The irrelevance of God

[wegs]

I'm not disputing that people feel that their spiritual experiences are very much real to them. But, I think what is being said by those who are not spiritual is that those experiences are personal to the individual and what does it matter to a non-believer?

Think that is the crux of the discussion, really. If you say you sense the presence of God, I don't dispute that. But, that doesn't mean much to me if I don't wish to share your belief.

In other words, faith is evidence of things not seen and for the "faithful" that statement has merit. To an atheist, it's irrelevant.

Syne, I think your points are interesting. I think many think that the concept of God is childish because many of us were brought up in different religions. But, for many...spirituality offers a sense of meaning in their lives as adults and I don't view that as childish. When I think of why I'm no longer religious, or spiritual ...some of these viewpoints in this thread aren't my reasons. Every person who desires God or rejects the idea of him, probably has more reasons for choosing either path, than any of us will ever know.

 

[Mazulu]

If were arguing about whether or not God exists, we should probably look at the facts. However puzzling it might be, the big bang came from nothing, at least nothing that cosmologists can see or detect. Sure, the energy of the big bang plus the negative potential energyof gravity might add to zero, giving the false impression that the big bang singularity came from nothing, it doesn't explain why the physics constants are fixed or how their fixed. Atheism is built upon the assumption of accidentalism. But how do you get fixed constants by accident? If not God, then what?

 

[Syne]

Think that is the crux of the discussion, really. If you say you sense the presence of God, I don't dispute that. But, that doesn't mean much to me if I don't wish to share your belief.

In other words, faith is evidence of things not seen and for the "faithful" that statement has merit. To an atheist, it's irrelevant.

If that is the crux then the OP is meaninglessly trivial, as there is no conversation to be had over whether an atheist finds the notion of god irrelevant. That is the definition of atheism.

 

[wegs]

If that is the crux then the OP is meaninglessly trivial, as there is no conversation to be had over whether an atheist finds the notion of god irrelevant. That is the definition of atheism.

Well, sometimes you can come away learning a thing or two that you might not have known prior to the discussion. So, you are spiritual? What do you think of this discussion? Did you read the whole thread?

 

[Syne]

Well, sometimes you can come away learning a thing or two that you might not have known prior to the discussion. So, you are spiritual? What do you think of this discussion? Did you read the whole thread?

Did you read it? I said, "I have not read this whole thread (and do not intend to)." There is nothing to be learned about an atheist finding god irrelevant, so most people would take the OP to be a challenge to theists.

How would you define "spiritual"?

 

[Magical Realist]

I never said, nor implied, anything of the sort. I only asked that you not dismiss it (whether you agree with it or not) by saying it was any less valid a description than the childish one you use. I never said that that description must unequivocally describe an actual being.

You claim you want a more useful description of god, even though that is obviously disingenuous coming from an atheist and completely justified in assuming you only seek it as fuel for the fire. But when you get an honest offer of one (with only the modest request that you afford it the same validity you afford your current notion, that you do not believe, mind you) you immediately start hedging about just like you complain of others doing.

I mean, really? You cannot even manage to afford any other notion of god the same merit you afford the ONE you claim you do not even believe in? What makes this ONE disbelief any more worthy than any other? You are sounding much more anti-religion or anti-Christian than atheist.

I see. So you AREN'T giving me a description of a real being. Then what is it a description of? You said to promise not to dismiss it. I'm not going to guarantee that. You may come up with the stupidest description I've ever heard. I'm not going to pretend it's legit just so your precious feelings don't get hurt. If you have a concept or experience of God let's hear it now. I'm not goin to waste my time here with another equivocating theist too cowardly to even try to present a half-assed defensible argument for God.

And for the record, there's nothing wrong with my notion of God. I'm entirely familiar with the kind of being that word is supposed to designate. Just about everyone with a 3rd grade education knows what God is supposed to be. We've been deriving it from religion for around 2500 years now. So if you think you can suddenly redefine this religious concept in some new way that will make it convincing, let's hear it. You're the one making the claim. Now back it up.

 

[wegs]

Did you read it? I said, "I have not read this whole thread (and do not intend to)." There is nothing to be learned about an atheist finding god irrelevant, so most people would take the OP to be a challenge to theists.

Yeah, I've read some of it. And fair enough, to your point.

How would you define "spiritual"?

I would define spirituality as a desire one has to form some type of connection with a god/gods, and that "connection" can be sorted out (or realized) through a religion or independent of one. Nutshell definition. lol

 

[Syne]

I see. So you AREN'T giving me a description of a real being. Then what is it a description of? You said to promise not to dismiss it. I'm not going to guarantee that. You may come up with the stupidest description I've ever heard.

AGAIN, I did not say or imply any such thing. Are you functionally incapable of simply reading and responding to what is actually written? You know, without interjecting some bombastic assumption. Legit? Why are you sooooo concerned with whether it is legit when you do not even consider the description you offer legit? You know, being an atheist. Even if it is stupid, how is that any less legit than a notion you ALREADY find completely irrelevant?

I'm not going to pretend it's legit just so your precious feelings don't get hurt. If you have a concept or experience of God let's hear it now. I'm not goin to waste my time here with another equivocating theist too cowardly to present a defensible argument for God.

I have no emotional investment here, so you can save your attempt to poison the well. So far you have proven everything I initially assumed. Shame really. But I will tell you that I have no argument that you, personally, would find defensible. Which is just as well, as you seem very interested in keeping your ONE notion of god intact. You can sleep soundly tonight.

Oh, and you can save the bellyaching over people refusing to share their description of god, as you cannot even manage to accept any on an equal footing with the ONE you find irrelevant and false. That is just silly. No other description can be any more false, but then I guess you could feel threatened by the idea that one could possibly be less false. By all means, continue the defensive arm-waving if you need the exercise.

I would define spirituality as a desire one has to form some type of connection with a god/gods, and that "connection" can be sorted out (or realized) through a religion or independent of one. Nutshell definition. lol

Then no, I am not "spiritual".

 

[Seattle]

Syne, I'd like to accept your offer. I'd like to hear your experience whether I agree with it or not.

 

[wegs]

Then no, I am not "spiritual".

I would add that I think spirituality is how one personally defines a path towards enlightenment. That may or may not have anything to do with the concept of god/gods. However you define spirituality, I'd be open to hearing your insights.

 

[Magical Realist]

AGAIN, I did not say or imply any such thing. Are you functionally incapable of simply reading and responding to what is actually written? You know, without interjecting some bombastic assumption. Legit? Why are you sooooo concerned with whether it is legit when you do not even consider the description you offer legit? You know, being an atheist. Even if it is stupid, how is that any less legit than a notion you ALREADY find completely irrelevant?



I have no emotional investment here, so you can save your attempt to poison the well. So far you have proven everything I initially assumed. Shame really. But I will tell you that I have no argument that you, personally, would find defensible. Which is just as well, as you seem very interested in keeping your ONE notion of god intact. You can sleep soundly tonight.

Oh, and you can save the bellyaching over people refusing to share their description of god, as you cannot even manage to accept any on an equal footing with the ONE you find irrelevant and false. That is just silly. No other description can be any more false, but then I guess you could feel threatened by the idea that one could possibly be less false. By all means, continue the defensive arm-waving if you need the exercise.

LOL! IOW, you have absolutely nothing substantial to offer to this discussion. Just your typical bitching and whining about things you never said when you DID say them and other things you have no intention of saying. You bore the shit out of me. Moving on...

 

[Syne]

LOL! IOW, you have absolutely nothing substantial to offer to this discussion. Just your typical bitching and whining about things you never said when you DID say them and other things you have no intention of saying. You bore the shit out of me. Moving on...

Just as I figured.

 

[wegs]

Just as I figured.

Seattle and I sincerely were inquiring as to your spiritual beliefs. And not to 'trap' you. lol I'm genuinely curious as to how people define what they believe, when it comes to spirituality.

 

[cole grey]

I'm not disputing that people feel that their spiritual experiences are very much real to them. But, I think what is being said by those who are not spiritual is that those experiences are personal to the individual and what does it matter to a non-believer?

I feel this has been covered in the past by the existential philosophers.
It is totally reasonable for the non-religious to say, "your god, along with other people's descriptions of gods means nothing to me." Religious people that can't accept that are stuck in the 18th century. Non-religious people that can't accept personal perception being used as evidence for philosophical ideas are also stuck there.

Also syne said he/she didn't imply anyone had to accept syne's definition as truth, just valid as a definition. That was clear to me.

Also

If were arguing about whether or not God exists, we should probably look at the facts. However puzzling it might be, the big bang came from nothing, at least nothing that cosmologists can see or detect. Sure, the energy of the big bang plus the negative potential energyof gravity might add to zero, giving the false impression that the big bang singularity came from nothing, it doesn't explain why the physics constants are fixed or how their fixed. Atheism is built upon the assumption of accidentalism. But how do you get fixed constants by accident? If not God, then what?

Any universe that had beings in it capable of thoughts about physics would have numbers and models attached to physics, whether or not the universe was accidental, and their numbers would be functional. Accidental or not, I am sure they would all sit around saying how magical it is that they exist and who decides whether that is a valid statement?

 

[Mazulu]

Any universe that had beings in it capable of thoughts about physics would have numbers and models attached to physics, whether or not the universe was accidental, and their numbers would be functional. Accidental or not, I am sure they would all sit around saying how magical it is that they exist and who decides whether that is a valid statement?

I don't think anyone can decide if that is a valid statement or not. A few weeks ago I started a thread to discuss if the laws of physics are based on magic (magic power, not magic trick). I don't think people have to put away their cross/Bible/sacred tools for the simple reason that the jury is still out on how the universe got here.

 

[Balerion]

Bs. Why not ask them the question in context instead of building a straw hippo?

See, this is where actually reading the posts would help you. I did ask the question in context, and there was no straw man involved. He said he accepted it as real because he heard it and saw it. People see and hear in dreams, too. People hear and see things during hallucinations. I wanted to know where arfa drew the line, and how he distinguished between what was real and what wasn't.

I pointed out a dream may reflect some physical situation, and thereby be real and not real.

But that's a misuse of the word "real," because even if the dream depicts an actual event, the dream itself is not the event, but a representation of it, and therefore not real.

Perhaps instead of insinuating that everyone else is the idiot, you take a long look in the mirror. Just remember: that's not really you, it's just a reflection.

i am sure a small child would also see a quote from the dictionary and a short paragraph as a "wall of text". Perhaps I could use grunts instead if that would be easier for you.

A small child would use proper capitalization, and at least attempt to separate their ideas into paragraphs. Prior to this post, you hadn't even hit the ENTER key between quoted passages, leaving it to me to separate your posts so they could be properly replied to. At least remedial English tutors get paid for trudging through their lackwit students' sloppy papers.

The question is not difficult, the difficulty is understanding how someone could complain about two different uses of the word real, used in order to clarify what type of real anybody here is talking about, meaning representing something actual, meaning meaningful, or meaning empirically verifiable. That is really basic language usage.

Seeing as no one was struggling with these definitions to begin with, and you have used the word incorrectly ever since, I'm pretty sure the difficulty begins much sooner than that, and is exclusively on your end.

Again, I can only recommend trying to read the posts you're going to reply to before actually replying to them. It might help you avoid a similar embarrassment in the future.

You literally just quoted me giving an example of how religious experience is described, a few words before your complaint here that nobody will share about religious experience, and i have been discussing my perception of what is generally classified as religious experience, and why and how it is classified as such here, and everywhere else one this forum.

I didn't ask for conjecture, and certainly didn't ask for it from someone who has such a tenuous grasp on the English language. I asked for a description of personal experiences. If you have had any, feel free to share them. I'm not asking you to guess at what others might be going through. I can do that on my own.

So sad. I have also already mentioned parts of my personal religious ideology all over this forum, and described it in short overview form.

I don't know how popular you think you are around here, but I don't follow your posts. I had only the vaguest idea that you existed prior to your ill-conceived interruption in my conversation with arfa. If you want to share your own personal experiences with "God," feel free to do so now, but don't act like I'm out of line because I don't keep track of you in other threads. I don't know who you are, and you certainly haven't impressed me, so this is probably your only chance to say something that I'll pay any attention to. Make the most of it. Or run screaming, I could really care less.

I have yet to see any of it criticized or to see my many claims that empirical data is insufficient for philosophy, an a priori idea for my personal religious belief, critiqued or refuted. Just vague name-calling and straw-manning. You may as we'll call me a little green man as say I am afraid to discuss my personal beliefs. Sad.

Then you aren't paying attention, because everything you've said has been dismantled and handed back to you as scrap. It's no wonder you're too skittish to share your religious beliefs.

 

[Seattle]

Is it interesting that people only crave foods that they've already tasted. If you have never had any coffee you don't crave coffee.

If you've never heard of "Ascended Masters" you neither dream about them or communicate with them in any manner.

Anything that is real is real whether you have heard about them or not. It's interesting that non-believers haven't heard or seen the Christian God and Christians haven't been visited by Allah. Believing should haven't nothing to do with their existence unless it's just something that is made up in one's mind.

 

[arfa brane]

There's nothing sloppy about it. The person made the claim that he accepts every experience as real.

What meaning are you attaching to "real", here? Do you mean any mental activity that qualifies as "conscious", or do you mean something objectively real, like watching a movie? Since you aren't being sloppy . . .
Or maybe I can shortcut that with, yes I have dreams and these are a real part of my conscious experience. Which is to say, I really do have dreams. Maybe other people imagine them?

I asked a necessary corollary about how that person reconciles dreams, or imaginings, or anything else that no one in their right mind would accept at face value as being valid.

Are we supposed to attach this same meaning to "valid", or do you mean something else? What does the word mean to you?

This person's whole basis for accepting the existence of God is that they experienced it. Well, I want to know where they draw the line, if at all, and it's an important question, whether you like it or not.

You will have to be more specific about what you mean with "drawing the line"? You mean some kind of boundary?

 

[Seattle]

What meaning are you attaching to "real", here? Do you mean any mental activity that qualifies as "conscious", or do you mean something objectively real, like watching a movie? Since you aren't being sloppy . . .Are we supposed to attach this same meaning to "valid", or do you mean something else? What does the word mean to you? You will have to be more specific about what you mean with "drawing the line"? You mean some kind of boundary?

If you aren't going to describe your "experience" why should anyone answer all of these continuing questions?

Why don't you just describe your experience in your words using your definitions?

 

[Balerion]

What meaning are you attaching to "real", here? Do you mean any mental activity that qualifies as "conscious", or do you mean something objectively real, like watching a movie? Since you aren't being sloppy . . .
Or maybe I can shortcut that with, yes I have dreams and these are a real part of my conscious experience. Which is to say, I really do have dreams. Maybe other people imagine them?
Are we supposed to attach this same meaning to "valid", or do you mean something else? What does the word mean to you? You will have to be more specific about what you mean with "drawing the line"? You mean some kind of boundary?

You're just trolling now. You never had any plans on sharing your experience, because you don't have any confidence in the experience. Perhaps once you've come out on the other side of this obvious crisis of faith, you'll share with us the origins of the journey.