In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

I see we've reached Jan's chocolate teapot phase of discourse. Now that his more normal content has been shown to be worthless, he's forgone any effort at pretence and gone straight for clarified drivel.
With no other arguments to make it's just a case of "if you disagree it's because you are without God". Quite funny, really. If it wasn't so tragic.

I see we've reached the denial stage of Sarkus's s protestations. God doesn't exist (but imports the all important "probably" to give the appearance of rationality), and it is the same for everybody.
If I am without God then so is everyone else. That's just funny, not tragic, as it is the way it is.

Jan.

 

[karenmansker]

Do you have anything to support the existence of this concept of God?

Yes, but if I told you I would have to call a hit man. Sarkus, you failed to note the IMO!! . . . . therefore, I do not have to provide any evidence for you . . . . also, because "Opinions are like assholes . . . . everybody has one! HAHAHA! HSIRI

 

[DaveC426913]

You cannot convince somebody that God exists, when for them God does not exist.

This is not true. Have you never seen the film 'Oh God'?

It is conceivable that God could come down and appear before Mankind, and turn day into night in the blink an eye, then turn the world inside out without anybody falling off.

You can bet I would become a believer. The evidence would be sufficiently compelling.

Don't misunderstand; I'm not saying that's what it would take, I am simply saying there is some preponderance of evidence that would convince pretty much any rational person.

If and when you turn toward God, it will be your own doing.

It'd first have to exist. If it didn't, it would be just a delusion.

Go on then.

You presented what you consider evidence. I described the events that led up to my existence. Now where did I need to invoke God to explain it. So it's not convincing evidence.
I have no items on my list.
So it's back to you with your next item.

Of course there isn't. So why bother with this fake cooperation?

You have evidence that I don't.
You can put things on my list that I have obviously not considered.
What's your item 2?

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is conceivable that God could come down and appear before Mankind,

He has, and the fool still said in his heart there is no God.

and turn day into night in the blink an eye, then turn the world inside out without anybody falling off.

But if He didn't do it, it defaults to your position. God does not exist.

You can bet I would become a believer. The evidence would be sufficiently compelling.

Of course you would Dave (not).

Why would you believe it was God?

Don't misunderstand; I'm not saying that's what it would take, I am simply saying there is some preponderance of evidence that would convince pretty much any rational person.

You mean extravagant parlour tricks, as opposed to having the intelligence to discriminate between what is God and what is not? Do those "rational" people also stick probably in their statement to appear rational, or are they rational because for them God does not exist?
What do you mean by rational person in this regard?

It'd first have to exist. If it didn't, it would be just a delusion.

And you're not delusional are you.
You use the term "probably". Classy.

You presented what you consider evidence.

I didn't say it was evidence. I said everything is evidence.

I have no items on my list.

Go away and prepare a list, then we'll talk.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have evidence that I don't.
You can put things on my list that I have obviously not considered.
What's your item 2?

Do you have compassion?
If you have, can you show me evidence of it. Remember acting compassionately
is not the same as being compassionate.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

He has, and the fool still said in his heart there is no God.

Who knows? That fool is centuries dead.
He does not govern my actions.

But if He didn't do it, it defaults to your position. God does no exist.

Not the point.

You claimed nothing could change a non-believer. That's not true.

Why would you believe it was God?

Because, as is my criteria - the evidence would be sufficient.

You mean extravagant parlour tricks

No, I mean sufficient demonstration of a God.

, as opposed to having the intelligence to discriminate between what is God and what is not?

That door swings both ways.
It is the contention of these rational people that you do not have the intelligence to tell what is not God.

What do you mean by rational person in this regard?

Drawing conclusions on compelling evidence. Compelling means first eliminating mundane, natural explanations. A natural, physical (non-God) explanation for the world has not been ruled out. (I described my existence in an earlier post.)

I didn't say it was evidence. I said everything is evidence.

So there is no way to falsify it.

Go away and prepare a list, then we'll talk.

I have stated, twice, that I have no items on my list. Ostensibly, that is my loss. (because, I grant, I might be wrong about God.)
I am looking to you to show me what I'm missing.

And what I am seeing is that, as has happened every time, you retreat when asked to put your chips on the table.


You don't have any evidence to present.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you have compassion?
If you have, can you show me evidence of it. Remember acting compassionate is not the same as being compassionate.

Which then forces the question:

What do you mean by "have" compassion?

Is there such a thing as compassion unless one acts on it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Who knows? That fool is centuries dead.
He does not govern my actions.

Who doesn't govern your actions? God?

You claimed nothing could change a non-believer. That's not true.

You haven't show why any physical event would convert a non-believer.
What is it about changing day into night in the blink of an eye, that leads people for whom God not exist, to suddenly believe in God?

Because, as is my criteria - the evidence would be sufficient

What makes the evidence sufficient?

No, I mean sufficient demonstration of a God.

How would you know it was God?

That door swings both ways.
It is the contention of these rational people that you do not have the intelligence to tell what is not God.

And their lies the problem. You're elitist.

Drawing conclusions on compelling evidence. Compelling means first eliminating mundane, natural explanations. A natural, physical (non-God) explanation for the world has not been ruled out. (I described my existence in an earlier post

There's your problem. You don't recognise God, and as such will never comprehend God, at least until you you can recognise Him. But you can't have an atheist mindset, and recognise God. You have to give up that mindset.

So there is no way to falsify it.

Can you imagine any set of circumstances that could convince you that you do not exist?

I have stated, twice, that I have no items on my list. Ostensibly, that is my loss. (because, I grant, I might be wrong about God.)
I am looking to you to show me what I'm missing

Study Bhagavad Gita, then let's talk.

And what I am seeing is that, as has happened every time, you retreat when asked to put your chips on the table.

So therefore God does not exist?
Can you not see that you have no intention of comprehending God. You're just desperate to wear me down. I know you all act as though your really cool in the face of me exposing your real mindset to yourselves. But I sense you're all quite riled up. You need closure, and I'm not going to give it.

You don't have any evidence to present.

Therefore God does not exist?
God doesn't exist as far as you're concerned anyway. Like I said, you can only go as far as "I can't see God therefore God doesn't exist. The rest is just waffle, trying to stay in the discussion, so you can claim some kind of victory, hence get closure.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which then forces the question:

What do you mean by "have" compassion?

I get you. You can't answer the question in a way that fits your mindset, so you seek to change it, so that you can make up an answer that does.

Is there such a thing as compassion unless one acts on it?

We know that there are people who have compassion, so I would say yes.

I await eagerly to hear how you explain compassion away. I mean, it is kind of in the way. Isn't it?

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

Which then forces the question:

What do you mean by "have" compassion?

Google's dictionary feature produced this: "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others". Etymologically, the word derives from the Greek, meaning something like 'feel along with'.

So according to this definition, 'compassion' indicates a subjective feeling, similar to empathy, that motivates action to reduce another person's suffering.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/compassion/definition

Is there such a thing as compassion unless one acts on it?

I assume that the feeling would qualify as compassion as opposed to empathy if it motivated a desire to help, even if that desire was thwarted somehow.

But for the purposes of this thread, it's important to notice that compassion is a subjective feeling, however much it motivates action.

That doesn't seem to be a very good analogy for getting at the difference between atheists and theists, since most atheists would probably be willing to grant that many religious theists experience religious feelings that might motivate actions, such as acts of devotion and worship.

But the question at issue isn't whether the religious person is experiencing a subjective feeling, but whether or not the beliefs associated with that subjective feeling have an objectively existing object.

Does monotheism have a single divine object that exists for all sentient beings in the entire universe, whether they believe in divine beings or not, and whatever their weird alien religious adherence might be? Or does God only "exist" subjectively in the believer's mind, in much the way that a literary character like Sherlock Holmes "exists" for somebody who doesn't know (or believe or care) that Holmes is fictional?

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, but if I told you I would have to call a hit man. Sarkus, you failed to note the IMO!! . . . . therefore, I do not have to provide any evidence for you . . . . also, because "Opinions are like assholes . . . . everybody has one! HAHAHA! HSIRI

Why on earth would you think that you don't have to support your opinion? Why would you think that qualifying a claim with "in my opinion" absolves you from having to support it with evidence? If you want your opinion to actually have any weight at all, to be considered as anything other than an empty assertion of no value whatsoever, then you do need to support it.

If you can't support it, just say so. It does raise the question of why you would believe something that you can't support, but at least it would be an honest approach, from which further discussion might arise. But to simply state that it is your opinion and thus above the need for it to be supported... that is a view not compatible with forum rules.

 

[Jan Ardena]

From Wikipedia...

Compassion motivates people to go out of their way to help physical, spiritual, or emotional hurts or pains of another. Compassion is often regarded as having an emotional aspect to it, though when based on cerebral notions such as fairness, justice and interdependence, it may be considered rational in nature and its application understood as an activity based on sound judgment. There is also an aspect of compassion which regards a quantitative dimension, such that individual's compassion is often given a property of "depth," "vigour," or "passion." The etymology of "compassion" is Latin, meaning "co-suffering." More involved than simple empathy,

Why we need definitions when I assume that at least some of us here, have the best seat in the house when it comes to observing compassion. By that I mean we possess the ability to display compassion.

Some of us, however do not have that ability. That should tell us that it is more than just a feeling.

This idea that a lot of atheists have, that if you can't touch it, or see it, it is intangible, and therefore purely subjective, can be counter productive, and ultimately, potentially de-humanizing.

We shouldn't be here talking about can you provide evidence of God's existence, any more than demanding evidence of compassion. As an atheist, interested in finding out whether or not God exists, you should seek to understand what is God.
Currently it seems as though you're actively trying to suppress God, and belief in God by any means necessary.

A question for atheists.

Is it possible that you are actually without God, in the same some are without compassion?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Why we need definitions when I assume that at least some of us here, have the best seat in the house when it comes to observing compassion. By that I mean we possess the ability to display compassion.

I refer you to your post #745:

Remember acting compassionately is not the same as being compassionate.

We may all indeed possess the ability to display compassion, but that is (per your post quote here) not the same as having compassion.

Some of us, however do not have that ability. That should tell us that it is more than just a feeling.

Why should some people's inability to be compassionate mean that it is more than just a feeling?
Surely the notion that some people can't be compassionate is a reason to consider it wholly subjective.
In fact, if you continue reading the wiki article you extracted from, the 3 theoretical perspectives of compassion all have it as an emotion. I.e. Subjective.

This idea that a lot of atheists have, that if you can't touch it, or see it, it is intangible, and therefore purely subjective,...

Incorrect. What we see as subjective are those things that vary from perspective to perspective. Opinions, emotions, etc. Even individual observations are subjective, albeit of objective things (we can both look at the same object, but because of our different viewpoints we will actually see different images).
This contrasts to the objective: that which is the same irrespective of perspective.
Compassion, being an emotion, is subjective.
Every time you use compassion as an analogy in this thread you are pushing God as being a wholly subjective matter.

...can be counter productive, and ultimately, potentially de-humanizing.

In what way can it be counter-productive, or even potentially de-humanising? Care to support this rather bold assertion?

We shouldn't be here talking about can you provide evidence of God's existence, any more than demanding evidence of compassion.

So God is purely subjective?

As an atheist, interested in finding out whether or not God exists, you should seek to understand what is God.

And how would we go about that? By studying the scriptures, no doubt. And how would we know that the scriptures are actually about God? Because the scriptures tell us they are, right?

Currently it seems as though you're actively trying to suppress God, and belief in God by any means necessary.

No, not actively. We're just not actively jumping into a mindset of circularity without something outside that circle convincing us.

A question for atheists.

Is it possible that you are actually without God, in the same some are without compassion?

I don't know. If God is just a subjective perspective on reality then yes, it is possible. If so then it would be possible, in the same way that some are without anger, without hatred, without deceit as well. The same way it is possible that some can see more colour than others, can hear higher ranges than others. The way some are more intelligent than others, less gullible, more consistent etc.
If God is in anyway more than just subjective then the answer would be no, and you would need to find a new analogy to express what you mean by "without God".

So, is God wholly subjective, just a personal perspective on reality, or do you hold that God has some objective aspect that is true irrespective of perspective?
If the former, I'm glad we have finally resolved the issue.
If the latter, what do you actually mean by "without God"?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Notice how the atheist, in a desperate bid to justify his position, down-plays the vastness of compassion, condensing it into mere emotion.
How is that good for society?

• Compassion as a synonym of empathic distress, which is characterized by the feeling of distress in connection with another person's suffering. This perspective of compassion is based on the finding that people sometimes emulate and feel the emotions of people around them.
• Compassion is simply a variation of love or sadness, not a distinct emotion.

• From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, Compassion can be viewed as a distinct emotional state, which can be differentiated from distress, sadness, and love.

Why am I not surprised.

Any how...

The Dalai Lama once said that "compassion is a necessity, not a luxury",

Compassion consists of three major requirements: People must feel that troubles that evoke their feelings are serious, people require that sufferers' troubles are not self-inflicted, and that people must be able to picture themselves with the same problems.


In one study conducted by Jill Rilling and Gregory Berns, neuroscientists at Emory University, subjects’ brain activity was recorded while they helped someone in need. It was found that while the subjects were performing compassionate acts the caudate nucleus and anterior cingulate regions of the brain were activated, the same areas of the brain associated with pleasure and reward. This research sheds light on how acting on compassion induces a positive feeling in people and how humans are innately wired to want to help the suffering.

Compassion is one of the most important attributes for physicians practicing medical services.

It has been suggested that felt compassion brings about the desire to do something to help the sufferer.[16] That desire to be helpful is not compassion, but it does suggest that compassion is similar to other emotions by motivating behaviors to reduce the tension brought on by the emotion.

Physicians generally identify their central duties as the responsibility to put the patient's interests first, including the duty not to harm, deliver proper care, and maintain confidentiality.

Compassion is seen in each of those duties because of its direct relation to the recognition and treatment of suffering. Physicians who use compassion understand the effects of sickness and suffering on human behavior.

Compassion may be closely related to love and the emotions evoked in both. This is illustrated by the relationship between patients and physicians in medical institutions.

Authentic leadership and general leadership may be the keys to increasing compassion in the workplace. Similarly, acting in concordance with one's authentic self-concept is critical for the expression of care and compassion.

Self-compassion may have positive effects on subjective happiness, optimism, wisdom, curiosity, agreeableness, and extroversion.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Notice how the atheist, in a desperate bid to justify his position, down-plays the vastness of compassion, condensing it into mere emotion.
How is that good for society?

Why do you think that describing something as an emotion, or as you would put it "condensing it into mere emotion" is down-playing it? Do you disagree that it is an emotion? Where in any of what you subsequently wrote does it suggest that it is not an emotion?

Your response was... puzzling, to say the least, Jan. Or is this all you've got left, these utterly misguided (yet ironic) attempts to appeal to emotion, that do nothing to actually address any points being made?

Do you perhaps not know what an emotion is? Do you even know what something being subjective means?

 

[Jan Ardena]

We may all indeed possess the ability to display compassion, but that is (per your post quote here) not the same as having compassion.

Surely that is an obvious point.
But I am talking about people who are actually compassionate, not those who don't have compassion, but pretend to, based on what they think compassion is (it works the same way with theism)

Incorrect. What we see as subjective are those things that vary from perspective to perspective.

The the theory of evolution should be viewed as subjective, as it is varies from perspective to perspective. Do you agree that it is?

Every time you use compassion as an analogy in this thread you are pushing God as being a wholly subjective matter

So you'd like to believe. The person without compassion is not without emotion. If compassion were merely an emotion, it would automatically kick in without warning.

That is not to say it does not have anything to with emotion from the pov of the person displaying it.
People act with compassion all the time without the need to be emotional.

In all relationships, especially between humans, there exists emotional ties. The relationship with God is somewhat very similar.

The thing with emotions is that they can get very intense, to the point of being irrational.

So God can appear to be totally subjective from an outsiders pov. Because the particular person espousing God, is explaining Him from an emotional perspective.
But that doesn't mean God is purely subjective

In what way can it be counter-productive, or even potentially de-humanising? Care to support this rather bold assertion?

Because of it's close connection to the human psyche, and the importance of it's affect on society.

If merely an emotion, you could be regarded as weak, or easy to manipulate, because there are certain boundaries you will not cross. But those without compassion have no problem in murdering, raping, terrorising, and all of that. Maybe if we dealt with as a phenomenon, people could see it for what it is, and gain more respect for it, and the welfare of others. Especially from a young age.

Because the scriptures tell us they are, right?

Does it really matter?
Just find out.

No, not actively. We're just not actively jumping into a mindset of circularity without something outside that circle convincing us.

You don't need to be convinced from the outside. If you're without God, as your label suggest, then God is already there, you just need step back, and let the understanding that Is within sriptures do what they do.

If God is in anyway more than just subjective then the answer would be no, and you would need to find a new analogy to express what you mean by "without God".

What a detailed explanation.

So, is God wholly subjective, just a personal perspective on reality, or do you hold that God has some objective aspect that is true irrespective of perspective?

It seems to suit your world view, so who am I to argue. Like I have maintained, your position is correct from your perspective. But it has become apparent that you suppress things in order to validate it.
That's not good.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Surely that is an obvious point.
But I am talking about people who are actually compassionate, not those who don't have compassion, but pretend to, based on what they think compassion is (it works the same way with theism)

Who do you think is the best person to judge that? The person who is saying they have compassion, or the person merely witnessing their actions?
But I'm guessing you're still sticking to your "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

The the theory of evolution should be viewed as subjective, as it is varies from perspective to perspective. Do you agree that it is?

The theory of evolution (or whichever one you are specifically referring to) is objective - i.e. it is a theory of evolution at this point in time, irrespective of perspective.
What is subjective, however, is the level of belief or confidence one has in the theory.

So you'd like to believe. The person without compassion is not without emotion. If compassion were merely an emotion, it would automatically kick in without warning.

It is possible to lack one emotion, Jan. Many people lack empathy but are quite capable of being happy, for example.
And compassion does kick in without warning. If you had ever felt it you might know that.

That is not to say it does not have anything to with emotion from the pov of the person displaying it.
People act with compassion all the time without the need to be emotional.

And as you have previously said yourself (post #745): "Remember acting compassionately is not the same as being compassionate." And here you are trying to equate the action with the holding of the emotion. Shame on you for once again being so blatantly inconsistent.

In all relationships, especially between humans, there exists emotional ties. The relationship with God is somewhat very similar.

Yet you push God to being nothing but a subjective experience. Emotion is one such, but not the only one. And you are doing little... sorry, nothing... to explain how God, in your view, is anything but subjective. There's a bit of arm-waving and bluster but nothing else.

The thing with emotions is that they can get very intense, to the point of being irrational.

Sounds very much like belief in God to me.

So God can appear to be totally subjective from an outsiders pov. Because the particular person espousing God, is explaining Him from an emotional perspective.
But that doesn't mean God is purely subjective

And yet other than asserting it you are doing nothing to explain how God is anything but. Every time you try to explain, using emotion as the analogy, you are merely reaffirming that God is subjective.

Because of it's close connection to the human psyche, and the importance of it's affect on society.

If merely an emotion, you could be regarded as weak, or easy to manipulate, because there are certain boundaries you will not cross.

Eh?? The boundaries of compassion are related to the strength of the emotion. Some people will do almost anything out of compassion.
Furthermore, the emotion is then tempered, as with all emotion, by our intellect and reasoning. It is that which sets the boundaries, not the emotion.

But those without compassion have no problem in murdering, raping, terrorising, and all of that. Maybe if we dealt with as a phenomenon, people could see it for what it is, and gain more respect for it, and the welfare of others. Especially from a young age.

Care to answer the actual question? I didn't ask what lack of compassion does, but how describing compassion as an emotion can be counter-productive. You seem to be the only person claiming it to be anything other than an emotion. Even the wiki article you put forth does that.
Care to provide a source that claims it to be anything other than an emotion?

Does it really matter?
Just find out.

Ah, the eternal helpfulness of a true theist.

You don't need to be convinced from the outside. If you're without God, as your label suggest, then God is already there, you just need step back, and let the understanding that Is within sriptures do what they do.

The label does not suggest "without God", Jan. That is your assertion. The label suggests a lack of belief that god(s) exist. There is no inherent assertion within the label "atheism" that God does actually exist. You are trying your utmost to insert it.

What a detailed explanation.

Which part in particular are you struggling with? Perhaps I can then help clarify. But you did ask a question for which a simple "yes" or "no" would be sufficient. I at least offered a more comprehensive view. Apologies that you didn't appreciate it.

It seems to suit your world view, so who am I to argue. Like I have maintained, your position is correct from your perspective. But it has become apparent that you suppress things in order to validate it.
That's not good.

What do I suppress, Jan? Those things I find irrational? Sure, I do that. Why don't you?
What else do you think I suppress?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

As usual, your replies are most informative in terms of what you leave out, rather than what you respond to.

I can tell I've rattled your cage. Who knows? Maybe you'll start to look outside it, eventually.

It looks a lot like you need to do some work sort out the difference between subjective and objective reality, because right now you don't seem to be able to demarcate between the two. This probably goes a long way to explaining why you take your own feelings to be evidence of an objective reality. Fundamentally, that is not a rational thing to do. Your feelings tell you about you, but they can't, in the end, tell you about the outside world.

As things stand, you believe you "just know" certain things because you feel them to be true. And - worse - you don't understand that you can't "just know" things about the outside world from your feelings alone.

Me: "How do you know that God exists?"
You: "It just comes 'naturally' to me. I just know it is true. This is a perfectly adequate explanation and it's true".

Knowledge requires justification, Jan. And, in the end, you can't give any objective justification for what you believe about God. You just believe. You have lots of subjective reasons for that, but you don't acknowledge that anything more is necessary to justify a claim to knowledge.

I completely understand that you most likely don't want to confront the idea of objective vs subjective knowledge. And I understand your possible motivation for that. It's far more comfortable to avoid examining your beliefs head-on, and thereby to stay in the comfortable rut you've made for yourself.

I also understand that it is hard when you're being pushed on these matters by a bunch of atheists. It probably feels like people are ganging up on you. So, you put up the barriers. You run away from the difficult topics. You draw a line in the sand and steadfastly defend it. It's self-protection. I understand.

It's all going to sound subjective to you.

That's because it is subjective. There's nothing objective about your belief in God. That's all about you. Nothing about the objective existence of God follows from your subjective feelings on the matter.

What?

You don't get to choose your own facts.

Is this difficult for you to process, Jan?

Wow. I've watched the same thing regarding yourself.

A bizarre claim. Please give one example.

You seem hung up on convincing people of things
We're just having a chat James. That's all.

I'm surprised that you don't care whether other people know God, given that God is so important to you.

Critical, rational thought is quite important to me, which is why I take some trouble to try to convince you of its importance and relevance.

In a debate, one is typically trying to persuade somebody of something, Jan.

I guess if you aim here is simply to draw your line in the sand, then your work here is done. It's not a very open attitude to have, though.

That is an adequate answer, but not for you.

Me: What do you want to know about God?
You: God.

That's a stone-walling non-response, not an adequate answer.

I do understand that for you it's all about presenting as small a target as possible, though, Jan. I understand why you are so reluctant to tell us about your relationship with God. I understand why you consider that private and off-limits.

It's the line in the sand that matters for you here.

That wasn't your question. Your question was about you.

Why do you think atheists choose to lock themselves off from engaging with your God?

There's nothing personal in there.
It reads like a manual.

Funny. I see the words "I" and "me" a lot there. I'd say that indicates something personal. Did you read the following paragraph as well, or did you quit in a huff of disbelief at the point where I started to explain how I was a theist just like you are?

Does it surprise you that I rarely share anything personal with you, Jan? Whenever I do, I get nothing from you in return; in fact I get criticism and judgment. You need to work on your interpersonal skills as well as your reasoning skills.

That doesn't sound like you were a theist at all.

Predictable, Jan. And expected.

There's no True Scotsman. Nobody apart from you is Scottish enough.

You have spent this entire thread rejecting what people tell you about their beliefs - not just rejecting the beliefs themselves, but rejecting that those people actually hold the beliefs they tell you they hold.

It must be tough living your life in the belief that people are constantly lying to you, if that is how you live your life.

James, you are an atheist.
That means God does not exist for you.
That is your position.

Still wrong, Jan. It means I don't believe that God exists.

But it's very clear what we both believe. That's not our point of dispute here. The point of dispute is your insistence that God actually exists, and that you know he exists. The point of dispute is about the objective reality, not the subject experience each of us has.

And perhaps most signficantly, the point of dispute is your insistence that I can't be an atheist unless your God objectively exists.

And you don't get it, because you apparently can't separate the objective from the subjective. Or so you would have us believe.

I'm not going to waste anymore time with this off-topic dialogue.

I understand why you are uncomfortable. I really do. Perhaps if you weren't so dogmatic, I would care more about your discomfort.

 

[James R]

On the matter of compassion...

Compassion is, at its base, a subjective feeling. If you have compassion, you are personally aware of and have sympathy for the suffering of another, and you want to act to help ease that suffering.

If we ask "does compassion exist?", clearly the first answer is that it exists as a concept that people have and as a feeling that people report having.

Feelings are subjective, so a person reporting a feeling of compassion is not evidence of any kind of objective existence of some independent thing "out there" called "compassion".

Compassion can motivate people to act to help others. If you see somebody help somebody else and ask the question "Why did they help that person?", one possible answer might be "Because they felt compassion." There's no way absolutely to confirm the truth of that. We could ask the person why they helped, and they might well tell us that the reason was that they felt compassion. But this does not prove that "compassion" is "out there".

Does "compassion" exist as an objective thing, separate from people or other actors? I don't think it does. We can't bottle compassion. We can't go out and visit compassion. We can't see compassion through a telescope.

But is "compassion" something we can observe in the world? Well, it depends what we mean by compassion, exactly. If we just mean the feelings that provoke somebody to help another, then nobody else can observe those directly. Feelings belong to individuals. They can report their feelings to other people, but there's no way to objectively verify feelings (*). But maybe we also include acts as indicators of compassion. So, we might see somebody helping somebody up who has fallen and say, having considered all the circumstances, "the fact that person is helping shows that he/she is acting out of compassion."

In this respect, "compassion" has observable effects in the world that are most readily attributed to this single thing we call "compassion", rather than to some other thing or some other disparate group of things. And in that sense, "compassion" objectively exists. Anybody can see the acts that evidence compassion, and rationally judge for individual acts whether or not compassion was a motivator.

The question arises, then, as to whether "compassion" is merely a feeling, or perhaps more of a collective label for a class of actions that people carry out - a label for something that people do. The feelings somebody had are inside and not directly accessible. But the things people do are external and accessible to all. Feelings are subjective. Actions are objective.

There are some people who never show compassion. They are not compassionate people. Perhaps they never feel compassion. Could such a person recognise that compassion exists?

Again, it depends. If compassion is merely a feeling, then the hard-hearted person who has never had the feeling might well deny that compassion exists at all. But, people tell him, I felt compassion when I helped that person there. The hard-hearted person has no reason to take such reports of other people's feelings at face value. Maybe they are just making up stories about what they felt. The hard-hearted person might decide, therefore, that there's no such thing as compassion.

But if "compassion" is a label for actions, then it doesn't matter how hard-hearted a person is. He can still recognise compassion in the acts that others perform. He would have to believe that "compassion" exists, even if he personally has no feelings of compassion for anybody.

So what of God? Is "God" the same as "compassion"? Does God exist objectively? Again, we must consider: is God just a subjective feeling that some people have, or is God involved in some way with actions in the world?

Theists typically report feeling that God exists. But there's no reason for the atheist (or anybody else) to take these reports as evidence of the objective existence of God. The reports are only evidence of the subjective experiences of the theists.

On the other hand, theists also typically assert that God produces effects in the objective world. If so, then it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a theist - we should be able to objectively say whether God exists based on an examination of his effects on the world.

The problem is the same as the one we dealt with when discussing compassion: we need to see clear evidence of that effects or actions are caused by God, rather than a result of some other plausible cause or causes. If we can see that, then we must conclude that God objectively exists.

The onus of proof is, as usual, on the claimant. If I want to assert that compassion objectively exists in the form of actions in the world, I must collect examples of compassion and persuade skeptics that they show a common cause. Similarly, if theists want to assert that God objectively exists in the world, they must collect examples of God's effects on the world and persuade the skeptics that those effects all have a common cause.

Atheists do not dispute that "God" exists as a concept. They do not dispute that theists claim to have feelings related to God. Mainly, they dispute that the "effects of God" offered up as evidence by theists are sufficient to establish that God has objective existence, independent of the feelings of the theists.

---
* Of course, feelings are associated with states of the brain, so a brain scan might show some kind of tell-tale pattern that indicates that a person is feeling compassion.

 

[James R]

There is a human tendency to reify (literally "make real") concepts.

Jan Ardena's common points of argument about the existence of "love", and now "compassion" are good illustrations of this.

The tendency is to view abstracts like "love" and "compassion" and "valour" as things in and of themselves that exist "out there" in the world, independent of people's actions and feelings.

Another example is the Platonist view that mathematical concepts like "pi" and "triangle" exist "out there" in some kind of idealised "perfect concept space", independent of people's conceptions of those things.

There's the idea that people's collective conceptions somehow tap into a kind of idealised separate reality. This is a kind of magical thinking. It says that even if there are no perfect triangles in the "real world", the human mind can nevertheless access a "pure" space where "perfect triangles" reside, as if by some kind of magic.

The flaw is the idea that this "pure space" actually, objectively, exists, independent of people. The idea is that a "perfect triangle" or "love" would still be there somewhere, even if all people were to die. The flaw is to assume that human thoughts and feelings must, for some reason, exist independently of the people who have them or who share them.

Of course, it is possible that a separate dimension of perfect triangles and ideal love actually exists. But there's no objective evidence of that. Nobody can point to anything in the real world and say "That could only have been caused by a perfect triangle" or "That can only be a result of 'pure' love".

The extreme of this kind of idea is the idea of a "perfect being" who causes everything we see: i.e. God. The flaw is the assumption that because we can conceive of the concept of a perfect being, that perfect being must objectively exist somewhere. Once we start to believe that the perfect being exists, then it's easy to start to see everything as an imperfect creation or reflection of that perfect being. In the same way, we might believe that the love we feel as human beings is just a pale reflection of the "perfect, 'ideal' love" that exists in the Platonic realm. And, of course, the "perfect being" would necessarily have "perfect love" as just one of his perfect attributes.

At the extreme end of this kind of view, we have the idea that all human feeling and action is a futile attempt to approach the perfection of the "perfect realm" of ideas and concepts. For example, a human being displaying compassion for another is seen as possible only because "perfect compassion" exists "out there". The human being shows only imperfect, reflected compassion. God, on the other hand, being the "perfect being", has the capacity for "perfect compassion", and is presumed to bestow some small part of that on human beings who can never measure up to the mark.

The tendency to reify concepts is a very strong one. We all do it to some extent. This is why it is important to look for objective evidence of things.