I’ve got a word, it ain’t got no meaning
I’ma gonna post it in my thread
I’ve got a word, it ain’t got no meaning
I’ma gonna post it in my thread
Will it go round in circles
Will it reply high like a thread up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it reply high like a thread up in the sky
(my apologies to Billy Preston)
An agnostic can believe that the solution is insoluable. They may consider that the existance of a particular god is provable or disprovable, but may consider the ability to prove (or disprove) any god to be non-existant. Claiming that belief is binary is forcing the argument into an “either-or.”
Couldn’t that deistic god, for whom time does not exist, have every mutation planned out in advance? It would be a feeble god indeed who’d have to meddle every five minutes to have his plan work. Think of Mission Impossible. If Mr. Phelps had been really good, nothing would have gone wrong with the plan. Bad TV, but good spying.
Will that be a five minute argument or …
Theology is no better at “why”. Why does God exist? What purpose does He serve?
I believe (not “know”) that God does not exist, under almost every definition of God in common currency, ie. supreme being, supernatural entity, creator of the universe, etc. The one dictionary definition I allow for is a greatly admired or influential person (eg. “Hendrix was a guitar god”), because people exist and they sometimes admire each other. I would also allow for his existence as an imaginary entity, just as one could say that Sonic the Hedgehog “exists” as a combination of memories and properties in computers (human or silicon).
I reject absurd definitions of God as being identical to some entity which clearly does exist, such as God=love, God= the universe or God=existence itself. That, to me, is obtuse wordplay (indeed, following such a lead, I could define such definitions as ludicrous nonsense! After all, how do you know that defining God as existence isn’t ludicrous nonsense?)
Absolutely. The sensory input I am receiving now is unique to my location in space and time: nobody else has ever sat at this desk just as the tree outside moved exactly like it just did. And neuropsychological experiences can vary widely. For example, I have experienced taking LSD while many other people haven’t.
How is it possible to know anything at all about something that cannot, or will not be defined? It really sounds like you’re weaselling here, but even if this isn’t the case, you’re clearly thrusting for the assumption of God’s existence being the default position.
Why should it be?
In any case, I don’t think I’ve witnessed many people claiming that they know God doesn’t exist; most of them seem merely to say that they don’t see any reason to assume that God exists, as well as seeing reasons why his existence or nature as defined by others might be a problem. It’s not the same thing.
Er, I’ll disagree with you there.
I’m an athiest. Which doesn’t mean that I am not open to evidence of a god(s) in the future. But, at the moment, I live with the belief that there is no god(s). I am not an agnostic, as I am comfortable in my “belief”. However, like any fact that I base my life around, I am open to it being changed/altered/refuted by more convincing evidence. It doesn’t mean I dont truly believe what I believe, merely that I am a person who is able to change.
Also, mswas, you might want to read my testimony of an experience I initially considered “God-based”. However, after various similar experiences via eg. meditation and drugs, I again rejected the “God” part since I considered it unnecessary.
I now believe that those experiences are not explained by God but by cognitive science, specifically from the significance-judgement mechanisms in the amygdala going into overdrive. Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran expands on this phenomenon in this excellent article.
So if you want to call a strong output of significance from the temporal lobes “God”, go right ahead. Again, I consider such linguistic legerdemain to obscure rather than illuminate.
I was simply giving definitions, based on root word analysis and not the various interpretations. Many deists and Buddhists consider themselves agnostic - this does not mean they are.
I, on the other hand, practice what could be considered strong atheism. I reject all possibility of god or gods, or, for that matter, any phenomenon based on myth or credulity (aliens, ghosts, the virgin Mary’s image in a grilled cheese sandwich). If I am proven wrong, great. I don’t think I will. The god of the gaps grows smaller each second, and will eventually vanish, leaving only the romantic and desperate remnants of religion as science proceeds apace. Either that, or we will all be destroyed in the next global catastrophe and be succeeded by a less whimsical spieces.
Or perhaps our (largely monotheistic, creationist) hearts will finally cease to be broken by the empty promises of truth that religion offers when and if we make contact with extra-terrestrial species - especially if our anthropomorphism should prove unfounded…
How could you be proven wrong if you reject even the possibility that you’re wrong?
I’m an atheist too (and consider that all reasonable atheists or theists must be agnostic as well, ie. accept that they cannot know for certain one way or the other). I continually have to tell theists that I’ve never met or talked to an atheist who said they knew, were certain, that God did not exist. I hope you are not the real person they can pin their strawmen to.
Allow me to put it this way - as the theists claim a positive which could, theoretically, be proven, eventual knowledge of the existence of god can be possible.
As strong atheists propose a negative, and there is no conceivable way to prove the nonexistance of something, only it’s improbability, I feel quite comfortable saying that I am certain of the non-existance of god.
They may pin their strawmen to me if they like - they do not concern me.
Infinity has been proven mathematically - why cannot the universe simply be the end? Why must we go back another unnecessary step? Science and understanding can fill in the holes which religion currently occupies, the whys and wherefores, unless their progress is impeded by our species’ demise. It has been doing so all along.
The answer to Why? cannot always be Because.
But that’s not what he said, is it? He did not say “If you do not know exactly,” he said" if you do not know." Now the OP is famous for vaguely worded questions, and malleable definitions, so if you want to change his question then go ahead. However, if he had asked “If you do not know exactly…” my answer would not have been “You don’t.”
I don’t understand what this means.
I realise I’m late coming into this discussion, but I thought I’d have a go at giving my oen answers to the OP.
I don’t know that God doesn’t exist, and I don’t claim to.
Absolutely, yes.
From your other posts, it seems you’d give the same answers to these questions, and it also seems that by your own logic, it’s impossible to have a strong belief in God without personally experiencing the same sort of thing that you’ve been through. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
I would describe myself as agnostic and in my opinion, it’s impossible that I could ever be sure in my own mind that there is no God. I do find it conceiveable that at some point in the future I could have an experience that would convince me that there is a God but for now I’m happy with “I don’t know”.
I had read you testimony before and enjoyed reading it just as much this time. My own beliefs have changed quite a bit since those first spiritual experiences many moons ago. I no longer refer to myself as Christian because my beliefs are too different from main stream. In recent months I’ve considered abandoning the use of the word God because for so many it has come to represent some being or entity completely outside ourselves who acts for and upon us. Someone here on SDMB suggested “Mysterium Tremendom” Not a bad idea.
I tend to think that Jesus used the term Heavenly Father because of the nature of his audience. {If accounts are true} I find that many people want to remain the children of God. The concept itself makes them feel better and they resist any contrary notion the way any child being pulled away from Daddy might.
I see it more as we are all part of the whole and it is our illusion of seperatness that creates so many problems. I certainly understand the idea of chemical reactions being a source of feeling of euphoria and oneness. What are your thoughts on the keen insight or knowledge that sometimes comes unexplicably during these moments? Jesus said the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth.
Let’s for a moment say he was useing a metaphor to teach a true principle. Any thoughts on what that might be.
It seems we have access to more understanding and knowledge by looking within than looking without. I’m talking about inspiration and what creative individuals might refer to as their muse. I’ve felt it so powerfully that it did indeed seem like a different voice whispering secrets to me.
It sounds like a general feeling of well-being to me. What makes you think there’s a supernatural force causing you to feel good?
But maybe you’re mistaking this feeling you have for god. Maybe it really IS just your brain interpreting something in your environment. What makes you think it’s GOD? Because you want it to BE god? Out of all the possible reasons for feeling whatever it is you’re feeling, why would you choose to believe that it’s a supernatural being? Why couldn’t it be martian love rays? Why not signals from jellyfish being bounced off the clouds? It appears to me you need to put a label on this feeling, and have chosen the god label over any other available label because you’ve been conditioned to do so.
Erek
[/QUOTE]
All this has really taken me back to my youth. Mswas – next year, when you’re a sophomore, you’ll laugh about all this stuff. Forget about God for awhile and study logic, psychology and secular philosophies.
Everybody – the word is atheist. If you are an atheist, learn to spell it.
Faith
I’ll play too.
Question the first: I don’t know that what I consider God to be doesn’t exist. I don’t know that God does exist. I do doubt it, however.
In my case, “God” refers to the Judeo-Christian traditional deity and the characteristics assigned to same. So perhaps the question doesn’t apply to me, since I seem to have an idea of what “God” is that works for me. I guess I don’t know what mswas’s “God” is, and since I don’t know that, I don’t know whether his “God” does or does not exist.
Question the second: Now, this question seems patently silly to me. Of course it’s possible for one person to have an experience that another doesn’t have.
For example, my sister has given birth - she’s had three babies. I, on the other hand, am childless. I’ve never experienced birth. It’s quite possible I never will, even though I possess the required plumbing. Barring some sort of medical advance, I feel it’s pretty safe to say that the men on these boards haven’t experienced birth either, except in an emotional way. Just as likely, I’ll never experience an erection, tho’ my husband has. See how this works? There’s literally thousands of experiences you can think of that won’t be shared by another person. I’m not sure what this is supposed to be teaching me about the existance of “God”, however.
Here’s my $10,000 question: Why are people so threatened by atheism? What is it that scares them so about it? I only know a very few atheists, I’ll admit, but it’s not like those I do know are actively recruiting. They’re very “live and let live” - they’re not interested in trying to dissuade you from your beliefs, although they will raise questions you might not like. If your beliefs comfort you and bring meaning to your life, they’re quite content to leave you to them, even if they don’t share them. Why is this so threatening?
Your assumption that the feeling felt “Good” is just that an assumption. What I want to know is how come everyone here is more willing to believe without backing that I am hallucinating, rather than that I actually experienced what I claim to have experienced.
I don’t believe its a supernatural being. The word supernatural is so overused that is has been sucked of all meaning. God is perfectly natural. Basically, the experience I have had of God, is as real as the experience that I am talking to you right now. To question that experience, I might as well question whether or not YOU exist.
I think denying the existence of God is like a couple lines of HTML code arguing whether or not there really is a google.
In order to deny the experience of God, one must come with a lot of preconceptions and prejudgements as to what that is and generally the people who try to speculate that perhaps you are hallucinating, don’t care that their speculations are as devoid of evidence as that which they are trying to disprove.
I never once said my experience was supernatural, I merely said that the idea is so expansive that it’s quite difficult to describe. Beyond words, and supernatural are two very different things.
Why is it that people keep comparing it to microcosmic concepts such as martian moon rays? Why is there a need to diminish the nature of the debate to simplistic terms that appeal much more to the emotional faux skepticism that is ingrained in our society.
As I have said before there is a big difference between:
**
I do not believe there is a God.**
and
I believe there is not a God
If you fall into the first category, I am not really talking to you. If you fall into the second then I am talking to you. Reserving judgement when one doesn’t know is completely sensible, but making a definitive statement when one doesn’t know is not sensible. A part of the lack of sensibility is assuming that just because you don’t know, and your friends don’t know, that nobody knows.
I know, I have experienced it, I have seen God so to speak, I can see God whenever I want to. When I look at this screen I can see God, when I look at anything I can see God. Its not merely a feeling of well-being, it is a sense that when I really look at the light that is contained in every single little part of matter, I suddenly know much more than I did before.
As for whoever made that sophomoric comment, just because you stopped thinking about the subject, doesn’t mean there isn’t more to know about it.
Erek