Trying to hard to believe

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

It was you who didn't make any effort.

What more could I have done?

No. As I said, this is simply one example of thousands or millions. Such accounts are easy to find, if you make an effort. And you can find them for free - a brief Google search will do the trick.

So I'm supposed to accept that this guy really believed in God because it is implied in the title of his book?

Actually I've put a lot of effort into researching this guy and now know quite a bit about him. In my search I found that link I sent you in the hope that jaylew would read it, of what I thought was an intelligent explanation of real atheism, or what I real atheism is, and that came at the end a long google search in a bid to find out if atheists were actually capable of being real theists.

What I want to know is, what was it like for him when God ''called'' him? What happened?

See my previous post.

Sitting in that meeting, I felt an intense desire to sing, pray and worship and I experienced strong inner sensations that I could only describe as "spiritual". I was convinced I was communicating with God and that He was talking to me through His Spirit I had never had these feelings in any other context, and since the "spirit-filled" environment triggered them, I knew that I had confirmation of the reality of God. ... It felt real, and good. .... God was not just an idea, He was a reality. I had a personal relationship with Jesus, and he had something to say to me as one of his close friends and servants.

.... I knew God was talking directly to me, and I knew right then how to live the rest of my life. I accepted the call. I would spend the rest of my life bringing lost people into the kingdom of heaven.

So now he thinks all this experience was bunkum, the result of a deluded mind, so what did he actually feel when he thought that he was in communication with God.
Even if he thought that the object of these feelings was delusional, why ditch the feelings themself, and save a shed load of money on weed?

You tell me. You're the expert on the Supreme Being, aren't you?

Mr Barker is expert, he actually got a personal call from him, and served him faithfully for the best part of 19 years.

See my previous post. If you're interested in why he became an atheist, I could extract another short section for you. Please let me know. But first, you will have to admit that he was a sincere believer prior to becoming an atheist.

I would love to believe that he was a sincere believer of God, but nothing he says (you should check his debates and quotes) leads me to think that he was, but everything he say's points to him being egotistical and ambitious, and prepared to join the group most likely to get him where he wants to be in this life. To say he had this amazing experience, and then do a complete reversal claiming that he was delusional, and as such anyone who claims to believe in God must, by logical deduction, be delusional, in such a way that he intends to change the world along with his master and crewe (Richard Dawkins), by way of modern atheist dogma, does nothing to convince me.

How happy can you be when you think every action and thought is being monitored by a judgmental ghost? [Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith]
According to you Mr Barker was called from this ''judgmental ghost''.
Did God come all Mr Nice guy on him, and then turn, or did Mr Barker opt to serve this judgmental ghost, or did God hold a celestial gun to his head???
Did Mr Barker know what he was doing at the time, or was he in some kind daze?

You tell me. Read his account, above.

It doesn't say. He doesn't even say who or what God is, which is strange because he served for so long. But now he's batting for the others so to speak, he wants to tell everybody what he thinks God is.

Read the above extract, and tell me how you know he was never a real theist at all.

I don't know that he wasn't a theist, only that there is no indication of belief in God. He had experiences sure, he, by his own admission, thought he believed in God, but as it turns out he didn't, again by his own admission. So in actuality I'm correct. He simply thinks that because he fell foul to his own desire, and that path is now shut down, there is no such thing as God, and nobody should believe. How arrogant is that?

It varies. For some atheists, there is a slow process of realising that God isn't real. For some, there is a sudden realisation. Descriptions of becoming an atheist are, in that sense, very similar to descriptions of becoming a believer.

Then if for them after sometime, they come to their senses and realise God isn't real, how could God have ever been real to them.

As a general principle, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

From a theist point of view, it's not a claim. Nobody claims they have a father do they?
It's not extraordinary. Matter self organising is extraordinary.

I could, in principle, accept the idea of a strictly non-interventionist Creator of the universe on faith, with some level of convincing evidence for such a being. On the other hand, to accept the God of the bible would require, at the least, evidence that the events of the bible actually happened, for starters.

This is precisely why you couldn't believe in God with your current state of mind. There is only God, and everything comes from Him. You seem to have it in your head that there is God and other stuff, and God competes with all this other stuff. There is no way you can believe in God with that mind set.
So if you do find yourself believing in God, but hold on to that mind set, then God become sectarien. My God is correct and yours is bogus kind of thing. Those are the tell tale signs. The only way an atheist mindset can believe in God, is to change that mindset, otherwise you are only believing in what you accept to be God.

You speak of materialism as if it is a bad thing. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.

I think you need to explain why you made that assumption.

I do not claim that I could automatically recognise any supernatural event as that, but I can think of lots of events that wouldn't be hard to identify as such. But there's no good evidence that any of those kind of events have ever happened.

Your problem James is that you have these terminologies and ideals, and you live by them, so anything that contradicts them is automatically characterised as incorrect.
In short you have built a wall around yourself which guarantees not letting a divine foot through the door. For you, God simply doesn't exist because that's the choice you've made.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Presumably he must have had some real connection to God why he decided to serve Him. What was that connection to the Supreme Being?
It must have been real because he committed himself to bringing other people to the same level of communication that he was privilidged to acquire.

I seriously doubt that.
I've seen what human pride and delusion are capable of, and that gives me reason to be suspicious of people who make a point of claiming to be religious, or to have been religious in the past.

I suppose it depends on who and what God was to him at that time. I would have thought that one has to understand Him the way Jesus understands Him.
I don't doubt for a moment that Mr Barker was true to his religion, and that is based on the same reasons James gave, plus I don't think people spend 19 years of their lives
in pursuit without some kind of dedication. I just don't think they saw God through Jesus' eyes.

I think that from a psychological perspective, such phenomena are easy enough to explain: A young person, whose identity has not yet formed, was going through an identity crisis (as is common for young people), and in an attempt to resolve that identity crisis, has intensely devoted themselves to an already existing system of beliefs and practices.

You make a good point. It's all part of growth, and he came to the conclusion that what he is looking for was not to be found in that situation, but has now found something that gives him that suits him. I suppose you could say that his real quest in all that time was to find something(God) to believe in only to realise that those that feelings that he experienced can be got without believing in God. So he was searching for an experience.

This is in roundabout how, for example, some young people's adherence to Neonazism or other extremist outlooks is explained. Officially, though, it seems off-limits to explain some people's (!) apparent religiosity that way.

h

It can be difficult to denounce, speak badly of, or question something that someone feels they belong to, so one sets about defending that unit. It's common behaviour in alot of animal societies also. We have the ability to become detached from these designations, and such abilities form the basis of God' religion. This ability means you can see things as they and act upon that.

I don't think it's materialism; it's poor thinking.
It's like when clingy infatuated people sometimes want proof that the other person loves them back, but they have no idea what could possibly constitute that proof.

What I meant by ''materialism'' was the idea that these things dwell outside of the individual and can be shown to exist through external phenomena.
If one demands physical proof of God, then they are in effect, saying they don't want to believe in God, because anything that is physical will have physical explanation for it. Or they are only prepared to accept God on their own terms. Either way that isn't theism.

If one wants proof or evidence, one needs to know in advance what that proof or evidence would be.

And if one cannot even think what could constitute evidence for a non physical thing, then how can that thing exist?
So how can one ever believe in God, with that state of mind. The goal of the atheist is not to believe in God initially, but to just prove that He exists.

I think this is too simplistic, though.
"God," "exists" and "belief" are complex terms, and without going into what they mean for each particular person, expressing oneself in short soundbites is likely to just rile people up, and not lead to any productive reasoning or communication.

I hear you.

Do you think those terms are complex to everyone, sort of like a human condition? Or do you think they, like anything else, are complex because we don't quite get it?

Do you think we should not say anything for fear of riling some people up?

But even so, I find it interesting to try to look into how come someone considers someone a believer, and another one doesn't.

Let's try an experiment. I'm going to make a statement, then I'm going to ask you a question. I would like you to answer that quest with a yes or no answer only. Then I would like you to explain why you gave that answer.

I am better in greek and western philosphy than you and yazata put together. Would you agree?

jan.

 

[wynn]

Okay, now I feel like we're on the same page. The problem I have with this assertion is that I don't see what about the omnimax god is so hard to escape.

If, as per implications from the omnimax definition, God is the being that contextualizes your every breath, every move you make, every thought you think, then you can't also believe that you can escape God.

For example, if a person comes to believe in this god because they believe they were spoken to in a dream, then later decides the dream was either imagined or just a dream and no longer believes? How is this impossible with an omnimax creator?

I seriously doubt that people who believe in God for stated reasons such as "God spoke to me in my dreams" are much into philosophy or would concern themselves with what may or may not be the proper definition of "God."

As one's understanding progresses, so one's understanding of what it means "to believe" etc. changes - and changes in ways that are impossible to predict in advance. Ie. currently one doesn't know what it will be like after one has been working on refining one's understanding for a couple of years.

So?

So
1. discussions about God necessarily have an element of speculation and uncertainty in them,
2. unless people actually undergo such progress as noted above, they won't know what it is or could be about.

That sounds like an attempt to avoid the discussion by blaming the other person for not agreeing with you. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was hoping for some mutual understanding, and sympathy, here.

And you based this on the absurdly incorrect premise that Germans think the potato is a kind of apple.

In one sense, they do, that's why they use the word "Apple" in the word they have for "potato."

No, you're misunderstanding. Apple means apple regardless of the culture. When someone named the potato the "earth apple," they didn't really think it was an apple that grew in the dirt. Again, it's like calling something a sea lion; it's not that anyone mistook this creature for a lion in the sea. So your original point about the potato and pomegranite being considered kinds of apples is incorrect. Just like nobody really thinks the pineapple is a kind of apple.

You're still misunderstanding ...

Nobody considers potatoes, pomergranates or pineapples to be the fruit of the tree that is called "malus" in Latin. But given their specific cultural background, people see a particular similarity between that which grows on the tree called "malus," and potatoes, pomergranates or pineapples.
Not all cultures perceive the similarity in the same way, which is why idiomatic translations (ie. literal translations) often don't make sense or are misleading.

Another example, to a modern English speaker, or to a German, a "seadog" is a term for seals/pinnipeds; whereas in some other languages, such as Turkish, or in some other languages on the Balkan peninsula, translating "seadog" literally would be the word they have for what is in English called "shark."

These examples show how different cultures perceive similarity differently.

My point is that different people/cultures differ in what they find familiar about theism, so they define it differently.

I'm not sure that's really your point.

It is precisely my point.

It's why people who consider themselves atheists have a different idea of theism, than, say, Christians, and those have a different idea of theism than Hindus etc.

Going back through this thread, I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly what you're trying to get at. Your first incursion was by claiming that people who believe in God do so forever. In support of this, you tried to demonstrate that belief in God is an inherently unique phenomenon by comparing it to "belief" in Elvis, but what you were really describing (as James pointed out, and I also later pointed out) was an admiration of Elvis rather than a belief in his existence. Then you said belief in the two are different because they themselves are different, which doesn't make any sense.

It probably doesn't make any sense from the atheist perspective.

There is such a thing as atheist theology. Atheists think differently about God than theists do, so much so that their views on God are incompatible.

In comparison, I'm sure Jan can understand me just fine on this point.

Belief in God isn't any different than the belief in Elvis.

That's an example of a statement from atheist theology.

There is no problem in defining theism as a belief in God or gods, because that's what it is for every theist.

Another one.

Where is this happening, exactly? And where are people coming down on the issue?

Go to a university library, under DDC 200 or UDC 2 and you will find literally meters of books concerned with this.

 

[wynn]

I suppose it depends on who and what God was to him at that time. I would have thought that one has to understand Him the way Jesus understands Him.
I don't doubt for a moment that Mr Barker was true to his religion, and that is based on the same reasons James gave, plus I don't think people spend 19 years of their lives
in pursuit without some kind of dedication. I just don't think they saw God through Jesus' eyes.

I wrote this in another thread, related to this one:

Yes. Lack of knowledge or even consideration that there is an alternative available may be the norm in such a monoculture. Luckily for you and me, we do not live in such a monoculture. Compare Dan Barker's situation when he was religious. I used him as an example in another thread.

He didn't know any atheists, didn't know anything about atheism, and wasn't aware of any of the arguments against Christianity or the existence of God.

This is why I think he wasn't much of a theist, nor religious. He apparently didn't have the external circumstances nor intellectual stamina (he started off very young) in which he could develop his theism or religiosity as a matter of contradistinction to alternative or opposing perspectives.

I think it is crucial for any stance, not just a religious one, that it has developed in the process of surmounting alternatives or opposition. Ie. it has proven itself under fire.

With someone who has never experienced any significant challenges to their stance, it's hard to tell how strong, how stable that stance really is. Such a person may still hold a stance, and firmly so - but it's a very vulnerable stance that can easily crumble under fire, or require fanaticism to keep it up. - As it happens to so many people who develop their religious, or any other stance, while sheltered from alternatives or opposition.

You make a good point. It's all part of growth, and he came to the conclusion that what he is looking for was not to be found in that situation, but has now found something that gives him that suits him. I suppose you could say that his real quest in all that time was to find something(God) to believe in only to realise that those that feelings that he experienced can be got without believing in God. So he was searching for an experience.

I find that the more poignant aspect of these deconversion stories is that some people use them to justify their own atheism. I wonder why.

What I meant by ''materialism'' was the idea that these things dwell outside of the individual and can be shown to exist through external phenomena.
If one demands physical proof of God, then they are in effect, saying they don't want to believe in God, because anything that is physical will have physical explanation for it. Or they are only prepared to accept God on their own terms. Either way that isn't theism.

An aspect of materialism is objectification - seeing others (including God) as objects that are or are supposed to be fully within one's power to manipulate with and do as one pleases, otherwise one has the power and the right to reject them.

One thing I have noticed is that the way people treat other people in communication says a lot about a person, and I think is also indicative of a person's approach to God.

Some people are bossy, aggressive towards others, they put words into other people's mouth; they are the my-way-or-the-highway types who want things done on their terms. Nominally, they may be either theists or atheists. If a person has that approach also in relation to God - and typically, they seem to - I am wary of concluding they know much about God.

And if one cannot even think what could constitute evidence for a non physical thing, then how can that thing exist?

God is defined so much more than just what is accessible to standard empirical investigation; that which is accessible to standard empirical investigation is just one aspect of God. As such, God cannot be known as God only by investigating that which is accessible to standard empirical investigation.

Let's keep in mind that many of the things that are important in people's daily life also isn't accessible to standard empirical investigation.


And again, it comes down to which definition of "God" one chooses to work with, and why.

Note I say "work with", not believe or take for granted.

The goal of the atheist is not to believe in God initially, but to just prove that He exists.

I think that people who consider themselves to be atheists, vary in this, from one individual to another.

Do you think those terms are complex to everyone, sort of like a human condition? Or do you think they, like anything else, are complex because we don't quite get it?

I suppose it's both. But a lot of complexity arises when people try to communicate with eachother. Ie. they come from different perspectives, and to find common ground, they have to do a lot of talking, clarify a lot things, hence it gets complex.

Do you think we should not say anything for fear of riling some people up?

It's not simply about the fear of riling people up. It's also that when people are riled up, they can't think well, and it's a waste of time to talk to someone when they are in such a state; moreover, when people are riled up, they are more likely to misunderstand, misrepresent, and misremember. So a lot of damage can get done when insisting on talking to someone who is upset.

Let's try an experiment. I'm going to make a statement, then I'm going to ask you a question. I would like you to answer that quest with a yes or no answer only. Then I would like you to explain why you gave that answer.

I am better in greek and western philosphy than you and yazata put together. Would you agree?

You don't get to set the terms of my reply.

 

[Balerion]

If, as per implications from the omnimax definition, God is the being that contextualizes your every breath, every move you make, every thought you think, then you can't also believe that you can escape God.

Not believing you can escape God is not the same as not being able to escape God. I can believe that I'll never escape this room, but new information may become available that would change my mind. However, if you're trying to say that one can't disbelieve in God because their belief wouldn't allow for it, you're engaging in a circular argument--"You can't stop believing this, because it's against your beliefs."

I seriously doubt that people who believe in God for stated reasons such as "God spoke to me in my dreams" are much into philosophy or would concern themselves with what may or may not be the proper definition of "God."

Why would you doubt that?

So
1. discussions about God necessarily have an element of speculation and uncertainty in them,
2. unless people actually undergo such progress as noted above, they won't know what it is or could be about.

I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make here. You posted it in connection to your claim that "true" theists can't become atheists, so I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was hoping for some mutual understanding, and sympathy, here.

You have my sympathy for operating under so many false premises. And I am sincerely trying to understand you, it's just difficult because of the way you present yourself. You're evasive when you should be engaging, and you opt for vague or opaque metaphors that require four or five posts of teeth-pulling before they are finally explained--and even then, the explanations don't seem to have any foundation in the conversation. It's hard to tell if you're being sincere, or simply piggybacking on other posters' arguments in some odd exercise in vanity.

In one sense, they do, that's why they use the word "Apple" in the word they have for "potato."

No, not in any sense. The naming doesn't need to be literal. Let it go.

You're still misunderstanding ...

Nobody considers potatoes, pomergranates or pineapples to be the fruit of the tree that is called "malus" in Latin. But given their specific cultural background, people see a particular similarity between that which grows on the tree called "malus," and potatoes, pomergranates or pineapples.

Not necessarily anything more than the fact that they're both grown, fit in the palm of your hand, and can be eaten.

Not all cultures perceive the similarity in the same way, which is why idiomatic translations (ie. literal translations) often don't make sense or are misleading.

Again, what's your point? How does this in any way create a problem in defining a theist as a person who believes in God?

Another example, to a modern English speaker, or to a German, a "seadog" is a term for seals/pinnipeds; whereas in some other languages, such as Turkish, or in some other languages on the Balkan peninsula, translating "seadog" literally would be the word they have for what is in English called "shark."

These examples show how different cultures perceive similarity differently.

And I understand that. But how does this make the accepted definition of theism problematic? Which cultures have a problem with it, and why?

It is precisely my point.

It's why people who consider themselves atheists have a different idea of theism, than, say, Christians, and those have a different idea of theism than Hindus etc.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, sure, there will always be differing opinions, but I don't think there's this great argument over the definition of the term. For one, Christians and Hindus aren't likely to define themselves primarily as theists, but as Christians and Hindus. And they won't rely on "theism" as a term to define their belief, since the terms Christian and Hindu do that far better than "theist" ever could. So in that sense I think you're creating a false dilemma.

If you want to debate what it means to believe as a concept, then let's do it. But I think you should abandon this absurd quest to nitpick theism to death. There doesn't seem to be any object to it, because you end up arguing that theism ultimately means everything--and therefore means nothing--even though you earlier said you have a preferred definition of the term.

It probably doesn't make any sense from the atheist perspective.

There's no use trying the emergency escape now, wynn, you're in too deep. What doesn't make sense is your meandering, roundabout argument, which at times contradicts itself or reverses course midway through. It has nothing to do with me not being able to see things from someone else's perspective. You really need to drop that excuse from your playbook, it doesn't fool anyone.

There is such a thing as atheist theology. Atheists think differently about God than theists do, so much so that their views on God are incompatible.

A baseless claim supported by a non-sequitur. Thinking about God differently does not mean that they define God differently. The chap from the other thread, Dan Baker, is just one example of an atheist who shares a conception of God that is right in line with most Christians. So no, atheists are not simply missing the point when it comes to belief; they get the point, they just don't want any part of it.

In comparison, I'm sure Jan can understand me just fine on this point.

Wow. Has this whole thing really just been a ruse to make people think you and Jan are making the same argument? You're not, if you haven't noticed. Just as you weren't actually making the same argument as lightgigantic regarding tacit and explicit terms in the other thread. Is this all for show? Really?

That's an example of a statement from atheist theology.

No, it really isn't. The mechanism for believing God exists and believing Elvis exists is the same: faith. Just as it's the same for someone who believe in the existence of human-farming aliens and someone who believes in a human-farming Jesus. It's about faith, believing the unseen. Just because the objects of faith are different doesn't mean that it's a different concept. And you can't even make the case that it is, which is why your attempt to do so failed to actually address believing in Elvis' existence, but rather being a fan of his music.

Another one.

How is it wrong?

Go to a university library, under DDC 200 or UDC 2 and you will find literally meters of books concerned with this.

How much do you want to bet the discussions being had have nothing at all to do with the way you've framed them? How much?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Theism: worship of, service to, loyalty to God.

And in what Christian bookstore did you find that wacky dictionary?

Dictionary.com is the dictionary of record in the USA because it compiles the definitions from the four or five print-edition American dictionaries which in aggregate are regarded as definitive by 99% of journalists and other writers. It's definition of "theism" is quite concise, meaning that those four or five dictionaries agree:

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism ).

There is absolutely nothing in there about worship, service or loyalty. If you believe in the existence of a god and/or that he created and/or rules the universe, you are a theist. Even if you hate him and secretly plot against him when he's so busy killing other people that he might not be paying attention to you.

Bear in mind that English is not an authoritarian language with an academy like French or Spanish. It is a democratic language and words are defined in our dictionaries by their usage, not by people who set themselves up as authorities.

One of the problems with defining theism as "belief in God or god(s)" is that by this criteria, Satan, the demons and some atheists would have to be counted as theists, since these beings are said to know God or believe that God exists, but they refuse to acknowledge God as their Lord.

Anyone who believes in God or god(s)--to use your very own words--is a theist by this definition. An atheist is a person who does not believe that God or god(s) exist. So pray tell how the one can also be the other?

Oh Christ. You know something? Suit yourself. If you want to play the victim, if you insist on being passive in the process, this is your prerogative. But I won't indulge in it indefinitely.

Huh??? I gave you a straightforward, uncontroversial statement in plain English of one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. How exactly is this the work of a passive victim? The scientific method stands in opposition to the illogical superstitious bullshit of religion. This is a place of science so this argument is merely a codification of something which all of us who belong here learned in college.

The burden of understanding is on the one who wants to understand. Not on the one who claims to understand or who claims to want others to understand.

You obviously have little patience with academics. The burden of understanding may ultimately fall on the person who wants to understand, but an entire community of teachers take on the burden of helping him find his way to understanding.

Do you even realize what you're doing to yourself with this kind of thinking? You're not taking responsibility for what you reflect on and how, but are leaving your mind to wander and to think about whatever and however it happens to think, with you merely passively waiting that someone who is making some claim would explain themselves to you.

You are the most ridiculous person on this website. I happen to be a popular and successful teacher, mentor, manager and writer. People come to me almost every day seeking explanations they can understand. I didn't accomplish that by avoiding responsibility and letting my mind wander.

The actual bully are a person's own fears, worries, doubts, insecurities.

Well okay. I was just being kind. I thought it would go down better if I called the poor fellow's wife and in-laws "bullies" instead of "assholes."

And some people think these [picture of a pomegranate, whose name contains a common word for "apple" in languages other than English, and of a potato, whose French name is "pomme du terre" or "earth apple"] are kinds of apples (the Germans and the French do).

Now you're trying to bullshit the Linguistics Moderator??? You speak English. Do you believe that the prairie dog is a canine, that the bird of paradise can fly, that the staples you have stocked in your pantry have points, and that you can clean your house with a Scotch broom?

BTW, there were no apples in ancient Mesopotamia. A likely candidate for the fruit in the fable about the Garden of Eden was a pomegranate, which was a staple there (with no points ).

The supreme definition of "God" is one that contextualizes everything else, including issues of one's own belief.

There you go with that wacky dictionary from the Christian bookstore again.

Like with the apple example: In English, "apple" primarily means the fruit of the tree that in Latin is called "malus." But in German, even though etymologically related, the world "Apfel" has a broader use, so that when in connection with a qualifier, it can be used to mean 'potato' - "Erdapfel" or 'pomergranate' - "Granatapfel." This German use has no idiomatic equivalent in English.

Apparently you're not familiar with the words "peanut" and "coconut," both of which refer to edible parts harvested from plants which are not nuts.

In a similar manner, when theism is taken to mean 'belief in God or god(s)', this can end up including things that aren't theism.

When "theism" is defined as "belief in God or god(s)," it includes everything that is included in the belief in God or god(s). If some of those are things which you don't think are part of theism, then it's you who have a quarrel with the dictionary.

Hint: The dictionary always wins.

I suppose it depends on who and what God was to him at that time. I would have thought that one has to understand Him the way Jesus understands Him.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the majority of theists on this planet are not Christians, and they don't give a damn about what Jesus did or did not understand. The Saudis are so determined to keep their people ignorant of the teachings of Jesus that they don't allow Christian churches to be built in their country.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

What more could I have done?

You could have looked at any one of a number of discussion forums, for a start, to find many hundreds of accounts from former theists who are now atheists.

So I'm supposed to accept that this guy really believed in God because it is implied in the title of his book?

No. You're supposed to accept that this guy really believed in God because he says he really believed in God. He knows what he believed in better than you do. He is the expert on him. You are not.

So now he thinks all this experience was bunkum, the result of a deluded mind, so what did he actually feel when he thought that he was in communication with God.

He actually felt all the things that religious people commonly say they feel when they think they are in communication with God.

Even if he thought that the object of these feelings was delusional, why ditch the feelings themself, and save a shed load of money on weed?

He writes later in the book that he can still produce the same feelings even now, when he no longer believes in God. In other words, he now thinks that those feelings of awe, reverence, a sense of the numinous and so on, are not actually linked to God, but are a product of normal human brain functioning.

Mr Barker is expert, he actually got a personal call from him, and served him faithfully for the best part of 19 years.

Right. You couldn't find a better example of a committed theist who became an atheist.

I would love to believe that he was a sincere believer of God, but nothing he says (you should check his debates and quotes) leads me to think that he was, but everything he say's points to him being egotistical and ambitious, and prepared to join the group most likely to get him where he wants to be in this life.

Yes, yes, Jan. He wasn't a true Scotsman. No believer who has become an atheist ever could be. Right?

It is obviously beyond your comprehension that somebody could ever decide that faith in God is a delusion. They must never have had real faith in the first place. That's the only possible explanation, from your point of view. I understand.

To say he had this amazing experience, and then do a complete reversal claiming that he was delusional, and as such anyone who claims to believe in God must, by logical deduction, be delusional, in such a way that he intends to change the world along with his master and crewe (Richard Dawkins), by way of modern atheist dogma, does nothing to convince me.

Of course it doesn't convince you. You can't even accept the simple fact that he was a devout believer in God, let alone take the next step of inquiring into why such a person would start to question his faith.

You're so blinded by your own faith that you shut your eyes to anything like this that could shake your comfortable worldview. The mere idea that a believer could become a non-believer is literally incredible to you. You have no idea how it could happen, and no interest in investigating further. In fact, I think you're scared to find out.

It doesn't say. He doesn't even say who or what God is, which is strange because he served for so long.

He spent 20 years of his life telling other people who God is, and trying to lead them to God. You just don't like the changed message, that's all.

I don't know that he wasn't a theist, only that there is no indication of belief in God.

So the passage I quoted from him above was an indication of what? What are we to make of statements such as "I knew God was real", "I knew I was saved", "I felt that God was talking to me", and so on? Those indicate a deep and abiding atheism, do they?

He had experiences sure, he, by his own admission, thought he believed in God, but as it turns out he didn't, again by his own admission.

No. You must understand. First he believed in God, and then (miracle of miracles!) he didn't![/b]

It sounds impossible, I know, but that's what actually happened. It's a strange old world we live in, isn't it Jan?

.... Then if for them after sometime, they come to their senses and realise God isn't real, how could God have ever been real to them.

That's the question you need to ask yourself. You need to ask it honestly, without presumption. Let me know how that goes for you.

It's not extraordinary. Matter self organising is extraordinary.

That's another fallacy - argument from incredulity. You have no idea how it could have happened, so therefore it couldn't have happened.

That's poor thinking, Jan. You ought to be able to do better.

This is precisely why you couldn't believe in God with your current state of mind. There is only God, and everything comes from Him. You seem to have it in your head that there is God and other stuff, and God competes with all this other stuff. There is no way you can believe in God with that mind set.

I'm not sure what this "other stuff" is that I'm supposed to think that God competes with. Unless you're talking about reason, evidence and that kind of thing.

I think you need to explain why you made that assumption.

My mistake. So materialism is a good thing. Ok then.

Your problem James is that you have these terminologies and ideals, and you live by them, so anything that contradicts them is automatically characterised as incorrect. In short you have built a wall around yourself which guarantees not letting a divine foot through the door. For you, God simply doesn't exist because that's the choice you've made.

That's my problem, is it? And you, Jan, have no terminologies or ideas that you live by, presumably. And you wouldn't automatically characterise anything as incorrect that might lead you even slightly towards atheism, because you've got an open mind, unlike me. So, if you heard of people who were theists who later became believers, for example, you would accept that and ask what led them to reject God, wouldn't you? (Oh, wait...)

God simply exists for you because of the choice you've made.

So, which of us has the high moral ground, Jan? You or me? Is there any criticism that you can make of my point of view that does not apply equally to your own position? It might be time to take a good hard look at yourself, don't you think?

 

[James R]

wynn:

I find that the more poignant aspect of these deconversion stories is that some people use them to justify their own atheism. I wonder why.

Who uses somebody else's deconversion story to justify their own atheism? Got any examples?

An aspect of materialism is objectification - seeing others (including God) as objects that are or are supposed to be fully within one's power to manipulate with and do as one pleases, otherwise one has the power and the right to reject them.

Seeking to dominate others is quite a separate idea from materialism.

One thing I have noticed is that the way people treat other people in communication says a lot about a person, and I think is also indicative of a person's approach to God.

Some people are bossy, aggressive towards others, they put words into other people's mouth; they are the my-way-or-the-highway types who want things done on their terms. Nominally, they may be either theists or atheists. If a person has that approach also in relation to God - and typically, they seem to - I am wary of concluding they know much about God.

Presumably you would include most evangelical preachers in that category. Is that right?

 

[wynn]

Who uses somebody else's deconversion story to justify their own atheism? Got any examples?

Why did you bring up Barker's story, if not as a justification of atheism, or at least a support for atheism?

An aspect of materialism is objectification - seeing others (including God) as objects that are or are supposed to be fully within one's power to manipulate with and do as one pleases, otherwise one has the power and the right to reject them.

Seeking to dominate others is quite a separate idea from materialism.

I've already explained what I meant.

Presumably you would include most evangelical preachers in that category. Is that right?

Sure. What's your point?

 

[wynn]

So, which of us has the high moral ground, Jan? You or me? Is there any criticism that you can make of my point of view that does not apply equally to your own position? It might be time to take a good hard look at yourself, don't you think?

The preemptive strike.


For all your interest in linguistics, Fraggle, you have precious little interest in communication.

 

[Balerion]

The preemptive strike.


For all your interest in linguistics, Fraggle, you have precious little interest in communication.

Bailing. Wynn 101.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

No. You're supposed to accept that this guy really believed in God because he says he really believed in God. He knows what he believed in better than you do. He is the expert on him. You are not.

This arrogance is built into Christianity and Islam--but not Judaism, and Rasta is too new to judge, and as for Baha'i we're not even positive that it's an Abrahamic religion. Christians and Muslims believe they have a directive to show all the other billions of us the error of our ways and lead us to the truth.

These imaginary orders from their imaginary deity, as interpreted by their prophets (one of whom is probably also imaginary, but his supernatural aspects certainly are) require them to be certain that they are all experts on all of us. They think they know for sure that we are wrong about God and all the other bullshit. Therefore they have no reason to respect anything we claim to know about ourselves.

These are the motherfuckers who we are up against!!! They have zero respect for us (well perhaps they regard us with the same arrogant respect we give our dogs and cats: poor sweet little creatures who are too stupid to survive without their help, which they'll gladly give because they are so kind), but they bitch when we reciprocate and don't treat them with respect. They are taught that they are better than us, for the precise reason that they believe in fairytales and we don't. This puts us in the same category as puppies and kittens.

What amuses me is that all of these people once believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Probably with a little more fervor than their belief in God, for the obvious-to-a-child reason that God doesn't leave presents under the Christmas tree, hide chocolate eggs around the house, or leave money under their pillow. Yet every one of them gave up these beliefs. But they don't see the parallel to their belief in God, to the point that they are convinced that anyone who doesn't believe in God never really did! Talk about cognitive dissonance!

You're so blinded by your own faith . . . .

Exactly. Christians and Muslims have mastered the art of cognitive dissonance. A good many of them actually have degrees in science and hold down important jobs as scientists during the work week. But when they take off their lab coats and go home, they forget everything they knew about empirical evidence, logical reasoning, testing and peer review, and become no better than Jaylew's wife and in-laws.

For all your interest in linguistics, Fraggle, you have precious little interest in communication.

How strange then, that I have spent much of my life being respected and sought out for my communication skills and, during the last couple of decades, using them to make a living--teacher, course designer, published author, public speaker, proposal writer, documentation specialist. I have even taught classes in communication (including ESL for speakers of both Chinese and Spanish) and many of my students came back to tell me that it changed their lives.

Please present your credentials in this field.

And while you're at it, please cite a post of mine in which I showed "precious little interest in communication." The one consistent criticism I have received for more than 40 years, from family, friends and co-workers, is that I'm too long-winded. I talk too much, write too much, expand my coverage to points that weren't raised, extend my answers to include questions that weren't asked, and in general go into too much detail.

But (to a certain extent because of those very faults) no one has EVER said that I failed to give them the information they wanted.

Even you have never actually cited a question I didn't answer or a point I didn't explain. You just toss out vague criticisms with no specific referents. And by the way, that is a hallmark of poor communication skills.

 

[James R]

wynn:

Why did you bring up Barker's story, if not as a justification of atheism, or at least a support for atheism?

I brought it up as an example of a theist who became an atheist - something that Jan Ardena claims can never happen. In other words, it's a counter-example - one of thousands or millions available - that contradicts Jan's claim.

Sure. What's your point?

Just checking that we agree - again.

 

[James R]

What amuses me is that all of these people once believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Probably with a little more fervor than their belief in God, for the obvious-to-a-child reason that God doesn't leave presents under the Christmas tree, hide chocolate eggs around the house, or leave money under their pillow. Yet every one of them gave up these beliefs.

That's an interesting point.

I wonder whether Jan Ardena would argue that all the kids who gave up belief in Santa Claus never really believed in him in the first place. Probably they all had an "a-Santa mindset" all along that meant they could never really believe properly.

I wonder whether Jan himself ever believed in Santa. Maybe as a theist, he had the magical capacity to really believe. But if so, why did he give up that belief?

I wonder...

 

[wellwisher]

I wonder whether Jan Ardena would argue that all the kids who gave up belief in Santa Claus never really believed in him in the first place. Probably they all had an "a-Santa mindset" all along that meant they could never really believe properly.

If you observe small children, they collectively have a natural affinity for stories, fables, and fairy tales. You can read the same story over and over because it is not the content but the induction of their imagination they like. A small child can give an action figure or doll animation/life using their imaginations. They can generate their own unique internal output via the imagination. Santa Claus is a natural part of that childhood process and works with their imagination. When we become of age to be more exclusively externally induced by culture, the internal changes.

If you ever had a kitten or puppy, they also use their imaginations to generate play games, such as chase and chew, to exercise skills they will need when they get older. This urge is generated internally. It does not come from the outside. This is easier to see with a young kitten or pup, taken from the mother, who lives and grows with you, without other animals present. The pup will self engage in play. Human children have their own internal generators. Once the child enters school, the natural internal generator is replaced by outside indoctrination for cultural conformity into a herd animal.

Atheism is taught from the outside, and comes after the imagination and natural fairy tale stage. The imagination comes first and then there is indoctrination into denial. Those who retain their imaginations, in spite of herd conditioning to become herd animals, become the artists and visionaries.

The question to ask is why does atheism prefer to be a herd animal? Why force the childhood imagination to repress so one is more dependent on external programming to tell you what to think? Religion leaves the imagination open, so what is naturally inside has room; less you be as children. The children have free minds and can abstract internally using faith.

I remember when I had to give up Santa Claus, in the childhood sense. It was due to peer pressure by older boys who were starting school and being herded into externally programmed conformity. To avoid constant herd ridicule I needed to comply. Instead of a joyful time, conformity to no Santa Claus meant a more boring and useless connection to imagination. Why does atheism prefer boring?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I wonder whether Jan Ardena would argue that all the kids who gave up belief in Santa Claus never really believed in him in the first place. Probably they all had an "a-Santa mindset" all along that meant they could never really believe properly. I wonder whether Jan himself ever believed in Santa. Maybe as a theist, he had the magical capacity to really believe.

Children lack the logical skills that adults have. They rely on trust in their elders and the observations of their own naive senses, in order to formulate beliefs.

I was always a "smart" kid, learning to read and write fast and early, a couple of years ahead of my class in math, understanding where Alabama was even though I was in Illinois, etc. But even I believed in Santa Claus. I had empirical evidence: those presents were there on Christmas morning. And I had the authority of my parents, who had never given me any reason to mistrust them: they told me that Santa brought them. I eventually learned that argument from authority is a weak argument, but we all sure hope that little children don't learn that TOO early!

When they told me the truth about Santa Claus, I cried. But it was NOT for the breach of trust. It was for the loss of the wonderful fantasy! The world suddenly became so cold and rational. For the rest of their lives, we opened our presents on Christmas Eve rather than Christmas morning. It's just not the same.

Do you think maybe this is a major reason why people who believe in gods, and angels, and globe-covering floods, and a really wonderful person who was wrongly executed coming back from the grave, and an eternal afterlife where they'll see all of their loved ones again... really DON'T WANT to have to give up those beliefs?

It took me a long time to find enough sense of wonder in the world to fill the void left by the departure of Santa Claus. How long would it take someone to fill the void that once held a god and an entire model of the universe?

I'm proud of former religionists who found the truth. But I can't help feeling just a little bit sorry for them. It must be like the death of a spouse or a child.

I immerse myself in fantasy. I read the entire Oz series before I was eight. As an adult I have devoured the Harry Potter books and the Redwall books and the books by Robin McKinley and Diana Pharaoh Francis and Alan Dean Foster. I have an oversize Kermit the Frog in the backseat of my car so every time I look in the mirror he's there smiling at me. You probably noticed that I'm a big fan of the Fraggles.

If people get something even greater than that from religion, I can understand why they wouldn't want to give it up. I probably wouldn't even mind, if it weren't for the fact that every two or three generations that belief somehow motivates them to rise up and murder the people in the next country.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

You could have looked at any one of a number of discussion forums, for a start, to find many hundreds of accounts from former theists who are now atheists.

Been doing that for years James.
Their accounts are no different to Mr Barker's, merely an idea of what they think belief in God is.

No. You're supposed to accept that this guy really believed in God because he says he really believed in God. He knows what he believed in better than you do. He is the expert on him. You are not.

Do you really think that?
Do you think I am the expert on me, and what I say about myself is to be accepted without question?

He actually felt all the things that religious people commonly say they feel when they think they are communication with God.

We're not talking specifically about religious people, we're talking about theism.

He writes later in the book that he can still produce the same feelings even now, when he no longer believes in God. In other words, he now thinks that those feelings of awe, reverence, a sense of the numinous and so on, are not actually linked to God, but are a product of normal human brain functioning.

That's my point. He thinks that feeling equals theism.

Right. You couldn't find a better example of a committed theist who became an atheist.

No it's not. It's an example of someone whose feelings didn't provide him any evidence of of Gods' existence, and now he thinks that feeling is critical for belief.

Yes, yes, Jan. He wasn't a true Scotsman. No believer who has become an atheist ever could be. Right?

Unless one believes 100% there is always atheistic traces, meaning there is always a point where the person will not fully commit, and acts accordingly.
Such a person will naturally believe that there is more to life, and consciousness than waves and particles. Not because of any moral ideals or religious leanings.
A person can enter into religion for various reasons, for example they can think it makes them a better person, or that people will think of them as a good person. They
can go into it thinking that maybe they will find God due to the testimony of others, only to find out that they don't get the same feeling expressed from them leading them to come out of it at some point. A theist can enter into religious life in a bid to understand the scriptures more, or to be around people who are also theist.

It is obviously beyond your comprehension that somebody could ever decide that faith in God is a delusion. They must never have had real faith in the first place. That's the only possible explanation, from your point of view. I understand.

-

I'm not talking about faith in God, just belief. It seems you can't understand the difference relying purely of dictionary definitions to give you a picture.
When a theist talks of faith, the correct definition is the one that is in the Bible itself ''faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen''.
I'm guessing that won't make much sense to you, and you will easily reject it. But it would be interested if it did, and you didn't.

Of course it doesn't convince you. You can't even accept the simple fact that he was a devout believer in God, let alone take the next step of inquiring into why such a person would start to question his faith.

et

He didn't have a devout belief in God, he thought he did, or he really wanted to, because now he absolutely doesn't believe.
As there is no way to prove God existence via the mundane senses, he has as much chance of being right as an atheist, as he did when he was a Christian. As a Christian he said God existed, as an atheist he says God doesn't exist. That alone says heaps.

You're so blinded by your own faith that you shut your eyes to anything like this that could shake your comfortable worldview. The mere idea that a believer could become a non-believer is literally incredible to you. You have no idea how it could happen, and no interest in investigating further. In fact, I think you're scared to find out.

I didn't say that a believer couldn't become a non believer. it's not as simple as that. The fact is you want to reduce theism to feeling high, because as far as you're concerned God doesn't exist. You see everything from your point view and dismiss other points of view.

He spent 20 years of his life telling other people who God is, and trying to lead them to God. You just don't like the changed message, that's all.

The reality is, he wasn't telling people who God was, because by his own admission he wasn't in his right mind. What you, he, and all modern atheists are trying to normalise is that his state of mind is the same state of mind every single theist, past and present. You are happy to accept that, because it justifies your modern atheistic mind-set.

He's still telling people who God is, and trying to lead them from God. In one breath he's parroting the doctrine of his church, and now he's parroting the doctrine of his atheist organisation. Neither have anything to do with scripture or God as defined in scripture. Why? Because neither means anything to him in real terms. It means as much to him as it does to you. You do the math.

So the passage I quoted from him above was an indication of what? What are we to make of statements such as "I knew God was real", "I knew I was saved", "I felt that God was talking to me", and so on? Those indicate a deep and abiding atheism, do they?

He couldn't have known God was real, because he now say's God is not real. You can't have it both ways.

The feeling he got when he was saved is a feeling he can get without believing in God. So that feeling was never about God. Don't you get it?

Theism isn't about ''God talking to me'', or some tickly feeling in the stomach.

No. You must understand. First he believed in God, and then (miracle of miracles!) he didn't![/b]

It sounds impossible, I know, but that's what actually happened. It's a strange old world we live in, isn't it Jan?

From your perspective your correct, but your perspective is an atheist perspective, a perspective that does not accept God.

That's the question you need to ask yourself. You need to ask it honestly, without presumption. Let me know how that goes for you.

How could he have believed in God, when God doesn't exist as far as he knows or believes, and you as well?

Even if he believed God did exist, that still doesn't make him a theist.

That's another fallacy - argument from incredulity. You have no idea how it could have happened, so therefore it couldn't have happened.

Either there is some kind of intelligence behind this creation, or there is none, at least within the realms of these discussions. If there is no intelligence behind it, then
the other explanation is that nature somehow organised itself. Isn't that the basis of these discussions?

I'm not sure what this "other stuff" is that I'm supposed to think that God competes with. Unless you're talking about reason, evidence and that kind of thing.

You ask for evidence of God by way of modern science. You are therefore saying God is a product of nature, not that nature is a product of God.
Your mind-set literally stops you from understanding God.

Your problem James is that you have these terminologies and ideals, and you live by them, so anything that contradicts them is automatically characterised as incorrect. In short you have built a wall around yourself which guarantees not letting a divine foot through the door. For you, God simply doesn't exist because that's the choice you've made.

That's my problem, is it? And you, Jan, have no terminologies or ideas that you live by, presumably.

I believe you have a problem with GOD, yes, although you will state that you cannot have a problem with something that doesn't exist. Also, you will most likely use the term ''...something for which there is no evidence of..'', even though you have no idea what would constitute evidence.

And you wouldn't automatically characterise anything as incorrect that might lead you even slightly towards atheism, because you've got an open mind, unlike me.

I don't see atheism the way you do, neither theism.
I don't think you have an open mind when it comes to this particular subject matter.

So, if you heard of people who were theists who later became believers, for example, you would accept that and ask what led them to reject God, wouldn't you? (Oh, wait...)

I think you meant to say ''...people who were atheists...''.
I've already told you, an atheist can become theist, but he will have to change his mind set.
If you TRY to become a theist, like if you TRY to love your girlfriend, it's not real theism, and it's not real love, no matter how sincere you are. It has to be real.

God simply exists for you because of the choice you've made.

That's probably the most correct you've said in this dialogue. There's hope for you yet.

So, which of us has the high moral ground, Jan?

Theism has nothing to do with morals.
Behaviour changes with experience, understanding, compassion, empathy, humility, etc..

Is there any criticism that you can make of my point of view that does not apply equally to your own position? It might be time to take a good hard look at yourself, don't you think?

There's no need to be critical. Day to day people get on with their lives without being consciously aware of theism and atheism. That's how I am. I only talk about these things to people who like talking about it.

jan.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Unless one believes 100% there is always atheistic traces, meaning there is always a point where the person will not fully commit, and acts accordingly.

Are you implying that people can believe less than 100%? So what you are saying is that one can believe 99% in God and the other 1% atheist? So am I correct to assume that theoretically one could believe 1% in God and the other 99% be an atheist? Is that how it works?

Assuming that is all correct, how would one measure one's percentage? How would one know if they believe 100% or not?

If one can only know if they believe 100% when tested under fire, would one have to literally burn to know they believe 100%?

 

[spidergoat]

It's Jan's version of the no true Scotsman fallacy. If they became atheist, then they must not have really ever been a true theist.

 

[Motor Daddy]

It's Jan's version of the no true Scotsman fallacy. If they became atheist, then they must not have really ever been a true theist.

Maybe Jan mistakenly thinks that 100% belief in something means that you've surrendered all logic to that something, ie ask no questions?"