Conversion or just deluded?

[mswas]

Pochacco Is the point to win the argument or to know the truth? I am not expecting my statement to convince anyone, I am just simply saying that I don’t think that atheism is an equally valid position. You don’t have to agree with me if you don’t want to. I think it is a mistake to treat atheism as an equally valid position, atheists certainly do not treat theism with equal respect.

The difference is, you don’t believe in something that hasn’t been proven to you, whereas I believe in something that HAS been proven to me. I just don’t have the ability to prove it to you.

Erek

[The_Hamster_King]

@mswas

The difference is, you don’t believe in something that hasn’t been proven to you, whereas I believe in something that HAS been proven to me. I just don’t have the ability to prove it to you.

The fact that you are unable to do so should make you suspicious as to the validity of your experience. A blind man may not be able to directly experience the color red, but I could certainly construct a logical argument to convince him that it exists. I don’t need to resort to “because I said so”.

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

I maintain that knowing God must be relational and not just definitional. Therefore having heard a “definition” of God does not mean you know God. This is the disconnect that theists have with atheists.

That puts God in the same catagory as UFOs and psychic powers and spiritualist; “jealous phenomenon” that only appear to true believer, and vanish before skeptics. It just screams fraud and delusion.

@mswas

Der Trihs This would be true if you were not making a positive assertion that we were having a delusion, or hallucinating.

Or lying or on drugs; I have no way of knowing which, but without any proof that what you believe is even possible, that’s what what I believe.

@mswas

I cannot FORCE you to have an experience, therefore there is no way for me to relate God to you in any meaningful way as long as you are unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt. This goes much deeper than merely SAYING you will give it the benefit of the doubt. However, it is the height of ignorance for you to claim that I am delusional or hallucinating merely because you have never had the experience.

No, it’s because no one, anywhere, anytime has ever come up with proof there is any sort of god or spirit. It’s not “ignorance” to lack knowledge when such knowledge doesn’t exist.

@mswas

I disagree that ANY atheist knows what God is. I simply do not think that atheism is a stance that is worthy of respect. The people are worthy of respect as people, they can be very intelligent people, but this is one place where there is something fundamental missing. You cannot know God and remain an atheist, it’s an oxymoron. An atheist by definition is someone that does not know God. It is NOT an equally valid position. Mind you, I don’t think there is any reason to “punish” someone for being wrong, but they are wrong.

It’s not equally valid, it’s more valid. An atheist does not claim fictional deities exist. There is nothing “fundementally missing”; there is nothing to be missed. You say I’m wrong; prove it. You claim God exists; show me. You can’t.

@mswas

God may not be able to be proven using the tools of analysis they use and the information available to us at this time, but I am SKEPTICAL that there is this minority of intellectual elites that know the true answer who are outnumbered 20-1 by the rest of humanity.

Reality is not a popularity contest; that majority is often wrong about matters of fact. Look at the recent polls showing most Americans are creationists, for example.

@mswas

I know God, I have experienced God, I continue to experience God all the time, Ain Sof (Never Ceasing), it is no more a delusion or a hallucination than was being born, growing up or eating the Enchilada I had for dinner. And it is NOT just filling some emptiness some void, it is something that IS there connected to everything affecting everything. If they understood God AT ALL, they would not be atheists.

Being born is real and verifiable, so are enchiladas; you’re subjective claims of some sort of priviliged access to the One True God are not; it’s funny to hear someone rant about “elitist” atheists talk about how they have a special pipeline to the Truth.

@mswas

The most profound thing that these threads have been teaching me is why Mystics generally keep their traps shut around people who don’t know.

Because speaking up around non True Believers exposes them for frauds and fools or just plain ignorant.

[cosmosdan]

@mswas

I maintain that knowing God must be relational and not just definitional. Therefore having heard a “definition” of God does not mean you know God. This is the disconnect that theists have with atheists.

I’d agree with that. Our personal subjective experience is the foundation of our belief. It is indeed relational.

Der Trihs This would be true if you were not making a positive assertion that we were having a delusion, or hallucinating. I cannot FORCE you to have an experience, therefore there is no way for me to relate God to you in any meaningful way as long as you are unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt. This goes much deeper than merely SAYING you will give it the benefit of the doubt. However, it is the height of ignorance for you to claim that I am delusional or hallucinating merely because you have never had the experience.

I see your point here but Der Trihs has every right to his beliefs as you do to yours. According to his subjective experience, he does not believe in god{s} It is a valid choice. You think Atheists are missing something that you have experienced. Atheists think you are mistaken, delusional or whatever. Neither is a superior position.

cosmosdan There is a lot to understand, that’s why I find it intellectually dishonest to summarily dismiss something because there isn’t a simple one paragraph definition for God that the atheist can prove or disprove.

You are mistaken. It is in no way intelectually dishonest to say " I don’t believe in god{s}" unless that person actually believes. We cannot prove God exists to someone else. Thats a fact. They cannot prove God does not exist. Another fact. We can try to respect each others right to choose what we believe.

You dismiss my argument about Karma but it illustrates the point perfectly, it was the perfect example of someone disbelieving in something when they had no clue what they were talking about.

I didn’t dismiss it. I simply didn’t agree with your explanation of Karma. I don’t think you made your point at all. Someone may not believe in Karma as they understand it. That isn’t intellectually dishonest or ignorent. You yourself insisted that Karma was a very real thing and then soon after admitted you didn’t understand it. What’s the difference between denying something you don’t understand or insisting in the reality of something you don’t understand. Why is one any more ignorent than the other?

I disagree that ANY atheist knows what God is.

Who are you disagreeing with? I never said any such thing. I said neither atheists or theists know God.

I simply do not think that atheism is a stance that is worthy of respect.

Then you should be able to fathom the reverse side of that particular coin.

The people are worthy of respect as people, they can be very intelligent people, but this is one place where there is something fundamental missing. You cannot know God and remain an atheist, it’s an oxymoron.

Again, who said you could? One thing I respect is personal honesty. If someone truly doesn’t believe and states it clearly and without malice toward others I can respect their position and their righht to make that personal call, even if my own experience leads me elsewhere.

An atheist by definition is someone that does not know God. It is NOT an equally valid position. Mind you, I don’t think there is any reason to “punish” someone for being wrong, but they are wrong.

I think your mistake has already been pointed out. It’s “believe in” not know. It is an equally valid position. An atheist may believe in many of the principles taught by great spiritual leaders, such as the brotherhood of mankind, kindness and compassion toward others, truthfulness, and love. In doing so they may behave in a manner more Godly than many believers.

I know God, I have experienced God, I continue to experience God all the time, Ain Sof (Never Ceasing), it is no more a delusion or a hallucination than was being born, growing up or eating the Enchilada I had for dinner. And it is NOT just filling some emptiness some void, it is something that IS there connected to everything affecting everything. If they understood God AT ALL, they would not be atheists.

The most profound thing that these threads have been teaching me is why Mystics generally keep their traps shut around people who don’t know.

Erek

It’s only my opinion friend, but you seem off center. If you really knew what you claim to your posts wouldn’t be as they are.

[cosmosdan]

@Pochacco

Is there any other topic where “cuz I say so” is considered a valid argument?

It isn’t in this topic either.

Yes, it keeps them from being called on their bullshit.

Or casting their pearls before swine?

[cosmosdan]

@Der Trihs

Because speaking up around non True Believers exposes them for frauds and fools or just plain ignorant.

There’s an old saying. “It’s better to have people think you’re a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Somewhat appropriate dontcha think?

[Apos]

I maintain that knowing God must be relational and not just definitional. Therefore having heard a “definition” of God does not mean you know God. This is the disconnect that theists have with atheists.

I guess, but it isn’t a very telling one. You are essentially making the claim to some special mystical experience. Vaery well: but I am generally skeptical of such experiences. The belief that you have a relationship with an external entity God is itself a belief. And so we are left at the same impasse as anyone else. You seem to think that your clami of mystical insight places you at a superior position from which to judge the truth of claims. My point is that truth claims by definition cannot be subjective.

I know God, I have experienced God, I continue to experience God all the time, Ain Sof (Never Ceasing), it is no more a delusion or a hallucination than was being born, growing up or eating the Enchilada I had for dinner. And it is NOT just filling some emptiness some void, it is something that IS there connected to everything affecting everything. If they understood God AT ALL, they would not be atheists.

Again, this is just a form of special pleading. But nothing makes your subjective experience more valid than mine. You are welcome to think you are in a special position. I don’t agree.

The difference is, you don’t believe in something that hasn’t been proven to you, whereas I believe in something that HAS been proven to me. I just don’t have the ability to prove it to you.

I think you aer switching around the meaning of “proven” in this sentence.

[mswas]

@Pochacco

The fact that you are unable to do so should make you suspicious as to the validity of your experience. A blind man may not be able to directly experience the color red, but I could certainly construct a logical argument to convince him that it exists. I don’t need to resort to “because I said so”.

Not so, because I can explain it to some people, just not to an atheist. Explaining something to an atheist should not make me suspect of my experience. To a great number of people it’s not difficult at all to explain. To a very limited number of people, a very small subsection of people, it is more difficult. There is of course a vast array of people out there who haven’t even questioned it.

For you to understand where I am coming from, you’d have to be able to understand why asking me how I am sure God exists is the same question as asking me How do I know that I exist.

[mswas]

I don’t understand why people talk to me about people’s ‘rights’ to believe what they believe. I have never tried, not ever in my entire life to stop someone from believing what they believed. (Well maybe in my love life but that’s different) This is not a matter of rights, I don’t have any desire to force my opinions on someone, we are on an internet message board, and there has to be some perspective given to that.

People make claims of delusional all the time and think that they are being skeptical. That’s not skeptical at all. Der Trihs thinks that by virtue of being an atheist, this also makes him a skeptic. He is far from a skeptic, he is not a skeptic at all, he makes assumptive assertions all the time.

None of you require my respect, it is completely irrelevant, I do not need to respect your position to have this discussion. Anyone that tells me that I am delusional, hallucinating, on drugs or lying has no respect for my position, so why is respect even important here? I wouldn’t kick Der Trihs in the shins if I saw him on the street. If he was hungry I’d probably give him some cash to buy a sandwich. I respect him as far as I need to. I think he is completely and utterly full of it, as he also thinks I am. Respect is completely and utterly a non-issue in this debate as long as I follow the board rules.

If I am correct and God does exist, then atheism is incorrect and not an equally valid position. 2+2 does not equal 5, and I shouldn’t respect someone equally for believing it does, as I would someone who believes it equals four. I am convinced that they are wrong, it’s that simple. Can I explain it to them? No I can’t possibly show them anything until they are open to the ideas being presented to them. That’s part of free will.

I don’t CHOOSE to believe in God. I do not BELIEVE in God, I KNOW God. You couch it in belief, but it’s not a matter of belief. I don’t care if you start to BELIEVE what I say, that’s completely and totally and utterly irrelevant. However, what is possible is for them to understand why it is that I don’t respect their position, if of course understanding such a thing matters to them.

Apos I understand where you are coming from, and you are at least maintaining some modicum of skepticism. I think that you are wrong, pure and simple. You do not have any reason to believe that I am right, and it would be anti-skeptical for you to just accept what I am saying. I know this, unlike many atheists, I do actually understand skepticism.

My problem here is people thinking that they are qualified to say that John C. Wright is delusional, when they most certainly are not. Their belief that he is delusional is what they WANT to believe, they are making assumptions and thinknig it’s skeptical, because they are fashion skeptics. They say they are skeptics in the hopes that the skeptics clique will accept them into the ranks. I have ZERO respect for this. If you are going to SAY you are a skeptic BE a skeptic. That’s far more important to me than believing me about God.

cosmosdan Now we get into your bias. You think that there is some sort of way you are SUPPOSED to react if you get to a certain level of understanding. I am simply laying it out on the line for people, calling it as I see it. Nothing to get offended about, it’ll all come out in the wash. They do not require my respect, and this has zero to do with rights as I illustrated above.

I am tired of being asked to respect people more than they respect me. I believe in reciprocal relationships. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but if someone goes after my eye I am gonna go after theirs, it’s that simple.

What I want from these atheists:

1. For them to actually BE skeptics if they are going to claim it
2. To call atheists on their lack of rigor as much as they call theists
3. To stop living in a fantasy world where there isn’t some sort of atheist solidarity, because if there wasn’t I wouldn’t be dealing with atheist pile-ons all the time.
4. To stop thinking BS semantic arguments will conveniently erase God.
5. To recognize that I am just shoving the same kinds of semantic arguments that they use CONSTANTLY back at them.

That’s the sort of intellectual honesty I expect, and rarely see. When I see that, then I will give some respect. But stop acting like I am hurting people’s “rights” because I go lone wolf, I don’t try and back myself up by anyone else’s experience but my own.

**Der Trihs ** On the 8th day, God created evolution.

Erek

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

I don’t CHOOSE to believe in God. I do not BELIEVE in God, I KNOW God. You couch it in belief, but it’s not a matter of belief.

If you have no proof, it’s a matter of belief, period.

@mswas

I know this, unlike many atheists, I do actually understand skepticism.

Somehow, I doubt that.

@mswas

My problem here is people thinking that they are qualified to say that John C. Wright is delusional, when they most certainly are not. Their belief that he is delusional is what they WANT to believe, they are making assumptions and thinknig it’s skeptical, because they are fashion skeptics. They say they are skeptics in the hopes that the skeptics clique will accept them into the ranks. I have ZERO respect for this. If you are going to SAY you are a skeptic BE a skeptic. That’s far more important to me than believing me about God.

That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. Have my opinions made me beloved ? When I post, are people saying “Ooohhh, it’s Der Trihs, my hero and role model !”

I say what I say because I believe what I say. I’m not trying to join some kind of “skeptics clique”.

@mswas

I am tired of being asked to respect people more than they respect me. I believe in reciprocal relationships. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but if someone goes after my eye I am gonna go after theirs, it’s that simple.

You certainly don’t seem all that respectful of others to me; claiming you have a personal pipeline to the One True God and that others don’t isn’t all that respectful, frankly.

@mswas

What I want from these atheists:

1. For them to actually BE skeptics if they are going to claim it

I am; you simply define “skeptic” as “theist”, as far as I can tell.

@mswas

2. To call atheists on their lack of rigor as much as they call theists

What “lack of rigor” ?

@mswas

3. To stop living in a fantasy world where there isn’t some sort of atheist solidarity, because if there wasn’t I wouldn’t be dealing with atheist pile-ons all the time.

It’s a funny sort of solidarity, where I get yelled at by other atheists. You get “piled on” because you make so many weird arguements and use oddball definitions that no one else uses. No solidarity is necessary, atheist or otherwise.

@mswas

4. To stop thinking BS semantic arguments will conveniently erase God.

Atheists don’t believe in God; we aren’t trying to “erase” a critter we think is fiction; there’s nothing to erase.

@mswas

5. To recognize that I am just shoving the same kinds of semantic arguments that they use CONSTANTLY back at them.

“Prove it” is not a semantic arguement.

@mswas

**Der Trihs ** On the 8th day, God created evolution.

Prove it.

[mswas]

@Der Trihs

If you have no proof, it’s a matter of belief, period.

I do have proof, just none that YOU will accept.

Somehow, I doubt that.

It all boils down to not making assumptions with a lack of evidence, pro or con.

That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. Have my opinions made me beloved ? When I post, are people saying “Ooohhh, it’s Der Trihs, my hero and role model !”

I say what I say because I believe what I say. I’m not trying to join some kind of “skeptics clique”.

Then why is skepticism so difficult for you to grasp? How come you cannot understand that assuming I am delusional is equally lacking in skepticism as just accepting what I say?

You certainly don’t seem all that respectful of others to me; claiming you have a personal pipeline to the One True God and that others don’t isn’t all that respectful, frankly.

Not having respect for you does not have any impact on the amount of respect I show others. I don’t have a line to God that you COULDN’T have. I have a line to God that you don’t even believe exists. It’s hardly disrespectful for me to discuss that in these debates.

I am; you simply define “skeptic” as “theist”, as far as I can tell.

I define skeptic as one who bases what they know on evidence. You call people delusional without evidence that they are delusional. You make very big assumptions about people when you accuse them of ‘lying’ or being ‘on drugs’. That is not skeptical. You simply lack proof that God exists. Though you don’t really know what God is, yet you deny it. How are you skeptical exactly?

What “lack of rigor” ?

You make assertions and rarely back them up and scoff at requests for cites. You make comments about people’s mental health because they say something you cannot comprehend. That’s lacking in rigor.

It’s a funny sort of solidarity, where I get yelled at by other atheists. You get “piled on” because you make so many weird arguements and use oddball definitions that no one else uses. No solidarity is necessary, atheist or otherwise.

I have yet to see someone give me adequate evidence of where I used a definition that is a definition no one else uses. I simply remove the perjorative context that I believe is superflous to the definitions.

Atheists don’t believe in God; we aren’t trying to “erase” a critter we think is fiction; there’s nothing to erase.

All of the arguments I have seen put forth by atheists require very flimsy terms. You might learn something by reading Left Hand of Dorkness’s posts about the word “Supernatural”. Watch him, he is a real skeptic, you can learn what real skepticism from him.

“Prove it” is not a semantic arguement.

You are asking me to put a square peg in a round hole. Any proof I could possibly offer you would reject out of hand. I tell you to read books and you tell you that you know it’s nonsense without even bothering to read the byline. How can I prove anything to you if you won’t even bother to listen to what I say when you ask for proof?

Prove it.

Prove to me that Creationism and Evolution are in conflict. You are the one who seems to think that they are. The burden of proof is on you. I was making a little quip that I’d bother to explain to you if I thought you cared.

Erek

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

I do have proof, just none that YOU will accept.

A subjective feeling proves nothing but the feeling, like it or not. If I’m sure I can fly, does that prove I can ? No, it just makes me irrational.

@mswas

It all boils down to not making assumptions with a lack of evidence, pro or con.

Your entire belief system appears to be evidence free; that is not skepticism.

@mswas

Then why is skepticism so difficult for you to grasp? How come you cannot understand that assuming I am delusional is equally lacking in skepticism as just accepting what I say?

You said delusional or hallucinating, I added lying or on drugs. When you make statements claiming highly implausible things without a shred of proof, those four words are the proper response of a skeptic.

@mswas

Not having respect for you does not have any impact on the amount of respect I show others. I don’t have a line to God that you COULDN’T have. I have a line to God that you don’t even believe exists. It’s hardly disrespectful for me to discuss that in these debates.

I wasn’t speaking about your attitude towards me, but of the attitude that only those that agree with you have a pipeline to the Truth. That’s another reason for religious hostility towards science; it works for everyone. It works whether you like it or believe in it.

@mswas

I define skeptic as one who bases what they know on evidence. You call people delusional without evidence that they are delusional. You make very big assumptions about people when you accuse them of ‘lying’ or being ‘on drugs’. That is not skeptical. You simply lack proof that God exists. Though you don’t really know what God is, yet you deny it. How are you skeptical exactly?

I demand proof. That’s skeptical.

@mswas

You make assertions and rarely back them up and scoff at requests for cites. You make comments about people’s mental health because they say something you cannot comprehend. That’s lacking in rigor.

I back them up; you simply don’t like my answers. I don’t think you are talking about things “you cannot comprehend”; I think you write confusingly, and use oddball definitions that no one else uses. As I said elsewhere, being confusing is not the same as being profound.

@mswas

I have yet to see someone give me adequate evidence of where I used a definition that is a definition no one else uses. I simply remove the perjorative context that I believe is superflous to the definitions.

Claiming the laws of physics are God is pretty unusual.

@mswas

Prove to me that Creationism and Evolution are in conflict. You are the one who seems to think that they are. The burden of proof is on you. I was making a little quip that I’d bother to explain to you if I thought you cared.

I get the joke; it’s just not very funny.

Creationism and evolution are opposites because evolution fits the facts and creationism doesn’t. Simple as that.

[mswas]

@Der Trihs

You said delusional or hallucinating, I added lying or on drugs. When you make statements claiming highly implausible things without a shred of proof, those four words are the proper response of a skeptic.

If a REAL skeptic could come and disabuse Der Trihs of this notion I would be eternally grateful.

[ambushed]

@cosmosdan

What I appreciate about the article is his committment to personal honesty. To me that’s key.

I didn’t see any honesty at all in his piece. He insulted atheists without being honest about why and he claimed to have absolute certainty that his probably hallucinations could have been hallucinations.

He’s obviously quite a liar, even to himself.

[Kalhoun]

@El_Kabong

For the rest of it, Mr. Wright speaks of “hating” Christianity prior to his conversion.

And yet he chose Christianity above all other faiths to latch onto once he “saw the light?” Odd. Why not judaeism? Why not one of a gazillion other faiths?

[cosmosdan]

@ambushed

I didn’t see any honesty at all in his piece. He insulted atheists without being honest about why and he claimed to have absolute certainty that his probably hallucinations could have been hallucinations.

He’s obviously quite a liar, even to himself.

And here you are asserting your opinion as if it’s fact. I wouldn’t call you a liar for that. Just mistaken in a pretty hostile and insulting way.

[Tevildo]

@Der Trihs

When I post, are people saying “Ooohhh, it’s Der Trihs, my hero and role model !”

I would be more than happy to apply for this position, if it’s vacant. I may disagree with you on certain fundamental points, but I’m always impressed by the simplicity, cogency, and directness of your arguments, and your ability to express your views forcefully without resorting to personal abuse, as against the sloppy thinking and the elevation of incoherence to “spiritual truth” that characterizes some of your opponents.

On Scepticism. The classical, Pyrrhonist, sceptic adopts a position of isothenia - the view that both sides of any debate have equally valid claims, and that we never have any grounds to accept or reject any positive claim. Their only reply to this sort of argument would be “You may choose to believe that; I couldn’t possibly comment.” So, yes, Der Trihs is not adopting a Pyrrhonist position when he asserts that all religious experiences are illusory. However, he is being sceptical of (expressing doubt of) the claims that such experiences are genuine, so he can legitimately be described as a sceptic on this particular issue.

[Czarcasm]

@mswas

I do have proof, just none that YOU will accept.

I swear, nothing ticks me off more than this cop-out. If you’ve got evidence, why don’t you just present it. Your attitude says one of two things-either you have no evidence and you think people will blindly accept "“Cause I say so!”, or you have actual evidence but in a fit of childish rage you are withholding it from others just to prove some point, ignoring the fact that by doing so you have denied this evidence to all those who might have been convinced, condemning them to an eternity of Hell.

[Eric2]

This is my favourite bit:

“Feeling fit, I nonetheless went to the hospital, so find out what had
happened to me. The diagnosis was grave, and a quintuple bypass heart
surgery was ordered. So I was in the hospital for a few days.
Those were the happiest days of my life. A sense of peace and
confidence, a peace that passes all understanding, like a field of
energy entered my body. I grew aware of a spiritual dimension of
reality of which I had hitherto been unaware. It was like a man born
blind suddenly receiving sight.”

When I had morphine for the first time I felt like that too! Now I’m a believer in the mystical poppy yeah baby!

Also could anyone give me a cite for when all mystics have agreed on everything? I must have missed all of that.

[Psilocybe]

@mswas

Der Trihs This would be true if you were not making a positive assertion that we were having a delusion, or hallucinating. I cannot FORCE you to have an experience, therefore there is no way for me to relate God to you in any meaningful way as long as you are unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt.

You’re uninformed. It is very much possible to experimentally have a profound religious experience. I don’t care about magnetic stimulation - chemicals are already here and very much working. Eating 3-4g dried psilocybin-containing mushrooms in a religious setting would do the trick, as in the Good Friday Experiment. DMT, DPT, LSD, 5meoDMT, Mescaline, take your pick. These have been used for thousands of years because they can result in uncomfortably intense experiences.

I guarantee a drug-induced experience could be just as profound, if not more so, than most traditional religious experiences. But in the author’s case, it was a NDE, and Near-Death Experiences are the peak of religious experience. So although I strongly disagree with the authors conclusions he had from the experience, I can understand why he needs to integrate it. This whole debate is about the phenomenon of integration, and what beliefs precipitate from it.