To know there is no god?

[grover]

I'm not asking necessarily for "material" evidence - just EVIDENCE!

Otherwise you are asking people to "believe" you on nothing other than your say-so - which is Appeal to Authority.

Physicists HAVE EVIDENCE.

I'm not asking anyone to believe anything. I'm saying anyone that goes through the training can see for themselves whether or not the direct perception of God is valid. The authority is your own mind, which true in science as well. Once you see that a scientific principle is true it is YOU that hasn't seen its truth. You are the authority. It is not someone outside of you telling you to accept something as true. It is you that knows the truth, you that has verified the truth for yourslef. With religion the thing to be known is within you (The kingdom of God is within you, buddha nature is in you) which is why no outside evidence can be presented. But you can go through the training to see the truth within you. And just like science it will be YOU that knows. Because in the final analysis the only authority is you, which is to say it your own mind that recognizes truth when it sees it.

Just read the Sam Harris link. There's nothing I can really say here that he hasn't already said better there.

 

[SnakeLord]

-The links I previously posted should demonstrate what I mean when I say that the mystical experience is identical across cultures/ religion (only the terminology is different). You don't expect be to be spoonfed do you?

Again: the details of those mystical experiences differ. The same is true of hearing voices. people hear voices across cultures, the details differ. It's exactly the same thing.

-Lenny: Like I previously said if only one person has the experience of Lenny then it is clearly a hallucination.

Firstly. your arguments prevent you from being able to say this. You are not "qualified" when it comes to Lenny and thus can't say anything about it. That's your argument. Who is the hypocrite?

Secondly, truth is not determined by popularity. Think of the first man to ever see bacteria. The fact that at the time he was the only person that had seen bacteria doesn't mean that those bacteria were clearly a hallucination. I could very well be the first person that has seen Lenny, it doesn't make it a hallucination. Use your own argument: become "qualified", (go through the process) and then you too can see him, until such time you can't say anything regarding his existence or lack thereof.

But if people from different time in culture all start claiming to have seen Lenny and give matching descriptions then that wouldn't be a hallucination.

There are many 'matching' descriptions in literature of leprechauns, vampires, unicorns, werewolves, mermaids, abominable snowmen, ghosts, goblins, fairies, dragons, mothmen, yada yada yada yada yada. What now?

(Name one documented case of cross-culttural mass hallucination and I'll cahnge my position on this).

Alien abduction.

I would counter agrue that many people that claim to understand certain scientific principles don't actually understand these correctly.

Fine. On what basis however do you now determine that you are the authority on the matter and they are the ones with the misunderstanding?

This would not be apparent to someone that doesn't understand the principles correctly but would be crystal clear to someone that did.

They say the same thing to you. What now?

As I pointed out earlier most followers of religion are absolutely clueless about religion as evidenced by their inability to even follow the most basic tentets of said religion.

What basic tenet of your religion espouses that it takes "years of training to get direct perception of god"? If you can't show that to be a basic tenet of your religion would you accept the possibility that it's you that have the misunderstanding and that those you claim are "clueless" only really applies to you?

If you can tell me what steps I can take to see Lenny, and I actually do see Lenny then I would believe in him.

I have gone through it briefly in this thread before. (Right about now I could get as 'witty' as you and say: "you don't want to be spoonfed do you?"). However, I'm a nice guy so I wont say that.. Instead I will restate it:

You will most likely be aware of one step in the process, (that has been known for hundreds of years but has over time lost it's meaning amongst the unqualified)... This is 'touch wood/knock on wood'.

Firstly you need a coin, (any will do - the shinier the better). Place the coin in front of a tree and then 'knock on wood'. There are certain 'incantations' for want of a better word that you should say to guarantee you become 'qualified' and I shall go into this if you have interest.

Yes, you did.

Here ya go hypocrite.

No I didn't, otherwise I wouldn't have answered your question - given that the argument is apparently that the unqualified can't ask questions. (your argument, not mine). You asked if I would claim that group hallucinations happen - so I stated that as a qualified man, yes.. I have seen them happen. An unqualified man probably wouldn't get the chance to see them happen, but that does not mean he cannot question the claims or statements.. Indeed you have been doing so and I have been answering. Understand?

 

[grover]

Your Religious "experiments" just can not do that.
Not only do you have to be "trained" to carry out your religious experiments, you are then told what the results will be prior to carrying them out - so when they work your "training" will tell you how to interpret them - i.e. SUBJECTIVELY.

You have to be trained in pphysics as well. Any jackass off the street can't walk into a phsics lab and do a physics experiment. You are not told what the results will be. You are actually told that you have to see it for yourself.
Betond, that physics training lets them know how to interpret the results as well, but no matter what the field when one finds the truth there is no interpretation involved. The truth is always known subjectively, it's an epistemological question of how does one know what they know. How do you know 2+2=4. You don't know how you know and I don't know how I know but we both know that we know.

Yes you do have that argument.
YOU: "Be trained - perform experiment - training says that if experiment works it must be X - experiment works - it must be X. If experiment doesn't work then the training wasn't sufficient."

SCIENCE: "Perform experiment - record results - interpret results as objectively as possible and in light of all the other evidence available."

Your "believe to believe" argument is a self-fulfilling one once you start down the "training" you advocate.

It's a pity you can't see this.

No I don't have tha argument. Observation is a legitmate form of scientific inquiry. In this case the training involves observing ones mind. The hypothesis is that if one directly observes ones mind they will have an insight into the nature of themself and the nature of the universe as well. If training doesn't work then one has not achieved insight (this could either mean that there is nothing to gain insight into or simply that the training didn't work.) Buddha said, to paraphrase; "Be a light unto yourself" and also "Don't take my word for anything, or anyone elses word for anything that you haven't verified for yourself." This is the scientific method - you are not being asked to believe in anything that you can't verify for yourself. Read the Sam Harris article. It's not a "believe to believe" argument and the fact that you keep mischaracterizing my argument as such makes me beleive that you want to believe to believe that I'm making an argument that I'm not. It's a pity you can't see this.

 

[grover]

Secondly, truth is not determined by popularity. Think of the first man to ever see bacteria. The fact that at the time he was the only person that had seen bacteria doesn't mean that those bacteria were clearly a hallucination. I could very well be the first person that has seen Lenny, it doesn't make it a hallucination. Use your own argument: become "qualified", (go through the process) and then you too can see him, until such time you can't say anything regarding his existence or lack thereof.

Exaclty. You just said that because you have seen Lenny it "doesn't mean it's a hallucination." Since Lenny is your metaphor for God the means because one has seen God that doen't mean it's a hallucination. Your words not mine.
"Use your own argument: become "qualified", (go through the process) and then you too can see him, until such time you can't say anything regarding his existence or lack thereof." That's my entire fucking point. Thanks for summing it up for me so succintly. I was wrong, it can be stated in 25 words or less.

 

[Sarkus]

You have to be trained in pphysics as well.

Rubbish. Get anyone to jump up and down.
This is a physics experiment! Repeatable. Observable. Provides ample evidence.

Then they need to have, admittedly, SOME intelligence to be able to come up with a theory as to why the observations are what they are, and why some people don't float upwards.

Any jackass off the street can't walk into a phsics lab and do a physics experiment.

Yes they can. They might not be ALLOWED to - due to the hazards / cost etc. But yes, they can. They just have to be able to follow a step-by-step guide. No years of training. Nothing.

Betond, that physics training lets them know how to interpret the results as well,

No. Mere intelligence lets them do that.

If physics training was required to interpret results, how did the first physicist interpret his results?

Physics "training" merely tells people where things can be relied upon based on certain assumptions and based on vast swathes of existing evidence.
It would be pointless for every physics experiment to have to explain itself from FIRST PRINCIPLES.

So, when doing experiments, scientists state THEIR ASSUMPTIONS - i.e. the things they are taking FOR GRANTED.
If the experiment fails then either it disproves the theory they were working to, or the assumptions are invalid.

Interpretation is, on the whole, just a matter of logic.
Ambiguities or a choice of interpretation often arise - and that's where the choices of interpretation become subjective - and thus LESS RELIABLE.

...but no matter what the field when one finds the truth there is no interpretation involved. The truth is always known subjectively, it's an epistemological question of how does one know what they know.

Eh? You contradict yourself in this one sentence...
"...when one finds the truth there is no interpretation involved..."
"The truth is always known subjectively..."

I suggest you clarify your thoughs.

How do you know 2+2=4. You don't know how you know and I don't know how I know but we both know that we know.

I know it through the application of the mathematical definitions of the terms "2", "+" and "4".
Why do you not know how you know?

No I don't have tha argument. Observation is a legitmate form of scientific inquiry. In this case the training involves observing ones mind.

Please define "mind" - and then define "observation".
Please set up a valid scientific experiment for such an observation, afterall, you do seem to equate religious inquiry with sceintific inquiry.
But you need to be precise on your definition - to remove subjectivity.


[qoute]The hypothesis is that if one directly observes ones mind they will have an insight into the nature of themself and the nature of the universe as well.[/quote]First you say "mind" is non-material and then you say you can "directly observe" it.
Which is it?
Or please explain how one can "directly observe" the non-material.

If training doesn't work then one has not achieved insight (this could either mean that there is nothing to gain insight into or simply that the training didn't work.)

I'm sorry - but the test itself is so ridiculously flawed and subjective that failure of the test can be claimed to be too many things - but not one of them seems to be "it's a pile of poo".

It is a joke to consider it in any way comparable to science.

Buddha said, to paraphrase; "Be a light unto yourself" and also "Don't take my word for anything, or anyone elses word for anything that you haven't verified for yourself." This is the scientific method - you are not being asked to believe in anything that you can't verify for yourself.

And I'm not. Don't worry.
And until you provide evidence of the existence of God...

But you can't.

Oh, no, sorry - you can - but I need to be taught how to perceive God and also how to interpret the perception as God.
If I interpret the perception as anything else then the teaching wasn't sufficient - or, don't tell me, God chose not to appear

Read the Sam Harris article. It's not a "believe to believe" argument and the fact that you keep mischaracterizing my argument as such makes me beleive that you want to believe to believe that I'm making an argument that I'm not. It's a pity you can't see this.

I don't think you quite understand the "believe to believe" remark. Nevermind.

 

[grover]

Rubbish. Get anyone to jump up and down.
This is a physics experiment! Repeatable. Observable. Provides ample evidence.

And all physics experiminets are just that simple. You are presenting a childishly simplistic and distorted view that rivlas that of an Christian fundamentalist.

Yes they can. They might not be ALLOWED to - due to the hazards / cost etc. But yes, they can. They just have to be able to follow a step-by-step guide. No years of training. Nothing.

You are really so simple-minded to think that anyone without training could walk into a physics lab and preform a relevant physics test. Get a grip on reality.

No. Mere intelligence lets them do that.

No, very advanced training in mathematics let's them do that. You really live in a simplistic world.

If physics training was required to interpret results, how did the first physicist interpret his results?

He had training.

Physics "training" merely tells people where things can be relied upon based on certain assumptions and based on vast swathes of existing evidence.
It would be pointless for every physics experiment to have to explain itself from FIRST PRINCIPLES.

Never said it should have to.

Eh? You contradict yourself in this one sentence...
"...when one finds the truth there is no interpretation involved..."
"The truth is always known subjectively..."

No you fail to understand my sentence.

I know it through the application of the mathematical definitions of the terms "2", "+" and "4".
Why do you not know how you know?

Okay, explain to me why 2+2=4. I know that it does, but I want you to explain to me why it does. Seriously, explain to me why 2+2=4.

Please define "mind" - and then define "observation".
Please set up a valid scientific experiment for such an observation, afterall, you do seem to equate religious inquiry with sceintific inquiry.
But you need to be precise on your definition - to remove subjectivity.

Read the Sam Harris link.

[qoute]The hypothesis is that if one directly observes ones mind they will have an insight into the nature of themself and the nature of the universe as well.

First you say "mind" is non-material and then you say you can "directly observe" it.
Which is it?
Or please explain how one can "directly observe" the non-material.[/QUOTE]
How do you think you have any idea what is going on in your mind at all? Read the Sam Harris link.

And I'm not. Don't worry.
And until you provide evidence of the existence of God...

But you can't.

Oh, no, sorry - you can - but I need to be taught how to perceive God and also how to interpret the perception as God.
If I interpret the perception as anything else then the teaching wasn't sufficient - or, don't tell me, God chose not to appear

No, you don't have to be taught to interpret it (that's you again inserting your own made up bullshit). You are free to interptret the experience however you want, but first you have to have the expereince to be in a position to interpret it.

I don't think you quite understand the "believe to believe" remark. Nevermind.

No, I don't understand it. Why don't you explain it to me. What the fuck does it mean?

 

[Sarkus]

And all physics experiminets are just that simple.

To perform... actually... yes. They are just a set of steps you follow. With more complicated machinery, possibly - but they are just a matter of steps.

The point is - anyone can perform a physics experiment. They may not know what they're doing (someone else provides the steps) but the results are the same. And demonstrably the same.

I did many during my degree course. Didn't understand half of them. But I did them. Got the results. Then had to interpret the results.

You have yet failed to provide the same case, with evidence of identical results, for this process of yours to directly perceive god.

You are presenting a childishly simplistic and distorted view that rivlas that of an Christian fundamentalist.

No - I am just highlighting the extreme position to point out the flaw (that you obviously refuse to accept) in your analogy. And for that statement of yours to hold any validity you need to prove that it is indeed a "distorted view".

No, very advanced training in mathematics let's them do that. You really live in a simplistic world.

The one that produced you, no doubt.

I am just highlighting the extreme position to point out the flaw (that you obviously refuse to accept) in your analogy.

He had training.

Eh? If one is the first, how can they have training in it! Who provided the training?

Never said it should have to.

And this is the point of training - to be in a position to avoid needless repetition.

No you fail to understand my sentence.

Then rather than just tell me I misunderstand it - CLARIFY IT!!! Jeez - are you that obstinate?!

Okay, explain to me why 2+2=4. I know that it does, but I want you to explain to me why it does. Seriously, explain to me why 2+2=4.

Because of the logical interaction of the definitions of the abstract terms "2", "4" and "+". And this proves... what, exactly?

How do you think you have any idea what is going on in your mind at all? Read the Sam Harris link.

Eh? Please answer the question - not with another question but with an answer.
If you can not then admit that you can not.
And there is nothing in the Sam Harris link of yours that gives evidence for the non-material. If you really think it does - post the relevant sections.

No, you don't have to be taught to interpret it (that's you again inserting your own made up bullshit). You are free to interptret the experience however you want, but first you have to have the expereince to be in a position to interpret it.

Yes, you are free to interpret it however you want - but the fact that you have been TAUGHT what it is you are looking for, and how to look for it, you will be automatically BIAS through that teaching. You will lack the necessary objectivity to analyse the results.

If you honestly believe that God will give you a sign - chances are you will find one in anything.


Does this process you advocate require someone to believe in God? Yes or No?
Does this process you advocate require an understanding of what God is? Yes or No?

If you can answer No to both of those then please detail the process... for I will be intrigued.
If you can't then any interpretation of an "experience" is too subjective to be reliably interepreted by that individual.

No, I don't understand it. Why don't you explain it to me. What the fuck does it mean?

There is no need for such language.

It means that it is a self-fulfilling "belief".

"You don't believe in X, but in order for us to train you how to find the evidence you are looking for to believe in X you must believe in X. So first you need to believe in X - then we'll help you believe in X".

Understand now?

 

[grover]

There is no need for such language.

It means that it is a self-fulfilling "belief".

"You don't believe in X, but in order for us to train you how to find the evidence you are looking for to believe in X you must believe in X. So first you need to believe in X - then we'll help you believe in X".

Understand now?

I never said you have to believe in X. Stop repeating your idiotic little phrase, it has no application to what I'm saying. Your just like a Christian fundamentalist that keeps parroting the same bullshit lines over and over regardless of what is being said to them.

 

[grover]

there is nothing in the Sam Harris link of yours that gives evidence for the non-material. If you really think it does - post the relevant sections.

From page 2 of the Sam Harris link:
"The root question of the relationship between consciousness and matter may not be answerable. Or it may not be answerable given our current concepts (mental v. physical; dualism v. monism; etc.) But this does not mean that everything is up for grabs. It doesn't make the Muslim conception of Paradise, filled with virgins and silk brocade any more plausible. The only claim I have made in my book about
consciousness is that it must be explored, systematically, from a first-person perspective, and that such exploration can yield reproducible discoveries: one of the most interesting being that the subject/object dichotomy (the ego) is a kind of cognitive illusion. The crucial point is that there is an experiment that a person can run on himself (e.g. meditation) that can be used to test this claim. The only experiment the Muslim proposes is death in defense of Islam.

STRANGE DOCTRINES: You state that the physicalist thesis--roughly, that the brain causes (or in your word, that it "produces") consciousness--is an article of faith" among scientists, and that "the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death." (208) Why isn't it more accurate to say that the physicalist thesis is less an object of faith than it is a sound abduction based on our current evidence (and that, a fortiori, we do in fact know what happens after death)?"

You obviously didn't read the Sam Harris link but instead want to be fucking spoon fed everything like a little baby. You have a totally uneducated opinion on this subject and wont even read four pages to have an intelligent converstion? Read the fucking links I posted and then come back. Quit wastin my fucking time... I'm not going to spoon feed you.

 

[grover]

Does this process you advocate require someone to believe in God? Yes or No?

No

Does this process you advocate require an understanding of what God is? Yes or No?

No.
You obviously haven't read a single link I posted. You're not interested in understanding the view I'm presenting but instead seem to want to argue with the Christian fundamentalist you imagine I am. If you want to argue with a Christian fundamentalist go find one.

"If you can answer No to both of those then please detail the process... for I will be intrigued."
The process is simple.
As it's put in Zen: "To study zen is to study the self. to study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to become intimate with all things."
As it's put in Christianity by St. Theresa of Avila: "Forget yourself and you will see God."
Or put most simply by Socrates "Know thyself."

The method used is meditation. That's it. If you want to know more go to the library. I've presented my view and could give a fuck less if you got anything out of it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Exaclty. You just said that because you have seen Lenny it "doesn't mean it's a hallucination." Since Lenny is your metaphor for God the means because one has seen God that doen't mean it's a hallucination.

A) Lenny is not a metaphor, he's a close comparison.

B) Certainly, which is why as an atheist I identify myself as someone that "lacks belief", just like you lack a belief in Lenny. I wont tell you there can't be a god, (of course we can then argue specific ones.. zeus/apollo etc)

That's my entire fucking point. Thanks for summing it up for me so succintly. I was wrong, it can be stated in 25 words or less.

So... in making your point you actually make mine? What we are left with is the same problem for both Lenny and gods.. hell - also mermaids and vampires - basically we can't argue against them unless we've seen them, in which case there's nothing to argue against.

In short.. we can't argue against anything that anyone claims exists.

This is what you and LG's argument comes down to. Yes, it's complete bollocks.

 

[Kendall]

I have always thought that god meant the truth not a supernatural being,a voice to give us a solid foundation of the truth. My Idea of god is the concept of good,truth,fact and understanding that we may have different pieces from living different lives but there is only the truth and anything else is not what god is. Like the difference between a person who loves the truth and lives by it and another who lies,cheats and just does not care for the results of there actions.

I wish I would have listened more to the bible in a lot of ways because people will use anything against you when they need to,I find people can believe the biggest lies when it suits them or the truth scares them.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

What is truth, if not in the Bible?

 

[Kendall]

The truth is exact,nothing left out, nothing added. Think of what the truth is not. The truth is in the bible not every sentence and word taken literally but the understanding it provides of the world around us. I know of big difference's between what some people believe and what the truth is.

 

[grover]

A) Lenny is not a metaphor, he's a close comparison.

B) Certainly, which is why as an atheist I identify myself as someone that "lacks belief", just like you lack a belief in Lenny. I wont tell you there can't be a god, (of course we can then argue specific ones.. zeus/apollo etc)

Oh, that's perfectly reasonable. Makes alot more sense then believing 100% in God when one hasn't had direct experience. Because, without direct experience you are talking about something you are totally ignorant of. I have much more respect of your stance then a fundamentalist's.

So... in making your point you actually make mine? What we are left with is the same problem for both Lenny and gods.. hell - also mermaids and vampires - basically we can't argue against them unless we've seen them, in which case there's nothing to argue against.In short.. we can't argue against anything that anyone claims exists.

Well this is where we differ. I think there is cross-cultural agreement upon the nature of the transcendent which suggests an objective observation, similiar to the cross-cultural observations and agreement found in science. There is on the other hand no cross-cultural agreement upon vampires, mermaids, vampires, etc. Yes, you can argue against somethings existence. For instance if someone is making a claim in the existence of vampires you can demand material evidence since vampires are physical beings. You can't on the other demand physical evidence for the non-physical.

This is what you and LG's argument comes down to. Yes, it's complete bollocks.

Well, you almost managed to write a post without ruining it by stating your opinion as fact. And you are mischaracterizing my stance.

I will conclude my posts with a quote from the British philospher C.D. Broad:
"To me, the occurence of mystical experience at all times and places, and the similarities between the statements of so many mystics all the world over, seem to me to be a really significant fact. Prima facie it suggests that there is an aspect of reality which these persons come in contact in their mystical experience, and which they afterwards strive and largely fail to describe in the language of everyday life. I should say that this prima facie appearance of objectivity ought to be accepted at its face value unless and until some reasonably satisfactory explanation of the agreement can be given."

 

[Godless]

Put a sock on it! Grover, we got one too many idiots around here!

 

[grover]

Put a sock on it! Grover, we got one too many idiots around here!

That's what the Christian fundamentalists tell me when I try to explain to them that the evolution has been proven. Just like them you are threatened by having your views challenged. Just like them you find uncertainty intolerable. Just like them your attacks lack rational content. Make a rational argument pussy!

 

[Godless]

I find you pretty pathetic, not challenging, what can't you understand of SL's & Sarkus argument? Its simple enough, any freaking idiot with a shred of common sense can see the flaw of your argument! Who gives a flying f&ck you believe in evolution? That is not the subject matter.

The subject matter is DPG! how you go about qualifying that one has any validity of their claims. I have direct perception of IPU! If you argue that I don't I simply would state your not "QUALIFIED" Get the absurdity? your non-sense, non-serquitus bull shit? believe because I believe the IPU and your not qualified, you must be qualified to have direct perception of of IPU!

Get a grip!!!

 

[stretched]

"What is truth, if not in the Bible?"

Heh. Perhaps your own reality and experience is a starting point? A Muslim may find their truth in the Koran, and Bush may find his truth in Bourbon.

 

[Sarkus]

I never said you have to believe in X. Stop repeating your idiotic little phrase, it has no application to what I'm saying. Your just like a Christian fundamentalist that keeps parroting the same bullshit lines over and over regardless of what is being said to them.

If I am to accept what you say, merely 'cos you say it and claim to be "qualified" - then you are asking me to "believe you".

If you don't want me to accept what you say - then what are you actually doing here?

All I ask for is some tiny shred of evidence to support your claims.