Athiest for Others

[(Q)]

Athiests tend to go beyond this position. They tend to say that the believers are irrational.

Considering their indemonstrable claims of invisible beings, demons angels and magic, it's an obvious conclusion.

This may not be the case even from the athiests' perspective. They could have experiences that make their belief rational but are these experiences are not demonstrable to you.

I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

A theist claiming that their beliefs should somehow be proof for you is not correct - not do I see any proofs of God as very convincing.

No, their beliefs are usually the claims.

However one can, in general, belief in something that is true and is not demonstrable. They are many examples of this, phenomena that did not fit with scientific or other general beliefs at a certain time and were poo pooed by those not having the experiences. Later it was shown that these were true.

Codswallop! Can you provide the equivalent examples?

An honest scientist would say they cannot know for sure if there is a God or not or if a believer is making a rational decision to believe.

You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy. A scientist, honest or otherwise, would recognize that as a fallacy and would call it such.

I see a confusion (on both sides) of these debates between
what is demonstrable or provable
and
what is convincing for the experiencer

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

 

[greenberg]

I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

The problem is that both theists and atheists often assume that we are all the same, with basically the same abilities. That based on some superificial observation of these abilities it is adequate to make the conclusion that we are all the same or at least sufficiently similar. And that being thusly at least sufficiently similar, it is adequate to speak of intepersonal verifiability, evidence.

But this is an assumption, possibly unverifiable.

 

[nova900]

You are assuming that every real and causal phenomena can be tracked or measured by the technology and scientific perspectives (which would help us know where to look at with what) we CURRENTLY HAVE.

Quite true.
If these phenomanae normally occur out of our perceptory senses and current level of science to detect them then of course the empirical data will not be there to support it.
Can all these people who report these types of phenomanae be delusional? --ghosts, UFOs ,pychic phenomanae,etc. Are all crop circles formed by smart ass college kids with ropes,planks and boards? Personally, I don't believe so.
In many cases these are observed by what appear to be credible witnesses.
I think they bear closer examination rather than classifying all of them into the realm of the "Fox network pychic fraud,bigfoot alien hour"

 

[Grantywanty]

Considering their indemonstrable claims of invisible beings, demons angels and magic, it's an obvious conclusion.

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.

I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

Again, this is not scientific.

No, their beliefs are usually the claims.

That is incorrect. There is a big difference between 'I spoke to God' and then saying. 'Now that I have told you this you should also believe.' If you cannot admit the difference there is no point in talking to you because you must have such a strong need here you cannot be rational.

Codswallop! Can you provide the equivalent examples?

I can provide examples: rogue waves, elephants communicating over great distances, and meditators being able to control parts of their physiology considered not controllable by medicine and science. Those who experienced these things (or inferred from their experiences these things) were considered irrational by scientists - for example oceanographers and physicists studying fluid mechanics. . Later technology changed and/or interest by scientists and it was shown that in fact current ideas in science had blinded the scientists to what was possible. Those experiencers were rational for trusting their experiences, DESPITE the lack of scientific corroboration.

You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy. A scientist, honest or otherwise, would recognize that as a fallacy and would call it such.

In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

Now you have made an assertion. You are making a claim about a phenomenon. You have gone beyond 'you have not convinced me' IN REACTION to theists' claims but are making a claim of you own that they are delusional. All believers are deluded. Care to back up your hypothesis? And please let me know how you plan to study this.

 

[Grantywanty]

The problem is that both theists and atheists often assume that we are all the same, with basically the same abilities. That based on some superificial observation of these abilities it is adequate to make the conclusion that we are all the same or at least sufficiently similar. And that being thusly at least sufficiently similar, it is adequate to speak of intepersonal verifiability, evidence.

But this is an assumption, possibly unverifiable.

Excellent point. I would add ''are similarly interested". Interests lead to practice lead to skills. There are certainly tempermental proclivities amongst rationalists and scientists toward certain kinds of brain activities, greater verbal focus, I would say, for example.

 

[(Q)]

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.

Things like demons, angels and gods? Really? Show them to me.

Again, this is not scientific.

So, asking questions is not scientific?

That is incorrect. There is a big difference between 'I spoke to God' and then saying. 'Now that I have told you this you should also believe.' If you cannot admit the difference there is no point in talking to you because you must have such a strong need here you cannot be rational.

Then, don't talk to me.

I can provide examples: rogue waves, elephants communicating over great distances, and meditators being able to control parts of their physiology considered not controllable by medicine and science. Those who experienced these things (or inferred from their experiences these things) were considered irrational by scientists - for example oceanographers and physicists studying fluid mechanics. . Later technology changed and/or interest by scientists and it was shown that in fact current ideas in science had blinded the scientists to what was possible. Those experiencers were rational for trusting their experiences, DESPITE the lack of scientific corroboration.

Wonderful! You compare the physical to the supernatural as if they are one and the same.

In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect.

No, it is not, and your authoritative does not preclude that.

Now you have made an assertion. You are making a claim about a phenomenon. You have gone beyond 'you have not convinced me' IN REACTION to theists' claims but are making a claim of you own that they are delusional. All believers are deluded. Care to back up your hypothesis? And please let me know how you plan to study this.

Theists make claims. Theists have never backed their claims, ever. They are deluded. Simple, really.

 

[(Q)]

The problem is that both theists and atheists often assume that we are all the same, with basically the same abilities. That based on some superificial observation of these abilities it is adequate to make the conclusion that we are all the same or at least sufficiently similar. And that being thusly at least sufficiently similar, it is adequate to speak of intepersonal verifiability, evidence.

But this is an assumption, possibly unverifiable.

Your assumption must claim that there is a mechanism to communicate with gods, and that only some of us have such a mechanism.

 

[geeser]

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.

if you mean, things that are so small or so far away, we cant see them, then I'd agree, but we made scientific instruments to measure or see those, however if you mean, like air, gravity, these things can effect mine yours and everybody elses, other senses, but when it comes to religious experiences, these have no effect on any of the senses, bar those of the individual experiences them, thus are clearly delusional on there part.

Again, this is not scientific.

how so, it's correct.
can you prove otherwise.

That is incorrect. There is a big difference between 'I spoke to God' and then saying. 'Now that I have told you this you should also believe.'

what difference, why do the religious constantly preach, witness, sermonize, in every town on every street corner throughout the world, if this is wrong.

I can provide examples: rogue waves, elephants communicating over great distances, and meditators being able to control parts of their physiology considered not controllable by medicine and science.

then provide them thank you.

In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect.

how so, elaborate, thank you.

Now you have made an assertion. You are making a claim about a phenomenon. You have gone beyond 'you have not convinced me' IN REACTION to theists' claims but are making a claim of you own that they are delusional. All believers are deluded. Care to back up your hypothesis? And please let me know how you plan to study this.

he has no need without evidence the experiencers, experience, can only be deemed hearsay, unless he can prove his experience is fact, he is quite clearly delusional.
this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.

 

[Grantywanty]

Things like demons, angels and gods? Really? Show them to me.

Did you really misunderstand?

So, asking questions is not scientific?

Um. You made a statement. I did not respond to a question of yours and call it unscientific. I called your statement, in which you drew certain conclusions, unscientific. In other words not backed up by testing under any of the current scientific methodologies.

Then, don't talk to me.

If it was hard for you to understand the general idea I was presenting there or you want to quip and be evasive, yet you did understand, I also see no point in talking to you.

Wonderful! You compare the physical to the supernatural as if they are one and the same.

These were considered supernatural claims at the time. I think this is really just too hard for you.

No, it is not, and your authoritative does not preclude that.

Authoritative is an adjective. First a little googling will show you things like many scientists are believers, let alone getting to the issue of agnostics. Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan come up very quickly as people who called themselves agnostics. I came across dozens of references to agnostic scientists or scientists referring to themselves as agnostics. On the way believers popped up including

* Arthur Eddington, an important mathematical cosmologist, was a Quaker.
* Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory.
* I don't know whether Michael Polanyi, the notable physical chemist and philosopher, was Christian at the end of his life, but I know that he was when he wrote Science, Faith and Society, the best introduction to his thought.
* Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer is one of the foremost theoretical chemists of our day.
* William Phillips was co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.
* Francis Collins ( is the director of the U.S. Human Genome Project.
* Rustum Roy, one of the world's foremost materials scientists, holds three chairs at the Pennsylvania State University.

Those few minutes of googling are all I am going to put towards helping you not to depend just on my 'authoritative'. If you spent a little time thinking about scientific methodology and the history of science you would realize why scientists are cautious about calling themselves atheists.

Theists make claims. Theists have never backed their claims, ever. They are deluded. Simple, really

you want me to believe your 'authoritative.'

I am starting to mock you and that's a sign I don't respect what you are doing here to such a degree there is no point in continuing to respond to you. So I won't. You're on my ignore list.

Ah, I see, you are a moderator. Well, scrolling past you works as well.

 

[Grantywanty]

this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.

You can read my responses to Q.

And you can search these forums under rogue waves and see what I have written before. I would think however the other two examples would be clear enough as they are.

 

[Grantywanty]

Greenberg,
you seem to have been right about the mootness.
On the other hand I find it interesting how at least some atheist cannot tell the difference between
the potential rationality of a belief
and the ability to prove it.
As a phenomenon, fascinating, but as a dialogue, boring.

 

[phlogistician]

It may seem obvious to you, but you are not being scientific. Unseen things have been discovered before.

Like gravity? We can't see it, but we can see it's effects. It can be measured, and using those measurements we can make formulae, and use those formulae to make mathematical predictions about gravitational events.

If there were a God, that created the Universe, he must have been able to interact with the Universe. While not being able to 'see' him, we should be able to detect the effect he has on the Universe via his interactions. So far, we have not got a 'God' constant or variable, just the basic dimensions included in formulae.

Now, you may say that we are unable to detect this interaction because we have limited prowess. Let me remind you that the models of the Universe and matter are pretty good, and that theoretical models were used to predict such things as nuclear fission. No God constant in those, either.

But here we are, with a 'God of gaps' conclusion. God must exist where science cannot probe. That's apologetic, and rather weak.

 

[Grantywanty]

But here we are, with a 'God of gaps' conclusion. God must exist where science cannot probe. That's apologetic, and rather weak.

You are taking my statements above as an attempt to prove God's existence. That is not a good reading of what I am doing which the OP and a number of my posts make clear.

Give it another shot, if you want.

 

[(Q)]

I am starting to mock you and that's a sign I don't respect what you are doing here to such a degree there is no point in continuing to respond to you. So I won't. You're on my ignore list.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Please try to curb your fantasies and fallacious arguments in the future and you won't get called out on your nonsense, hence won't have the need for an ignore list.

 

[(Q)]

You can read my responses to Q.

And you can search these forums under rogue waves and see what I have written before. I would think however the other two examples would be clear enough as they are.

Utter nonsense. The examples are seriously flawed in that comparisons are drawn between nature and the supernatural.

 

[geeser]

this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.

You can read my responses to Q.

you ask me to read your response to Q however your response to him does nothing to answer my question above.
you answer one of my points I think with a list of religious scientist, but this just evades the question Q put, which I was asking you to elaborate, why is this statement incorrect,

You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy. A scientist, honest or otherwise, would recognize that as a fallacy and would call it such.

how is giving a list of scientist, answering this. are you trying to say because some scientist are religious, they have made a rational decision to believe without having any evidence to falsify/verify. I think you'll find, they just believe however irrational it may be, because it give them some kind of purpose or some kind of comfort to there otherwise dull lives.
They can rationalise it until there blue in the face it's not going to make it rational, and they know that.

And you can search these forums under rogue waves and see what I have written before. I would think however the other two examples would be clear enough as they are.

done that but there were no links, where are the links.
It's for you to provide the links to back up your assertion's, not for me to seek them out, you made the claim not I.
and please if you can provide several different sources, it would be appreciated.
and if you dont mind, would you answer the questions posed and not go of on a tangent.
thanks

 

[Grantywanty]

Geeser.
I am going to focus on one interchange to show you where both you and Q mess up.

“Q'
I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

me

Again, this is not scientific.

and now you.

how so, it's correct.
can you prove otherwise.

Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.

HE has now made a claim. One which he cannot back up. He claims to know that their experiences - which he has no access to - are not being explained correctly by them. HE is making a claim to know this and he is coming here to tell us about this FACT that he knows.

HE now has the burden of proof in relation to us.
Oh, really, Q, one is justified in asking, how do you know for a fact, that they are misinterpreting or simply imagining these things?

I point out that his claim is not based on scientific research or testing. It is simply an untested hyposthesis.

Now you say I must prove something.

Nope. The onus is on him.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God here in this thread. Something I have made clear.

Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.

He needs to back that up.

“
Originally Posted by Grantywanty
In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect.

and now you.

how so, elaborate, thank you.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Notice that 20% are under doubt or agnosticism, 7-8% under belief.

Please, just pause for a moment in all your assumptions about what this thread is about and do not lecture me now about how this does not prove that these scientists are rational or that there is a God. I know all that.

I have a suspicion that neither you nor Q is capable of really understanding what this thread is about and can only treat it as what you perceive to be a failed proof of God. And you both read my posts in those terms.

he has no need without evidence the experiencers, experience, can only be deemed hearsay, unless he can prove his experience is fact, he is quite clearly delusional.
this is not a claim it is a fact, unless you have evidence to show what has been experienced is real. can you do that.

Do you really believe that? That if people say they have experienced something but cannot prove it it must be false?

 

[greenberg]

Your assumption must claim that there is a mechanism to communicate with gods, and that only some of us have such a mechanism.

Yes. There are some theists who in fact propose just that - that not everyone can know God.

 

[SnakeLord]

I do belief in God. I don't disbelieve in the Christian God, but I doubt that God hate homosexuals

While I suppose we all dislike fundamentalists for the fact that they're all lunatics, I must give them some credit for at least being honest. What gets my goat more than them are those with the cherry picked gods - the gods tailor made to their own individual wishes and morality. They ignore everything savage and barbaric about the god they espouse belief in, and thus don't even really believe in the god they espouse belief in - but some 'suitable for kids' version - all because they know deep down that if that god was real, they'd hate him.

In short, by 'doubting' this supposed god is what he says he is, you're ultimately calling him a liar. Ok, a liar is more preferable than a vicious savage, but it still aint that good.

 

[(Q)]

Yes. There are some theists who in fact propose just that - that not everyone can know God.

Convenient, isn't it?

Yet, we are ALL gods children.