What counts as proof?

[Raithere]

it shows up in my "numbers". my brother is an atheist, and while he doesn't understand what happened to me, he admittedly understands that something did happen to me.

but he knows, and i know, that he'll never understand unless it happens to him too.

I was referring to your comment about peace. I have no way to examine your personal experience. The only reference I can make to it is that during about 10 years or so as a critical thinking theist and another 15 years as as a searching for truth agnostic I had no similar experience involving religion.

It's all well and fine that you have had your experience and that you have found an interpretation that you are comfortable with. It's your experience. But to attempt to translate that into a broader, objective, scope requires evidence that is not completely subjective.

Your "proof" is accessible only to you. How can you then make a query such as "i mean really...what do they want?" earnestly? The answer should be obvious. We want to see it for ourselves.

Failing our own personal revelation we would like to see evidence that some preponderance of those that do claim such revelation are indeed telling the truth. And that is where the statistical analysis fails you. It just isn't there.

Your assertion then, that people...

"practice religion because someone else wants them to, or because they think it makes them a "good person"? because they're lonely or codependent?"

... only comes back to bite you in the ass. How do we know that you aren't such a person? What can you show us to differentiate those with a true revelation from those without?

~Raithere

 

[Lori_7]

I was referring to your comment about peace. I have no way to examine your personal experience. The only reference I can make to it is that during about 10 years or so as a critical thinking theist and another 15 years as as a searching for truth agnostic I had no similar experience involving religion.

It's all well and fine that you have had your experience and that you have found an interpretation that you are comfortable with. It's your experience. But to attempt to translate that into a broader, objective, scope requires evidence that is not completely subjective.

Your "proof" is accessible only to you. How can you then make a query such as "i mean really...what do they want?" earnestly? The answer should be obvious. We want to see it for ourselves.

i really don't believe that. it's my opinion that "seeing it for themselves" would be a lot of people's worst nightmare. and like i said before, "seeing it for themselves" doesn't imply recognition. atheists have readily admitted on this site that if they were to see it, they would deny it (and possibly check themselves into a hospital).

Failing our own personal revelation we would like to see evidence that some preponderance of those that do claim such revelation are indeed telling the truth. And that is where the statistical analysis fails you. It just isn't there.

imo there's no acceptible substitute for one's own personal revelation.

Your assertion then, that people... ... only comes back to bite you in the ass. How do we know that you aren't such a person? What can you show us to differentiate those with a true revelation from those without?

~Raithere

i don't practice a religion.

 

[Raithere]

i really don't believe that. it's my opinion that "seeing it for themselves" would be a lot of people's worst nightmare. and like i said before, "seeing it for themselves" doesn't imply recognition. atheists have readily admitted on this site that if they were to see it, they would deny it (and possibly check themselves into a hospital).

That's because you provide no method by which someone might distinguish revelation from hallucination, imagination, or delusion. Without such a method it would be prudent to check to make sure your experience wasn't one of the latter.

imo there's no acceptible substitute for one's own personal revelation.

Many people claim they have had personal revelations. Why does it not evince itself statistically? How does one go about having a personal revelation?

i don't practice a religion.

Sure you do. It may be your own personal religion rather than an institutionalized one, but you have one:

religion –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

But, of course, you failed to answer my question.

~Raithere

 

[Lori_7]

That's because you provide no method by which someone might distinguish revelation from hallucination, imagination, or delusion. Without such a method it would be prudent to check to make sure your experience wasn't one of the latter.

Many people claim they have had personal revelations. Why does it not evince itself statistically? How does one go about having a personal revelation?

what i did was ask god to prove it's existence to me, if it did exist, and it did.

Sure you do. It may be your own personal religion rather than an institutionalized one, but you have one:

religion –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

But, of course, you failed to answer my question.

~Raithere

sorry, to answer your question, i have my life, my thoughts, my behavior.

i'm not involved in devotional and ritual observances, and am governed by no moral code per se.

 

[Raithere]

what i did was ask god to prove it's existence to me, if it did exist, and it did.

And if one asks and no proof is forthcoming is it not then reasonable to conclude god does not exist?

I'm still waiting to see anything in the way of proof here Lori. Your only claim is that you believe in god because you experienced god. Which would be acceptable if that was the extent of your assertion. You go on to proclaim to others that you have knowledge, which requires justification. All that you have is a belief without any means of establishing it's correlation with truth.

~Raithere

 

[jpappl]

Lori,

you mean believe for a good reason, because they know god? it would change their perception, which would change their thoughts, which would change their behavior, which would change the world.

Since most are theist, or claimed theist then they have had their chance. It doesn't seem to matter whether people believe in god or not.

Maybe your suggesting that most who claim the belief aren't being honest about it and don't believe the same way you do.

Maybe that's because when push comes to shove even so called believers aren't going to chop their arm off and pray to god for it to grow back because they know it won't.

That is the end of the line. Where the belief is exposed for what it really is.

 

[Lori_7]

And if one asks and no proof is forthcoming is it not then reasonable to conclude god does not exist?

yes, sincerity is implied here though. my experience began with, and has continued to involve, a lot of introspection about why i wanted to know, and what if given, that knowledge would mean for me.

I'm still waiting to see anything in the way of proof here Lori. Your only claim is that you believe in god because you experienced god. Which would be acceptable if that was the extent of your assertion. You go on to proclaim to others that you have knowledge, which requires justification. All that you have is a belief without any means of establishing it's correlation with truth.

~Raithere

what kind of justification?

 

[jpappl]

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/15/nation/la-na-virgin-mary-20101215

Great now who will be first to see their arm grow back. LOL.

And after that, we will stop raping little boys. Now that would be a miracle.

 

[Raithere]

yes, sincerity is implied here though. my experience began with, and has continued to involve, a lot of introspection about why i wanted to know, and what if given, that knowledge would mean for me.

Many people who are now atheists were once theists. In many, if not most, of their transitional experiences they go through a crisis of faith. I don't know if you've personally been there but I have and I can assure you that there aren't many more sincere pleas than this.

I believe this accounts for much of the hostility atheists have towards theists. To go through something like that and have to rebuild your belief system and your world view. Then to be told later on by theists that you were insincere, or you did it wrong, or you were just looking to justify your hedonistic or immoral desires. I really have difficulty describing just how offensive those accusations are.

what kind of justification?

That's up to you. I can't analyze it before it's given. But in order for anyone else to evaluate it, it would have to be something beyond your personal, subjective, experience.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/

~Raithere

 

[gmilam]

Many people who are now atheists were once theists. In many, if not most, of their transitional experiences they go through a crisis of faith. I don't know if you've personally been there but I have and I can assure you that there aren't many more sincere pleas than this.

I believe this accounts for much of the hostility atheists have towards theists. To go through something like that and have to rebuild your belief system and your world view. Then to be told later on by theists that you were insincere, or you did it wrong, or you were just looking to justify your hedonistic or immoral desires. I really have difficulty describing just how offensive those accusations are.

Amen!

 

[Lori_7]

Many people who are now atheists were once theists. In many, if not most, of their transitional experiences they go through a crisis of faith. I don't know if you've personally been there but I have and I can assure you that there aren't many more sincere pleas than this.

I believe this accounts for much of the hostility atheists have towards theists. To go through something like that and have to rebuild your belief system and your world view. Then to be told later on by theists that you were insincere, or you did it wrong, or you were just looking to justify your hedonistic or immoral desires. I really have difficulty describing just how offensive those accusations are.

i can't relate. god has never left any doubt for me.

i've heard of people who decided, intellectually or emotionally, to be religious, or was raised inside a religion, who without ever knowing god, eventually had a crisis of faith. and that's totally understandable.

but once you experience god, and know, there's just no crisis to be had. :shrug:

That's up to you. I can't analyze it before it's given. But in order for anyone else to evaluate it, it would have to be something beyond your personal, subjective, experience.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/

~Raithere

the basis of this knowledge is personal, subjective, experience. so the only advice i can give someone is to get their own.

 

[woowoo]

That's because you provide no method by which someone might distinguish revelation from hallucination, imagination, or delusion. Without such a method it would be prudent to check to make sure your experience wasn't one of the latter.

~Raithere

This is called a reality check, it's a technique used in lucid dreaming to determine if the dreamer is awake or asleep. Dream yoga is an important meditative practice that shows us how to become lucid in the waking state as well asin our dreams, also in altered states of consciousness, most importantly it teaches us how to die with our eyes open, at the moment of death we can remain conscious as the mind separates from the body.

To the question, how do we know if anything is real or an hallucination, I would say that the moment we are able to recognize the Self then we are infact conscious and connecting with a pristine mind state. This would be self evident to the adept, it's is something the skeptic must practice, but that demands that they at least remain open to the possibility, the choice entirely for the individual, until they are ready to take that step there is nothing much any advice or claims of proof can do for them, except perhaps our prayers. OM

 

[Raithere]

i can't relate. god has never left any doubt for me.

Or perhaps you just never left any room for doubt.

There are many concepts that are so intrinsic to our psyche and our identity that we almost never question them. And that is fine. We all have them. But it's usually a good idea to know what they are and to understand what you have assumed in contrast to what you know.

but once you experience god, and know, there's just no crisis to be had.

Again, you go about making assertions with no basis. You can't honestly make this claim. You can only say that YOU have not ever had such a crisis. See what I mean?

the basis of this knowledge is personal, subjective, experience. so the only advice i can give someone is to get their own.

Everyone already has their own experiences. And without justification you are in no position to contradict them.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

This is called a reality check, it's a technique used in lucid dreaming to determine if the dreamer is awake or asleep.

And the method is?

To the question, how do we know if anything is real or an hallucination, I would say that the moment we are able to recognize the Self then we are infact conscious and connecting with a pristine mind state. This would be self evident to the adept, it's is something the skeptic must practice, but that demands that they at least remain open to the possibility, the choice entirely for the individual, until they are ready to take that step there is nothing much any advice or claims of proof can do for them, except perhaps our prayers. OM

What "pristine mind state" are you referring to?

BTW I practice meditation regularly and have done so for over 20 years. At first as a religious practice. Now as a mental exercise. So I am rather adept at it. Where is my "revelation"?

~Raithere

 

[woowoo]

And the method is?

try searching under lucid dreaming for specific reality check techniques.
For some people lucid dreaming comes easily, others need to practice but
most of us can get somewhere with it given time.

What "pristine mind state" are you referring to?

the void, emptiness, devoid of attachment, our essential nature from which
everything becomes manifest.

BTW I practice meditation regularly and have done so for over 20 years. At first as a religious practice. Now as a mental exercise. So I am rather adept at it. Where is my "revelation"?


~Raithere

Twenty years, twenty lifetimes, who knows, but loosing patience with what is not forthcoming is not the way.

 

[Lori_7]

Or perhaps you just never left any room for doubt.

There are many concepts that are so intrinsic to our psyche and our identity that we almost never question them. And that is fine. We all have them. But it's usually a good idea to know what they are and to understand what you have assumed in contrast to what you know.

i question everything.

Again, you go about making assertions with no basis. You can't honestly make this claim. You can only say that YOU have not ever had such a crisis. See what I mean?

god doesn't do anything in futility.

when you meet someone and get to know someone, is it common at some point to have some crisis regarding their existence or identity? that's silly.

Everyone already has their own experiences. And without justification you are in no position to contradict them.

~Raithere

i'm not contradicting them. in regards to god, you get what you ask for.

 

[Raithere]

try searching under lucid dreaming for specific reality check techniques

No, you can provide your own. I'm not going to research some random technique and provide a critique of it only to be told I didn't select the correct one. Do try to remember we're not talking about dreams.

the void, emptiness, devoid of attachment, our essential nature from which everything becomes manifest.

So are you talking about a mental regression or a metaphysical regression? Mind as a Tabula Rasa or Ontological Nihilism?

Either way, my contention is essentially the same. From such a point your lack the foundation to make any assertion at all. It's self defeating.

Twenty years, twenty lifetimes, who knows, but loosing patience with what is not forthcoming is not the way.

Twenty lifetimes... yeah, okay. Tell you what, I'll try again next time.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

i question everything.

Fair enough.

god doesn't do anything in futility.

This really doesn't answer my question now does it? Of course, I have to ask, what is it that god does do?

when you meet someone and get to know someone, is it common at some point to have some crisis regarding their existence or identity? that's silly.

When you're talking about someone that others can see and touch and hear, and you can get some sort of consensus on these details, yes it's a bit silly.

When you're talking about someone who at least a good portion of the population can't see or hear, no one can touch, and when even those who claim they can see and hear them cannot form any consensus about... then no, it's not so silly.

in regards to god, you get what you ask for.

You know, they really need to rename the No True Scotsman fallacy into the No True Theist fallacy.

Well, when I die I'll make sure to tell god it's my fault that I failed his cosmic game of hide and seek.

~Raithere

 

[Lori_7]

This really doesn't answer my question now does it? Of course, I have to ask, what is it that god does do?

the answer to your question was an obviously implied "no", and then i went on to explain why...

When you're talking about someone that others can see and touch and hear, and you can get some sort of consensus on these details, yes it's a bit silly.

When you're talking about someone who at least a good portion of the population can't see or hear, no one can touch, and when even those who claim they can see and hear them cannot form any consensus about... then no, it's not so silly.

no, it's still silly.

You know, they really need to rename the No True Scotsman fallacy into the No True Theist fallacy.

Well, when I die I'll make sure to tell god it's my fault that I failed his cosmic game of hide and seek.

~Raithere

god will already know that, and you won't be kidding.

 

[Lori_7]

oh raithere, i forgot to answer your question! that's funny!

god rules the universe, at least.