My answer to this as a guess from my experience, is there are 2 forms of reality, the physical and the spiritual. For example my believe is that in the womb we live mostly in the spiritual, and just get hints of the physical as the body develops.
Someone with a inability to fully understand the physical world lives more in the spiritual world. This is not God revealing in itself but a heightened awareness of the spiritual. But yes God can also reveal Himself to anyone He chooses.
I’ve always used this the same way you are referring, but since this is the Dope, I looked this up.
I also saw this definition when I, too, had been perplexed by what I thought was improper usage of the phrase.
In fact, I think the ‘rule’ given in second quote above is far too confidently stated. Including its use in this thread, I’ve seen it employed this way a total of two times in my life. Not only am I not young, I have always been an active reader.
Easy! All too often, we, the unbelieving, label as insane those who’ve seen His light.
Not to quibble too much on the question of how often “to coin a phrase” is used literally and how often ironically, but I’ve seen it used both ways frequently and I’d probably lean to the latter as more frequent. But, no matter, it’s pretty damn obvious that when I used one of the most common expressions in the English language, “God knows …”, in a thread on the subject of atheism, such usage should be clearly understood to be in itself rather ironic. So the expression “to coin a phrase” in that context is blatantly just a sort of dry humor. Whether this was the epitome of wit is a different matter, but it definitely did not arise from a mistaken understanding of what the expression literally means.
Or maybe this god isn’t too damn swift when it comes to picking his messengers.
I am with Kanicbird, insofar as I know there are vast realms that “science” has no way to understand (at least as yet). I have, my entire life, felt the presence of what is unseen and which can neither be measured nor communicated. In my Christian life, a very late development for me, I came to realize that for most people ‘belief’ was something entirely different. It was something they were acculturated to as children, and take as a given, a way of seeing and interpreting ordinary life. It isn’t usually an experience as such at all, which is why so many sermons are on the subject of “seeing God in other people.” Which explains why so many people can legitimately say, “this is all malarkey, or worse.” I can see that easily.
I spent the first thirty years of my life without the slightest idea of calling this stuff “God.” I was raised by atheists who found Christianity a sort of pathetic joke. But, I find that it is sort of a descriptor, if a feeble one. It’s a word I use that many people have a context for – it may not be quite right but compared to “your life experience doesn’t exist”, it’s an improvement.
As a convert I was viewed by my coreligionists as a lucky anomaly, privy to experiences they had never, and no one they knew, had. The only place I ever found people who understood my experience was in contemplative monasteries (Christian and otherwise). That’s where a lot of people like me – and there are not very many – end up. There, I was just another mystic, nothing unusual at all. It isn’t being crazy, and it isn’t believing in magic crystals and fairy dust, either. Like I said, it’s only possible to talk about to people who already journey there.
I don’t find the scientific method to be of the slightest use in understanding these realms, and I don’t think anybody else has either. It’s like trying to paint a watercolor of a flower using an axe and some gravel. It’s just not the right tool.
No, you can’t use science to dissect a unicorn…which would be disconcerting if unicorns actually existed.
Do you have any other symptoms?
ha ha. No.
I think it all boils down to opinion based on one’s “point of view”.
I can look at this beautifully organized universe and say that, in and of itself, is “proof” of a Creator. I can say that life and its seemingly insatiable desire to evolve, in and of itself, is proof of an intelligent force. To other’s all of that “proves” nothing.
Whether one believes in a Creator or not, my point is that there is something to be said for empirical evidence. It just can’t be dismissed as nothing at all.
A quick summary:
Believer: There is a god. I have faith.
Agnostic: There may or may not be a god. I remain neutral on the question, but it is a valid question worth considering and spending time pondering over.
Atheist: Why are we even talking about this? The question isn’t even worth my time unless there is evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Come back when your claim comes with an hypothesis explaining something we can’t explain, and a procedure for testing the hypothesis against reality. If you can’t, you are just wasting our time, just as much as if you asked us to believe in fairies and witches and Baal the volcano god.
When it comes to agnosticism: Without evidence to examine, without focus as to which gods are being considered, how much time and effort should be spent pondering the question? In fact, other than constant promotion from religionists, what makes the question valid in the first place?
God doesn’t prove his existence to us for the same reason we don’t prove our existence to amoebas.
First, the analogy sucks because amoebas don’t worship us, nor have they institutionalized the practice of worshipping us.
Second, the analogy sucks because amoebas don’t have evidence-based methodologies that lead them to falsely conclude that we don’t exist.
Third, the point of your analogy is presumably that God doesn’t reveal himself to us because he’s too important and we are too unimportant. Except that the basis of all the scriptures that are the foundation of most institutionalized religions includes, as the central concept, an anthopomorphized God who goes around revealing himself all the time, and even sent down a humanoid version of himself to interact with us. These beliefs are foundational to Christian religions, and exist with variants in most others.
If someone cared about amoebas as much as the Christian god is said to care about us, would anyone here think that this person was sane?
But what you’re citing is not a logical conclusion from empirical evidence, it’s a fanciful interpretation of it. The universe is indeed in a sense beautifully organized, but that’s not proof of a creator. It’s just a consequence of the anthropic principle: the universe might have been formed with different physical properties – and perhaps did, in other parts of an unimaginable multiverse – but in most such alternative universes, life would not be possible and so there would be no observers remarking on it. Life itself is an example of beautiful organization that didn’t need a creator, since we know in principle how evolution works – by random mutation and natural selection over very long periods of time. No design studios or drawing boards involved.
My reply speaks to the fact that theism is deranged. It posits the impossible and demands that other people give it the respect of something real. Which it isn’t. Heck, most of the time it’s not even an internally consistent mythos; it doesn’t even make sense on its own terms.
You’ll be pleased to know that, while I do recognize that religion is worthy only of scorn, I spend the vast, vast majority of my time not giving theism or theists a second thought. I have way better things to do with my time that shovel that bullshit around - TV! Games! Writing! Fun!
A slightly slower summary:
Believer: I believe something that’s not conventionally possible. I may or may not think I have evidence for my beliefs. If I don’t have evidence, I probably don’t care that I don’t. I will cheerfully ignore observable reality if it contradicts my beliefs.
Agnostic: I’m an atheist who doesn’t realize you don’t have to have dogmatic certainty to be an atheist. Also atheists get badmouthed by defensive believers and I don’t need that type of grief, so I avoid going by the term.
Classic Agnostic: I believe that absolute certainty about the subject in question can’t be attained. I am also either a theist or an atheist, depending on whether I believe in the thing or not. Agnosticism classic is not an alternative to theism/atheism; it’s a description of whether I consider the subject in question provable.
Atheist: I don’t believe in that nonsense the believers invented. It’s not necessarily because I can prove it’s false, though maybe I can, or think I can. It’s really just that I lack the belief. Getting me to change my beliefs is theoretically possible, but it’s going to tough, because the stories the theists spin are so out there. Why should I believe something silly? You want me to accept your crazy story as true, you better bring some good, solid evidence.
Hard Atheist: I’m the type of atheist who seriously believes that I can disprove God, or maybe ALL gods. I explicitly claim absolute certainty, to the point that I will reject evidence out of hand if it counteracts my worldview. I probably don’t exist - I’m a strawman that results from believers projecting and assuming that atheism also requires blind faith like theism does, when in actual fact ‘not believing’ is as easy as ‘not running a marathon’.
You are thinking very narrowly of certain segments of monotheism, if you state that believers demand anything of nonbelievers other than wishing to be left in peace.
You are also being naive if you think internal consistency motivates any major part of the human population, not just regarding spiritual beliefs, but everything else too.
Many people who pride themselves on being all about pure rationality are just as stupid and illogical as all the rest of us, I’ve noticed. As a species we are not real strong on that rationality thing.
Everyone wants respect. Everyone wants other people to respect the things they respect. Everyone wants other people to refrain from pointing out that they believe silly nonsense - that’s a hair’s breadth away from being a personal insult, even if it’s true. Especially if it’s true.
Is this intended to be an argument that being self-contradictory is a good thing?