I didn't reason anything off god's back. I went to what I consider to be the basics that I can know: that I exist. And worked from there. I did not create any scenario... the scenario was already there... I just walked into it. Scriptures are only deemed such (as in genuine) by people within the circle, which requires a priori assumption of gods existence: "God exists, gave us scripture, which prove god exists" etc. question begging of the highest order. And where is this information about how the material world was formed that we will never know? Or are you again trying to claim, as you have done in other threads, that ancient man was effectively stupid and incapable of establishing things we now take for granted, such as the earth being spherical, orbiting the sun etc? Let me clarify: if god exists then he gave me the means to reach the conclusion by which I no longer believe he exists. If god does not exist then i still have those means to reach the conclusion by which I no longer believe god exists. Therefore having the means to reach that conclusion is no evidence for or against the existence of god. Just because I used the word "if" does not mean that I should start with the a priori assumption that god does exist. Otherwise I might just as well say "if god exists then god exists. Therefore god exists." I am bringing to the table my experiences of going through this process, as requested. I am proud of the information I hold, whether you consider it relatively puny, feeble or any other term you care to use. I am proud because it is the sum of my experience. My information, in a way, shows who I am and the journey I have been on. Can we not each be proud of that? But since you have belittled the information, perhaps you can show something that puts it in its place, other than just a claim that there is such. And as has been raised by myself previously, and another, it is logically ridiculous to suggest someone can believe in something yet not also believe in their idea of that thing. The two are inseparable and equivalent. No you haven’t. What do you consider the difference to be between “the essential you (the observer)” and “our minds”? Perhaps a couple of questions will explain to you why not: First, can you think of something you can’t think of? Second, does that mean there is not something that exists that you can’t currently think of? I’ve rationalised my way out of belief in God, not because I know better than Him if He exists, but because, if He exists, that is how He made me. I am incapable of choosing to believe in Him. I could provide lip service, perhaps, but not actually believe. If He made me, that is how He made me. No, as explained before. IF they are not divine then people have merely been tricked, for want of a better word. That does not mean that they did not reach their position in all good faith, so to speak. So they would not be lying. And since I do not think there is evidence either way on the matter of God, I would not consider them delusional: that is your interpreatation of what I say, and it is categorically incorrect to interpret it that way. Those that claim that God does not exist… they are no more correct than those who say God does exist. Those who say there is no physical evidence of God’s existence – I would say that they are correct, assuming that one works without an a priori assumption of God’s existence, as I do. Evidence that can be attributed to both God-exists and God-does-not-exist is not evidence that can be rationally attributed to either. Actuality or not is not a matter of belief but of actuality. Believing does not make something actual. Why do you think it does? I believed in an “actual” God. But my belief is not the truth of the matter… it is my belief of the truth of the matter. When scriptures differ they become clothing. The one thing they seem to agree on is that God is the original cause, the source of all etc. I.e. you require revelation to know God. And as I said, I have not received that. Yet I still believed. Now I no longer do. Because I am not them and I do not trust their spin. No, to both questions, without direct revelation. No, I have not deemed His Divine attributes, if he has any, to be mere clothes. The clothing is the claim of Divine attributes that scriptures and religion make of God. Now you’re saying it is possible to drop belief? Previously (and further down) you have said it is not? An atheist does not believe God exists, and because of that would not believe IN God. If you want to continue to press the claim that anyone who claims to no longer believe in God never actually believed in God in the first place, then do so. But perhaps I will have a clearer picture of your seemingly-muddled arguments if you can explain what seems to be a key aspect: how one can believe in God without believing in merely their concept of God. Do that, and perhaps we can make progress.
Theoretically, this concept is easy to explain: it is about the difference between "seeing someone for who he really is" as opposed to "having a skewed idea of who someone is". Practically, I don't know how this works out. I don't think we can escape our - and thus biased, limited - conceptions about people and other phenomena. But focusing on this dichotomy is very common, not just when it comes to God. A frequent example is to point out the difference between love and infatuation: One loves the other person for who they really are - love is only possible when one sees the other person as they really are. Whereas infatuation means that one is working out of some wishful fantasy about who the other person is or should be, whereby this fantasy is, as the name says, fantastic.
Sarkus, all - Here are two Buddhist criticisms of a deconversion story by someone who claims he used to be a Buddhist, but is now a Christian: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=10,7797,0,0,1,0#.Uk6Pe9LwnKM http://dhammaprotector.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-buddha-to-jesus-review-by-bhikkhu.html Both Buddhist critics are basically arguing that the man who deconverted from Buddhism never really was much of a Buddhist to begin with and that he doesn't know much about Buddhism. They support this criticism by referencing the man's own words about his past beliefs and practices and the claims he himself has made about Buddhism. So you can see this same line of reasoning that "if you deconvert, you probably weren't much of a convert to begin with" in other religions as well, not just when it comes to people who claim to have deconverted from theism.
I doubt if you really know what truth is. Can you say you haven't told a lie all your life? Anyone can say it but is it true? If there is no God as atheists believe does that mean there is no point in telling the truth?
I've given the example with coffee and cigarettes because generally, nobody likes their first sip of coffee nor their first puff of smoke. Instead, people typically have to learn to like them: /.../ Think back to the time you took your very first sip of beer. Disgusting, wasn't it? When my father gave me my first taste of beer as a teenager, I distinctly remember wondering why anyone would voluntarily drink the stuff. The experience is similar for most of us when it comes to our first sips of wine, hard liquor, and coffee as well. And smoking? No one enjoys their first cigarette - it tastes awful, burns your throat, makes you cough, and is often nauseating. So even though smoking, and drinking alcohol or coffee, can become temptations you need willpower to resist, they never, ever start out that way. Just getting past those first horrible experiences actually requires a lot of self-control. Ironically, only those individuals who can repeatedly override their impulses, rather than give in to them, can ever come to someday develop a "taste" for Budweiser, Marlboro Lights, or dark-roasted Starbucks coffee. /.../ I couldn't think of some more neutral example, sorry. My point is that something similar may be in the case with a belief: one might not start off with liking it, or believing it, but there may be forces at work in one's life that force one to submit to it, to believe it. The article mentions examples of learning to like coffee, cigarettes etc. - things that people do not start off with liking, but social pressure, the desire to fit in etc. are for many people so strong that they override their initial resistance to coffee etc. When a person - probably unconsciously - thinks of a situation like "Drink this disgusting liquid, or be refused by the peer group", for many people, being rejected by other people is so bad that they are willing to put up with a lot of hardship just to avoid being rejected, and then they even come to make sense of it or like it and defend it. Much of these processes probably happen withut one being aware of them - probably because they are so threatening to one's wellbeing and one's ego, so ego defense mechanisms take over. Which would explain why people have such a hard time explaining how come they picked up the bad habit of smoking, drinking etc. Something similar may be the case with metaphysical beliefs: A person may be under dire social, economical pressure, ego defense mechanisms take over, and the person ends up believing in God - and they don't really know why, and it feels perfectly natural for them to believe in God. Of course, when the social, economical pressure stops, or when the person simply becomes too burnt out by it all, a belief that has been motivated by such pressure can wear off, and people tend to deconvert. This is not to say that everyon'es belief in God is like this, but I think many people's is. So yes, at first glance, it seems that with belief in God, to enter the circle you refer to, one must already believe. But this seems so just at the surface. Beneath, there's that element of social, economical and possibly other pressures at work, but which a person may not be noticing as they take place and effect. This, and given your belief that one can disbelieve at will: How come then that you simply don't stop believing that things like solipsism and brain in a vat scenarios are to be taken seriously? Okay. I think though that such situations are a bit more complex. One can also believe that the person is telling the truth, but decide one doesn't want to get involved (either because one doesn't have the time, or fears getting sued if something goes wrong, etc.). One can also believe that the person is not telling the truth, but one is admant to expose every liar, so one goes along as if to help the baby. Like I said, I'm just skeptical to use a theist's arguments for atheistic purposes. Solipsism in regarded as an unintended consequence of some lines of reasoning, and in Western philosophy, there is a trend to try to guard against solipsism, ie. to formulate one's reasoning so that it doesn't end up in solipsism. If you're into Western philosophy, then chances are you'll also guard against solipsism, in this sense, have an attachment to it.
Theoretically it doesn't work. While I accept that there is a difference between the reality and the perception we might have, we can only ever see our perception. If the perception equals the reality then great. But we can not see anything other than our perception. With regard believing something other than our concept of that thing, we must formulate a concept before we can believe in it, even if our concept is "it is not X, not Y, and I'll leave the rest blank". At the core there must be a concept upon which to hang the belief. It is thus meaningless to suggest one can believe in something without it also being belief in our concept of that thing. Practically it is not possible, which is why the theory breaks down given that it is a theory trying to describe how a practical process is possible. Yet throughout you are using perceptions only. The difference is when you conclude that your perception IS reality, IS what they really are. But you can only ever have a perception of that. Thus Jan's position in this matter I find illogical, and nothing but meaningless word games.
wynn, What do you want me to say? I'm not discussing ''religious belief'', that is an entirely different subject. I think you'll have a difficult job surprising me. Does this mean I don't believe in God? The subject matter. Why? Do we know better than God? Or even one eighth as much? If we actually believe in God, isn't part of that belief understanding that God is Great, and Absolute.. If you have a passing knowledge and fondness of engineering, are you going to talk to an expert engineer, about engineering, on his level. Or are you going to take the oppotunity to advance? I don't recall saying that it does. What do you mean by ''right''? Nevertheless, we have this human form of life, and we can reason and discuss God. If to be more than human was the requirement to becoming God conscious, then we as humans would have no interst in the matter. Such as? I don't really work with any. The Qur'an is alot clearer, as is vedic literature. I find genesis quite clear, and the teaching of Jesus. Why are you asking me? If they say they have realized it, then they have realized it. Where have I put my own spin on it? I am in the same position as so many other people are. I'm here aren't I? jan.
Granted, it may be similar in that respect, but I do consider there to be a category difference between tastes and belief that makes your example inadequate, with only revelation (or interpreting something as a revelation) being sufficient to drag one in to the circle. And in your example I would consider that person to have had such an interpretation of revelation. I don't believe either way with regard solipsism, or brain in a vat. They are all concepts that have a point to make, especially when comparing one unknown with another. Do you think I believe they are to be taken seriously as worldviews??? Of course. Indeed. Note how belief on a specific topic (the persons veracity) does not always inform action, but rather actions are decided on other factors. Okay, but since I have not used their argument, I am not sure why you would bother making the statement. All I have done is start from the same premise: that "I exist" is the only self-evident thing. Such a premise does not an argument make. Okay, I thought you were implying a desire toward, or some such. I see solipsism as a good stake in the ground for considering things unknowable. We can not know if solipsism is accurate/true etc. So if reasoning ends with a conclusion of solipsism then, to me, it merely means you have introduced an unknowable into your argument without realising. And if someone tries to suggest they "know" how things are then one can always offer solipsism as a means of showing that they probably can not, at least without highlighting some otherwise unmentioned assumptions. But solipsism itself adds nothing to practical experience... it just adds a further unknowable layer between perception/experience and any objective reality that might be out there. But then that opens the can of worms regarding the nature of reality etc.
Sarkus, Everything is a perception. It's how we process it that matters. As I said to Seatle, from the atheist perspective, everything that occurs within nature is ultimately factual. If billions of people claim they believe in God, then God must exist. If billions of people claim the opposite, then that must be true also. Why? Because it is all occuring within nature, and from your perspective nature is all there is. So what aspect of nature are you using to decide that another aspect of nature doesn't exist? To take the matter further: Why are you deciding anything? I think the part of you that ''decides'' is not necessarily an aspect of nature, therefore it does not have to succomb to ''everything in nature is fact'' The theist position is simple, part of us (observer) is not constucted of material nature, it is different. We realize this, and seek to understand, that part of us which is different. Then come the big philosophical question: Who am I? Where did I come from? What happens when I die? What other purpose do these questions serve? So to believe in God, is accept the position that you are not the body, otherwise there is no concept of God, other than a Santa Clause type figure, or an old grey-bearded man sitting in the sky. jan.
Eh?? You're saying that we work on appeals to popularity, that we say things exist or don't because enough people say it?? Because this is so bizarre, and I'm hopeful that you aren't being serious in your view here, I really am not sure what you're actually trying to say here. You start from a fallacy: I don't decide what aspect of nature does or does not exist. You seem to think I am saying that? On what basis? Where have is said it, or even remotely implied it?? As for what you believe: great. Any means of actually supporting what you believe, that does not require one to go through the cycle of believing in order to believe? So you don't actually believe in God? You merely believe that "you are not the body"? You are honestly saying you have no concept of God, yet you believe in Him? Then I say to you that you are being merely playing with words, that you are not a theist and do not believe in God, but rather you believe in the concept of some non-materiality. If you still claim to believe in god, do you believe that god exists? If so, how can you meaningfully believe in the existence of something without having a concept of that thing, even if it is a concept of negatives "it is not X, not Y..."?
I'm not coming to that same conclusion relating to Jan's belief in God, Sarkus. Think he is merely explaining a facet of his belief as it relates to it. Unless I'm missing something.
Then, if the vast majority of people believe evolution is true, it must be true, yes, Jan? Considering that the vast majority of people on the planet DO NOT believe Christianity is true, then it must not be true, yes, Jan?
From the way she answered, I would say she was not wholly honest with the masters degree thing. I think she just wanted to appear intelligent, but her answers gave her away. (Probably a blonde ( I know! I know! clichéd BS))
Sarkus, I'm saying that nature is all there is (atheist philosophy), then everything that occurs within it is a fact. IOW, if it occurs, it is natural. If that is the case, what aspect of nature, views itself as non-existent. You believe God does not exist (athiest), I believe God exists (theist), both you, I, and our thought are natural (nature is all there is). What aspect of nature (nature is all that exists, and we are nature as is out thoughts and feelings) deems itself non-existent. And why should it? It's just a philosophical puzzle, I'm not making any claims. It's not that I believe in God, then come to a conclusion. I come to the conclusion that I am not this body. One doesn't need to believe in God to arrive at that conclusion. One only need look at the atheist religions (buddhism...) to work that one out. It is what follows from this realisation that leads me to understand that I am part and parcel of God. Hence the big philosophical questions. If I say, ''I don't believe in God'', I'd be lying. And if I never, ever said ''I believe in God'', I would still believe in God. To me, it is the logical conclusion. I believe God exists, because I believe I exist. My belief in God is based on the understanding of my own existence. If I'm not this body, then what am I. Where did I come from? What is the purpose of life? These are pertinent questions when one comes to the realization that one is not the body. jan.
Jan; Do you believe we (humans) are an extension of God in the flesh? Just trying to understand your POV.
