the subjective interpretations - were it not for the declared seriousness of the consequences should we fail to have the right kind of experience and the right kind of interpretation.

In debates between atheists and believers it seems to me that there are two possible kinds of atheists:
those who do not believe in God
those who do not think that God can possibly be a rational belief.

The debate is quite clear, to question the CLAIMS of theists. It doesn't really have anything to do with atheists believing or not believing in a god, it all boils down to the UNDEMONSTRABLE CLAIMS of believers.

The debate is quite clear, to question the CLAIMS of theists. It doesn't really have anything to do with atheists believing or not believing in a god, it all boils down to the UNDEMONSTRABLE CLAIMS of believers.

Athiests tend to go beyond this position. They tend to say that the believers are irrational. This may not be the case even from the athiests' perspective. They could have experiences that make their belief rational but are these experiences are not demonstrable to you.

A theist claiming that their beliefs should somehow be proof for you is not correct - not do I see any proofs of God as very convincing.

However one can, in general, belief in something that is true and is not demonstrable. They are many examples of this, phenomena that did not fit with scientific or other general beliefs at a certain time and were poo pooed by those not having the experiences. Later it was shown that these were true.

An honest scientist would say they cannot know for sure if there is a God or not or if a believer is making a rational decision to believe.

I see a confusion (on both sides) of these debates between
what is demonstrable or provable
and
what is convincing for the experiencer

Do you have an example of this type of "experience?" If an experience cannot be quantified or qualified scientifically, is it really useful as an experience? Not in reality. It might be an experience that gives personal comfort or consolation (or even the contrary if the experience was unpleasant), but the moment that the experience predictably or noticeably affects the real world (such as statistical demonstration of the efficacy of prayer; noticeable health benefits; etc.) then it becomes quantifiable and qualifiable using science.
You are assuming that every real and causal phenomena can be tracked or measured by the technology and scientific perspectives (which would help us know where to look at with what) we CURRENTLY HAVE.

The existence of rogue waves and elephants ability to communicate over long distances were both poo pooed by scientists - who thought the former could not exist and that there could be no mechanism for the latter. Experiencers nevertheless were rational in their belief which EVENTUALLY was supported WHEN TECHNOLOGY and scientific interest changed.


Nor have I suggested or implied that you did. This was a response to Baron Max whom I quoted very carefully.

yes, you did. sorry.

Athiests tend to go beyond this position. They tend to say that the believers are irrational.

Considering their indemonstrable claims of invisible beings, demons angels and magic, it's an obvious conclusion.

This may not be the case even from the athiests' perspective. They could have experiences that make their belief rational but are these experiences are not demonstrable to you.

I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

A theist claiming that their beliefs should somehow be proof for you is not correct - not do I see any proofs of God as very convincing.

No, their beliefs are usually the claims.

However one can, in general, belief in something that is true and is not demonstrable. They are many examples of this, phenomena that did not fit with scientific or other general beliefs at a certain time and were poo pooed by those not having the experiences. Later it was shown that these were true.

Codswallop! Can you provide the equivalent examples?

An honest scientist would say they cannot know for sure if there is a God or not or if a believer is making a rational decision to believe.

You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy. A scientist, honest or otherwise, would recognize that as a fallacy and would call it such.

I see a confusion (on both sides) of these debates between
what is demonstrable or provable
and
what is convincing for the experiencer

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

The problem is that both theists and atheists often assume that we are all the same, with basically the same abilities. That based on some superificial observation of these abilities it is adequate to make the conclusion that we are all the same or at least sufficiently similar. And that being thusly at least sufficiently similar, it is adequate to speak of intepersonal verifiability, evidence.

But this is an assumption, possibly unverifiable.

You are assuming that every real and causal phenomena can be tracked or measured by the technology and scientific perspectives (which would help us know where to look at with what) we CURRENTLY HAVE.



Quite true.
If these phenomanae normally occur out of our perceptory senses and current level of science to detect them then of course the empirical data will not be there to support it.
Can all these people who report these types of phenomanae be delusional? --ghosts, UFOs ,pychic phenomanae,etc. Are all crop circles formed by smart ass college kids with ropes,planks and boards? Personally, I don't believe so.
In many cases these are observed by what appear to be credible witnesses.
I think they bear closer examination rather than classifying all of them into the realm of the "Fox network pychic fraud,bigfoot alien hour"

Considering their indemonstrable claims of invisible beings, demons angels and magic, it's an obvious conclusion.

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.



I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

Again, this is not scientific.



No, their beliefs are usually the claims.
That is incorrect. There is a big difference between 'I spoke to God' and then saying. 'Now that I have told you this you should also believe.' If you cannot admit the difference there is no point in talking to you because you must have such a strong need here you cannot be rational.



Codswallop! Can you provide the equivalent examples?I can provide examples: rogue waves, elephants communicating over great distances, and meditators being able to control parts of their physiology considered not controllable by medicine and science. Those who experienced these things (or inferred from their experiences these things) were considered irrational by scientists - for example oceanographers and physicists studying fluid mechanics. . Later technology changed and/or interest by scientists and it was shown that in fact current ideas in science had blinded the scientists to what was possible. Those experiencers were rational for trusting their experiences, DESPITE the lack of scientific corroboration.



You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy. A scientist, honest or otherwise, would recognize that as a fallacy and would call it such.

In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect.



There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

Now you have made an assertion. You are making a claim about a phenomenon. You have gone beyond 'you have not convinced me' IN REACTION to theists' claims but are making a claim of you own that they are delusional. All believers are deluded. Care to back up your hypothesis? And please let me know how you plan to study this.

The problem is that both theists and atheists often assume that we are all the same, with basically the same abilities. That based on some superificial observation of these abilities it is adequate to make the conclusion that we are all the same or at least sufficiently similar. And that being thusly at least sufficiently similar, it is adequate to speak of intepersonal verifiability, evidence.

But this is an assumption, possibly unverifiable.

Excellent point. I would add ''are similarly interested". Interests lead to practice lead to skills. There are certainly tempermental proclivities amongst rationalists and scientists toward certain kinds of brain activities, greater verbal focus, I would say, for example.

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.

Things like demons, angels and gods? Really? Show them to me.

Again, this is not scientific.

So, asking questions is not scientific? :rolleyes:

That is incorrect. There is a big difference between 'I spoke to God' and then saying. 'Now that I have told you this you should also believe.' If you cannot admit the difference there is no point in talking to you because you must have such a strong need here you cannot be rational.

Then, don't talk to me.

I can provide examples: rogue waves, elephants communicating over great distances, and meditators being able to control parts of their physiology considered not controllable by medicine and science. Those who experienced these things (or inferred from their experiences these things) were considered irrational by scientists - for example oceanographers and physicists studying fluid mechanics. . Later technology changed and/or interest by scientists and it was shown that in fact current ideas in science had blinded the scientists to what was possible. Those experiencers were rational for trusting their experiences, DESPITE the lack of scientific corroboration.

Wonderful! You compare the physical to the supernatural as if they are one and the same.

In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect.

No, it is not, and your authoritative does not preclude that.

Now you have made an assertion. You are making a claim about a phenomenon. You have gone beyond 'you have not convinced me' IN REACTION to theists' claims but are making a claim of you own that they are delusional. All believers are deluded. Care to back up your hypothesis? And please let me know how you plan to study this.

Theists make claims. Theists have never backed their claims, ever. They are deluded. Simple, really.

The problem is that both theists and atheists often assume that we are all the same, with basically the same abilities. That based on some superificial observation of these abilities it is adequate to make the conclusion that we are all the same or at least sufficiently similar. And that being thusly at least sufficiently similar, it is adequate to speak of intepersonal verifiability, evidence.

But this is an assumption, possibly unverifiable.

Your assumption must claim that there is a mechanism to communicate with gods, and that only some of us have such a mechanism.

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.if you mean, things that are so small or so far away, we cant see them, then I'd agree, but we made scientific instruments to measure or see those, however if you mean, like air, gravity, these things can effect mine yours and everybody elses, other senses, but when it comes to religious experiences, these have no effect on any of the senses, bar those of the individual experiences them, thus are clearly delusional on there part.Again, this is not scientific.how so, it's correct.
can you prove otherwise.
That is incorrect. There is a big difference between 'I spoke to God' and then saying. 'Now that I have told you this you should also believe.' what difference, why do the religious constantly preach, witness, sermonize, in every town on every street corner throughout the world, if this is wrong. I can provide examples: rogue waves, elephants communicating over great distances, and meditators being able to control parts of their physiology considered not controllable by medicine and science. then provide them thank you. In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect. how so, elaborate, thank you.
Now you have made an assertion. You are making a claim about a phenomenon. You have gone beyond 'you have not convinced me' IN REACTION to theists' claims but are making a claim of you own that they are delusional. All believers are deluded. Care to back up your hypothesis? And please let me know how you plan to study this.he has no need without evidence the experiencers, experience, can only be deemed hearsay, unless he can prove his experience is fact, he is quite clearly delusional.
this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.

Things like demons, angels and gods? Really? Show them to me.

Did you really misunderstand?



So, asking questions is not scientific? :rolleyes:

Um. You made a statement. I did not respond to a question of yours and call it unscientific. I called your statement, in which you drew certain conclusions, unscientific. In other words not backed up by testing under any of the current scientific methodologies.



Then, don't talk to me.

If it was hard for you to understand the general idea I was presenting there or you want to quip and be evasive, yet you did understand, I also see no point in talking to you.



Wonderful! You compare the physical to the supernatural as if they are one and the same.

These were considered supernatural claims at the time. I think this is really just too hard for you.



No, it is not, and your authoritative does not preclude that.

Authoritative is an adjective. First a little googling will show you things like many scientists are believers, let alone getting to the issue of agnostics. Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan come up very quickly as people who called themselves agnostics. I came across dozens of references to agnostic scientists or scientists referring to themselves as agnostics. On the way believers popped up including

* Arthur Eddington, an important mathematical cosmologist, was a Quaker.
* Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory.
* I don't know whether Michael Polanyi, the notable physical chemist and philosopher, was Christian at the end of his life, but I know that he was when he wrote Science, Faith and Society, the best introduction to his thought.
* Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer is one of the foremost theoretical chemists of our day.
* William Phillips was co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.
* Francis Collins ( is the director of the U.S. Human Genome Project.
* Rustum Roy, one of the world's foremost materials scientists, holds three chairs at the Pennsylvania State University.

Those few minutes of googling are all I am going to put towards helping you not to depend just on my 'authoritative'. If you spent a little time thinking about scientific methodology and the history of science you would realize why scientists are cautious about calling themselves atheists.



Theists make claims. Theists have never backed their claims, ever. They are deluded. Simple, really

you want me to believe your 'authoritative.'

I am starting to mock you and that's a sign I don't respect what you are doing here to such a degree there is no point in continuing to respond to you. So I won't. You're on my ignore list.

Ah, I see, you are a moderator. Well, scrolling past you works as well.

this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.

You can read my responses to Q.

And you can search these forums under rogue waves and see what I have written before. I would think however the other two examples would be clear enough as they are.

Greenberg,
you seem to have been right about the mootness.
On the other hand I find it interesting how at least some atheist cannot tell the difference between
the potential rationality of a belief
and the ability to prove it.
As a phenomenon, fascinating, but as a dialogue, boring.

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.

Like gravity? We can't see it, but we can see it's effects. It can be measured, and using those measurements we can make formulae, and use those formulae to make mathematical predictions about gravitational events.

If there were a God, that created the Universe, he must have been able to interact with the Universe. While not being able to 'see' him, we should be able to detect the effect he has on the Universe via his interactions. So far, we have not got a 'God' constant or variable, just the basic dimensions included in formulae.

Now, you may say that we are unable to detect this interaction because we have limited prowess. Let me remind you that the models of the Universe and matter are pretty good, and that theoretical models were used to predict such things as nuclear fission. No God constant in those, either.

But here we are, with a 'God of gaps' conclusion. God must exist where science cannot probe. That's apologetic, and rather weak.

But here we are, with a 'God of gaps' conclusion. God must exist where science cannot probe. That's apologetic, and rather weak.

You are taking my statements above as an attempt to prove God's existence. That is not a good reading of what I am doing which the OP and a number of my posts make clear.

Give it another shot, if you want.

I am starting to mock you and that's a sign I don't respect what you are doing here to such a degree there is no point in continuing to respond to you. So I won't. You're on my ignore list.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Please try to curb your fantasies and fallacious arguments in the future and you won't get called out on your nonsense, hence won't have the need for an ignore list.

You can read my responses to Q.

And you can search these forums under rogue waves and see what I have written before. I would think however the other two examples would be clear enough as they are.

Utter nonsense. The examples are seriously flawed in that comparisons are drawn between nature and the supernatural.

this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.You can read my responses to Q. you ask me to read your response to Q however your response to him does nothing to answer my question above.
you answer one of my points I think with a list of religious scientist, but this just evades the question Q put, which I was asking you to elaborate, why is this statement incorrect, You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy. A scientist, honest or otherwise, would recognize that as a fallacy and would call it such.how is giving a list of scientist, answering this. are you trying to say because some scientist are religious, they have made a rational decision to believe without having any evidence to falsify/verify. I think you'll find, they just believe however irrational it may be, because it give them some kind of purpose or some kind of comfort to there otherwise dull lives.
They can rationalise it until there blue in the face it's not going to make it rational, and they know that. And you can search these forums under rogue waves and see what I have written before. I would think however the other two examples would be clear enough as they are.done that but there were no links, where are the links.
It's for you to provide the links to back up your assertion's, not for me to seek them out, you made the claim not I.
and please if you can provide several different sources, it would be appreciated.
and if you dont mind, would you answer the questions posed and not go of on a tangent.
thanks

Geeser.
I am going to focus on one interchange to show you where both you and Q mess up.


“Q'
I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

me
Again, this is not scientific.
and now you.

how so, it's correct.
can you prove otherwise.

Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.

HE has now made a claim. One which he cannot back up. He claims to know that their experiences - which he has no access to - are not being explained correctly by them. HE is making a claim to know this and he is coming here to tell us about this FACT that he knows.

HE now has the burden of proof in relation to us.
Oh, really, Q, one is justified in asking, how do you know for a fact, that they are misinterpreting or simply imagining these things?

I point out that his claim is not based on scientific research or testing. It is simply an untested hyposthesis.

Now you say I must prove something.

Nope. The onus is on him.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God here in this thread. Something I have made clear.

Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.

He needs to back that up.

[QUOTE]“
Originally Posted by Grantywanty
In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect.

and now you.
how so, elaborate, thank you.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Notice that 20% are under doubt or agnosticism, 7-8% under belief.

Please, just pause for a moment in all your assumptions about what this thread is about and do not lecture me now about how this does not prove that these scientists are rational or that there is a God. I know all that.

I have a suspicion that neither you nor Q is capable of really understanding what this thread is about and can only treat it as what you perceive to be a failed proof of God. And you both read my posts in those terms.

he has no need without evidence the experiencers, experience, can only be deemed hearsay, unless he can prove his experience is fact, he is quite clearly delusional.
this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.

Do you really believe that? That if people say they have experienced something but cannot prove it it must be false?

Your assumption must claim that there is a mechanism to communicate with gods, and that only some of us have such a mechanism.

Yes. There are some theists who in fact propose just that - that not everyone can know God.

I do belief in God. I don't disbelieve in the Christian God, but I doubt that God hate homosexuals

While I suppose we all dislike fundamentalists for the fact that they're all lunatics, I must give them some credit for at least being honest. What gets my goat more than them are those with the cherry picked gods - the gods tailor made to their own individual wishes and morality. They ignore everything savage and barbaric about the god they espouse belief in, and thus don't even really believe in the god they espouse belief in - but some 'suitable for kids' version - all because they know deep down that if that god was real, they'd hate him.

In short, by 'doubting' this supposed god is what he says he is, you're ultimately calling him a liar. Ok, a liar is more preferable than a vicious savage, but it still aint that good.

Yes. There are some theists who in fact propose just that - that not everyone can know God.

Convenient, isn't it? ;)

Yet, we are ALL gods children.

It's very difficult to get along with different people if one consistently denigrates their beliefs. I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?You'd think so, but it doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter how tolerant people are of Christianity and Christians, or of Islam and Muslims. Every few generations they rise up with a unanimous evil motivation and try to kill us or at least destroy our own cultures and force us to join their religions. There is no point in being tolerant of communities that have consistently behaved this way for more than a thousand years. What we need to do is defend civilization against their ongoing threats.

Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.

He claims to know that their experiences - which he has no access to - are not being explained correctly by them.

Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.

Nope. I never made those claims.

Convenient, isn't it? ;)

Yet, we are ALL gods children.

Yes. But God is never purported to be fair, loving, just, knowable simply on whomever's terms, but on his own terms - which might not be the same as mine or yours.

Originally Posted by Grantywanty
Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.

He claims to know that their experiences - which he has no access to - are not being explained correctly by them.

Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.


Nope. I never made those claims.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

Theists make claims. Theists have never backed their claims, ever. They are deluded. Simple, really.

How have I misrepresented your position?

What we need to do is defend civilization against their ongoing threats.

Some countries have this policy for dealing with terrorists:

We do not negotiate with terrorists.

That is something to take to heart.
Discussing and arguing with some theists means playing their game, by their rules - and anyone attempting that without having a God on his side will lose.

Discussion and debate mostly just put things off and buy time, but nothing more.

How have I misrepresented your position?

By putting words in my mouth. How does what I said equate to what you claimed I said? I see substantial and noticeable differences, why can't you?

Yes. But God is never purported to be fair, loving, just, knowable simply on whomever's terms, but on his own terms - which might not be the same as mine or yours.

I thought most theists did purport their gods to be fair, loving and just? :shrug:

I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

But honestly, must we?

If a gang of people, a whole town of people let's say, we're walking around claiming that a leprechaun had demanded that they worship said leprechaun and punish those that use the internet, how tolerant would you be?

Is this different? Why is it different? Because there's lots of them? Why does having a belief in an ancient superstition and trying to shove it on everyone else warrant tolerance? No really, I'm interested.

You're telling me that I have to be tolerant of the idiot that's going around professing that the world's flat and demanding that my children believe it. Why should I tolerate it?

Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.no he is not. what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, and this is because there is no objective evidence to be found anywhere at the moment.
HE has now made a claim. One which he cannot back up. He claims to know that their experiences no he has made no such claim he has merely stated the facts as they are, the religious people he has asked claim they have a direct experience but are most definitely unable to back up there claim, all Q has dont has shown this to be so, he hasn't claimed it to be so, it is so. they have no evidence for what they assert. Oh, really, Q, one is justified in asking, how do you know for a fact, that they are misinterpreting or simply imagining these things? because they can produce no evidence for their assertions.I point out that his claim is not based on scientific research or testing. It is simply an untested hyposthesis. no it's based on fact even the religious hierarchy know that religion can only be faith based, as they have no testable prove.now you say I must prove something.

Nope. The onus is on him.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God here in this thread. Something I have made clear.and neither is Q, but only one of you is basing his arguement on fact, and it most certainly isn't you.
Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.

He needs to back that up. why he has done nothing of the sort.
In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect. ”
and now you.“
how so, elaborate, thank you.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Notice that 20% are under doubt or agnosticism, 7-8% under belief.what has agnostism got to do with Qs statement what has this to do with agnostism You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy how does your quoting agnostics and listing scientist answer that statement, religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.
and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement.
Please, just pause for a moment in all your assumptions about what this thread is about and do not lecture me now about how this does not prove that these scientists are rational or that there is a God. I know all that.

I have a suspicion that neither you nor Q is capable of really understanding what this thread is about and can only treat it as what you perceive to be a failed proof of God. And you both read my posts in those terms.no, your just giving us strange replies, to the question asked, which obviously make us repeat ourselves, you then get irritated. because no one understands you. Do you really believe that? That if people say they have experienced something but cannot prove it it must be false?until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.
so I would say it would be unproven, not false. but to accept it I would need further qualify evidence.

By putting words in my mouth. How does what I said equate to what you claimed I said? I see substantial and noticeable differences, why can't you?

No. But OK.
Q.
There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.
”

This is a claim about a phenomenon. You are claiming you they have not experienced God. You are not simply claiming they have failed to prove God to you.

I doubt you can back up this claim and I know that whatever process you went through to decide your claim was correct was not a scientific one.

no he is not. what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, and this is because there is no objective evidence to be found anywhere at the moment.

Q


There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

See. You are incorrect.

”no he has made no such claim he has merely stated the facts as they are, the religious people he has asked claim they have a direct experience but are most definitely unable to back up there claim, all Q has dont has shown this to be so, he hasn't claimed it to be so, it is so.
There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

This is not a statement about their inability to prove; it is a statement about them. It is not a criticism of their attempts to back it up. It is a conclusion about them and what they have or have not experienced. He is making a claim, not simply criticising their proof or inability to pursuade.



they have no evidence for what they assert. because they can produce no evidence for their assertions. no it's based on fact even the religious hierarchy know that religion can only be faith based, as they have no testable prove.

You clearly know very little about the variety of reasons people claim to base their beliefs in God. Most mystics, even from the monotheisms you are clearly assuming all theists are members of, talks about their direct experiences of the divine and God. (and again, I am not making the case that their accounts are proof of God. I am,however, saying that you do not know your subject matter.)



and neither is Q, but only one of you is basing his arguement on fact, and it most certainly isn't you. why he has done nothing of the sort.what has agnostism got to do with Qs statement what has this to do with agnostism how does your quoting agnostics and listing scientist answer that statement, religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.

Now you are being thick. I said that there were scientists who were agnostic. He said he had no reason to accept my authoritative, meaning my authority, I suppose, was not enough proof that many scientists were agnostic.

Hello. Wake up. I went and got some back-up that there were in fact significant numbers of agnostic, and even believer scientists, BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME FOR A LINK. There is your link. I made it clear why I provided this. I am showing that despite his skepticism about there being agnostic scientists there are clearly many. He was wrong to be skeptical.


and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement. no, your just giving us strange replies, to the question asked, which obviously make us repeat ourselves, you then get irritated. because no one understands you. until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.

Nope. At no point am I trying to get you to accept anyone's claims about God as true. This is not the point at all. Why should you? I cannot see any reason why a person would believe a theist simply because the theist tells them about the theists experiences. I think it would be foolish to just assume the theist is right. Was that clear enough?

(I got irritated at you because, for example, in the agnostic issue you failed to get the context and assumed I was bringing in the agnostics for a reason I was not. And yet expecting me, expressed in irritation on your part, to unravel you own misunderstandings AND provide a link. Once the link is provided you just leap to rebutting a position I have not taken. Neither of you taking a breath to notice that I found a link and was right.)



so I would say it would be unproven, not false. but to accept it I would need further qualify evidence.



And here you have finally, unitentionally, agreed with me. What they have said is unproven.

You are taking a different stand than Q who has made it clear HE KNOWS they are delusional.
There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.



You, on the other hand, while severely doubting them, and not believing them, consider it unproven, but not necessarily false.

Thanks.

Since my option in the thread are you both who cannot seem to make a simple distinction and other people off-topic mulling over tolerance, I am done with the thread.

Whatever happened to Agnosticism? Seriously. People always think in terms of black and white.

Whatever happened to Agnosticism? Seriously. People always think in terms of black and white.


Agnostics are atheists, but apologetic about it.

It's simple, if you had a poll, 'Do You Believe in God'

1, Yes
2, No
3, Don't know.

To find the number of theists you count the people that took option one. Everyone who is not a theist, let's call them 'atheists' took the options other than option one. So agnostics, who ticked box three, are what? Not theists. They are atheists. There is no shade of grey, you are either a believer, or not. Believing in the possibility of a God is a different debate.

I thought most theists did purport their gods to be fair, loving and just? :shrug:

Yes - but on their own terms.
That's my point.

no he is not. what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, and this is because there is no objective evidence to be found anywhere at the moment. There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional. See. You are incorrect.no dont see it I see that I'm correct, what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, thus the "experiencer" is delusional. lets put it another way, why do you think, he thinks the "experiencer" is delusional could it be that they cant prove there experiences are real. Delusion is a fixed belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact, so when some one says they have had experience with God especially when it defies reality, then delusional fits the bill, does it not.no he has made no such claim he has merely stated the facts as they are, the religious people he has asked claim they have a direct experience but are most definitely unable to back up there claim, all Q has dont has shown this to be so, he hasn't claimed it to be so, it is so. There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.This is not a statement about their inability to prove; it is a statement about them. It is not a criticism of their attempts to back it up. It is a conclusion about them and what they have or have not experienced. He is making a claim, not simply criticising their proof or inability to pursuade.how does it, if they cant produce verification, see previous response.they have no evidence for what they assert. because they can produce no evidence for their assertions. no it's based on fact even the religious hierarchy know that religion can only be faith based, as they have no testable prove You clearly know very little about the variety of reasons people claim to base their beliefs in God. Most mystics, even from the monotheisms you are clearly assuming all theists are members of, talks about their direct experiences of the divine and God. (and again, I am not making the case that their accounts are proof of God. I am,however, saying that you do not know your subject matter.)all the church leader, all the imans, and clerics, are more learned than me in religious matters, yet they all know that you have to believe in deities through faith only, it's quite irrelevant whether you think I dont know the subject matter.
the plain and simple fact is, without any extraordinary evidence to back up their extraordinary claims, they can only be deemed delusional, Delusion is a fixed belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. and neither is Q, but only one of you is basing his arguement on fact, and it most certainly isn't you. why he has done nothing of the sort.what has agnostism got to do with Qs statement what has this to do with agnostismYou're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacyhow does your quoting agnostics and listing scientist answer that statement, religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.
and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement.Now you are being thick.am I. I said that there were scientists who were agnostic. He said he had no reason to accept my authoritative, meaning my authority, I suppose, was not enough proof that many scientists were agnostic.

Hello. Wake up. I went and got some back-up that there were in fact significant numbers of agnostic, and even believer scientists, BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME FOR A LINK. There is your link. I made it clear why I provided this. I am showing that despite his skepticism about there being agnostic scientists there are clearly many. He was wrong to be skeptical. yes I know that, but how please does that answer this You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy you dont need to bring in agnostics and scientists, dogs, cats, lemon trees, they just cant answer that, they are a total irrelevance, I've tried to explain with this "religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.
and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement."no, your just giving us strange replies, to the question asked, which obviously make us repeat ourselves, you then get irritated. because no one understands you. until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.Nope. At no point am I trying to get you to accept anyone's claims about God as true. This is not the point at all. Why should you? I cannot see any reason why a person would believe a theist simply because the theist tells them about the theists experiences. I think it would be foolish to just assume the theist is right. Was that clear enough?yes thats what Q said the theists are delusional, but why then did you insist on stating that Q was making a claim.(I got irritated at you because, for example, in the agnostic issue you failed to get the context and assumed I was bringing in the agnostics for a reason I was not. I gathered there wasn't a point. for them to be brought into the debate this is why I continuelly pressed you on it.And yet expecting me, expressed in irritation on your part, to unravel you own misunderstandings AND provide a link. Once the link is provided you just leap to rebutting a position I have not taken. Neither of you taking a breath to notice that I found a link and was right.) this is because if I could see no point to why agnostic/scientist were being brought in, the point must therefore be elsewhere, and when you provided a link that went nowhere, you can understand, my if you like irritation, and insistence you clarify it.until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.
so I would say it would be unproven, not false. but to accept it I would need further qualify evidence.And here you have finally, unitentionally, agreed with me. What they have said is unproven.haven't unintentionally or intentionally agreed with anything, and I'm sure Q feels the same, I reposted my entire quote. if someone is making fantastic claims without any prove then they are delusional, but there still is that tiny 0.000000001% they could be right, and because of that it would foolish to say what they believe is wholly false, there are no absolutes. You are taking a different stand than Q who has made it clear HE KNOWS they are delusional.
There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.
You, on the other hand, while severely doubting them, and not believing them, consider it unproven, but not necessarily false.I'm sure Q is 99.99999999% sure they are delusional as am I, but neither of us can be absolutely sure can we.

Agnostics are not atheists.

Atheists down-right refuse that there is a god. They say "There is no god"

Agnostics believe that maybe theres a god. They say "Maybe there is or maybe there isn't a god, I need proof". And there are two types of agnostics, those who believe in God but accept that they may be wrong and those who have do not have a opinion on the existance of god.

Agnostics are not atheists.

Atheists down-right refuse that there is a god. They say "There is no god"

Agnostics believe that maybe theres a god. They say "Maybe there is or maybe there isn't a god, I need proof". And there are two types of agnostics, those who believe in God but accept that they may be wrong and those who have do not have a opinion on the existance of god.

You are almost correct, and I can see where it might be intuitive to believe the definitions you provide are true, but I can tell you that this simply isn't the case.

An atheist is, simply put, one without gods. Not one who "down-right refuses that there is a god."

To use a definition as you have worded, the atheist must first assume the existence of at least one god to be true then choose not to believe this god exists.

Moreover, one *can* be both agnostic and atheist. While I consider myself a rationalist, this rationalism informs both my agnosticism and atheism. I'm agnostic in that I recognize that definitive knowledge of whether or not gods exist in the universe is beyond my ability to determine. I cannot examine even a modest portion of the universe, let alone the full universe, in order to make such claim of knowledge.

However, I'm also an atheist in that I have accepted the existence of no gods. The reason I haven't accepted the existence of any of the thousands of gods humanity has created and proposed throughout history is that not a single one has been shown to have more truth value over another. Nor has sufficient evidence been provided to for me to be willing to accept any of the current gods of humanity.

I can't say that gods do not exist; I cannot accept a god on the word of a god's believers; therefore, I do not accept the existence of gods. I'm an agnostic-atheist as a consequence of being a rationalist.

I thought most theists did purport their gods to be fair, loving and just?I suppose they do, but their frame of discourse is irrational so this reassurance doesn't carry any weight. They believe that humans are so special that we transcend the natural laws of the universe which govern all other matter. They contend that we have a supernatural component to our existence called a "soul." This imaginary supernatural component is durable and continues to exist after our physical death: after the synapses in our brains are irreversibly degraded and therefore our consciousness, personality, memories, knowledge and even unconscious minds no longer exist. Even after our bodies have decomposed and their component molecules are no longer attached to each other.

The imaginary supernatural component in fact carries with it a sizeable portion of what was in that long-decayed brain tissue: enough to maintain our identity and our memories of the kind of life we lived.

Once this has happened, then and only then will their gods begin to treat us in a fair, loving and just way. They believe this is acceptable because this "afterlife" is infinite, so the "small amount" of suffering we undergo while in our material state is insignificant. It is fair for us to can feel excruciating pain, watch our children die, or even endure the enslavement of our entire nation, because these gods will reward us for being loyal after we are dead.

You have to admit, this is a well-crafted scam. No one can prove that they're wrong because the dead never come back to talk to us about their experience in the "afterlife." In fact the world abounds with charlatans who claim to be able to put us in communication with our dead loved ones. Desperate grieving people believe them if they put on a good enough performance, which only requires a good "cold reading" and various other common tricks of the trade of professional stage magicians.

Interestingly, the Jews have moved away from this irrational perspective, having had many more centuries to digest the teachings of Abraham than the Christians and Muslims have. The Jews believe that their god punishes them in this life, although he punishes them as a people rather than individually. BTW this is what the term "chosen people" is all about. Only American Christians believe that the Jews should expect more from their god. The Jews believe that their god expects more from them.

They believe that all of their suffering, from today's debacle in the Middle East, going back through the Holocaust, the Roman occupation, the destruction of the Temple eleventy-five times, all the way to the slavery in Egypt and beyond, was something they deserved because they did not live up to their god's expectations. They do not have to wait until they die to find out whether they've been good enough, so they can communicate with their children and grandchildren without having to work through a "medium" who talks to the dead. They can tell their descendants to be better people or they will suffer right here on earth.

In fact, Jews don't believe that they will go to heaven until sometime in the far distant future. In the meantime their corpses remain dead. Judaism is very much a religion of this world. This is why it is so difficult to establish dialog between Jews and Muslims, because the focus of Islam is on the afterlife.

Agnostics are not atheists.

Yes they are. You are either a theist, and believe in God, or you are one of the rest. It really is that simple.

Atheists down-right refuse that there is a god. They say "There is no god"

STRAW MAN ALERT! How many times no? Atheism is merely a lack of belief in your God. That simple. Some people go on to state that there is no God, and the term 'atheist' has been subdivided into 'Strong and Weak' atheism, and this is where your confusion arises. We should use the term 'Antitheist' for someone who says God cannot exist, then you would be less confused.

Agnostics believe that maybe theres a god.

Like I said, believing in the possibility of a god is not the same debate as believing in that god.

And there are two types of agnostics, those who believe in God but accept that they may be wrong

If you believe in God you are a theist. Believing in God due to Pascals wager or for some other flawed reason does not turn you into an agnostic!

and those who have do not have a opinion on the existance of god.

If you do not have an opinionm, you are not in the pro camp, and are not a theist. I have already covered the fact that there is a nice simple word for people who are not theists. It's atheist. Agnostics, are atheists. Please refer to the sample poll I posted if you don't understand. Theists check option '1'. Everybody apart from theists, 'atheists' check other boxes. That includes agnostics checking box three.