More or less basic mysticism (in its original meaning).
My personal position is that this insight is a true and valid one, but does not of necessity point to a god or God. It has stuff to say about the relationship between humans and the universe, but the commonality of that experience does not culminate in a proof of God - Taoist mystics and Christian mystics have many points in common, but an Abrahamic diety is not one of them.
To my mind, these are not necessarily incompatible - mysticism is an emotional response created by the brain, and indeed “mystic experiences” may be physically induced (and neurologists are comming close to understanding what creates them), which to my mind proves there is nothing supernatural about them (and indeed I think that “supernatural” things exist in the realm of mythology only).
The issue to me is whether this state serves any useful purpose, and can inform anyone of anything worth understanding. I think it can, but I do not think it is in any way theistic.
Garbage. As I just said, science demands evidence, which no one has ever produced for religion. And a core principle of science is parsimony, which if followed means that God should be disbelieved in until evidence is presented for his existence or necessity.
It’s based on faith, on the declaration that is is true, regardless of facts or the lack thereof. It is a denial of reality, in other words, all that is. In fact, just now :
You posted your own denial of reality in your attempt to defend religion, proving my point. Religion is hostile to REALITY, because reality doesnt support it.
And so you keep proving. Do you really think that doing as you do, simply declaring something to be true, denying the need for evidence, and ignoring physical laws are compatible with science ?
The reason we can reason at all is because we learn the rules of subsets and don’t try to misapply them to supersets as you are doing. I don’t need to understand that God exists to determine the velocity of a car travelling down the highway. It’s irrelevant. Whether I believe in God or not the mathematical formula works the same.
They do all the time. You just reject the evidence. shrugs
I don’t do that. I’ve told you that time and again. You think I have some responsibility to change your mind. I do not. I have shown a complete willingness to discuss religion on antheistic terms, discussing sociological and psychological benefits of religion. Remember, I was one of the people in the thread who in the beginning saw religious debate as being pointless. We aren’t going to resolve the God question here on the SDMB.
That’s not the atheist viewpoint. Atheists don’t declare that God not existing is an axiom; they claim that the evidence militates against it, and demand some.
Perhaps this is a reply to someone else in another thread? I didn’t ask for proof, I asked for evidence. You do know the difference between the two, right?
Right, but you can say that in theory. In practice how you approach it is entirely different. You are attempting to convince me that God does not exist. You are very passionate in your mission. If you didn’t care, you’d act more like Voyager or SentientMeat. You however find the idea that I believe in God to be offensive, for whatever reason. This passion eliminates any sort of objective bias free approach that can be applied in theory, because in practice you are zealously pursuing a particular result.
It applies equally in this case. You cannot have evidence that God exists if God permeates everything, because definition is as much about showing what something is as what something is not. You are asking me to prove universal monism within a dualistic framework. It simply doesn’t work.
Not to mention that if he cracked open our skulls we would have no more personality, and he wouldn’t be touching a personality, but merely dead grey and white matter.
You undercut your own beliefs. First, if you are right that God is beyond our ability to reason about or perceive, then we can’t say a word about him, and there’s no reason to consider him relevant at all, or worth talking about in any way. Therefore, the proper response to any religious statement should be, “Shut up, you don’t know what you are talking about.”
And second ( one more time ), the logical burden is on the person claiming something exists.
Claiming something is evidence, doesn’t make it evidence.
You don’t do that, because you are wrong. Because you have no evidence, and you have no evidence because you believe in a fantasy.
Sorry I did not answer this yesterday…I have been struck with some kind of viral plague, and I crashed pretty much as soon as I got home.
I agree with you there there are people who are overly-sensitive on certain subjects, just as their are people who are not senstive enough in their presentation of their opinions. And I appreciate your opinions in that thread. I think it’s a shame that such discourse can’t go a little more smoothly around here because of offenders on both sides.
Yes, I showed contempt for my own line of reasoning. :rolleyes:
Do you feel like you won yet? I think you’re feeling like you’re ‘winning’. I mean that’s the point right. To be smarter than the stupid theist?
I’m showing contempt for your line of reasoning actually. Comparing a Unicorn to God is stupid. A unicorn is a definable creature, not some sort of mysterious indeterminate state of being that is beyond all definition.
Generally I give you credit for being more intelligent than Der Trihs maybe that’s a mistake. I mean he thinks he wins some sort of rhetorical victory for showing me that I can’t provide evidence for something I have said long ago that I have no evidence for. Is that the level of your intellect as well?
