Thread: This topic is for Atheists only!(Jesus isn't my saviour,etc.

Originally posted by bradybaker
YOU'VE CHOSEN TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT IS UNFALSIFIABLE AND NOW DEMAND FACTS TO CHANGE THAT BELIEF. YOU ARE NUTS.

You have to understand that no matter what point that an atheist can bring to the table, the determined theist can just say \"God did it.\" without any evidence, logic, or experience to back up that claim. And that's why the whole notion of a Supreme Being is so utterly stupid.
At least most other theists acknowledge that point and just call it 'faith'.

Other examples of unfalsifiable arguments: green homunculi, unicorns and sasquatches, giant pink invisible bunnies, flying polkadot zebras that only exist when no one is looking, etc.

I am saying that I have provided evidence behind my belief and you provide nothing. To say that theists have no evidence is just ridiculous. You have given no evidence to disprove that God did not create the earth whereas I have given the evidence of the book of Genesis. Thus I win which makes me 1 you 0.

Technically yes we can say God did it. It is because there is a chance that an all supreme being could have done what the topic was on. The fact that I acknowledge that this is possible and the fact that it could be wrong makes me more open-minded than you. It is because you have not proven with evidence that could make you right in the fact that green homunculi, unicorns, sasquatches, giant pink invisible bunnies, flying polkadot zebras that only exist when no one is looking makes me not believe this. If you could provide evidence that you supposidly claim to have then maybe we could start debating something.

Originally posted by bradybakingacake
I'm not going to play word games with you.

haha... ... that is rather funny considering all you do is play word games around here.

Yume, I hate to break it to you. But the Bible isn't proof of anything. It's just a story that was written a really long time ago.

Sometime over the next few days, I'll write up a blurb outlining some scientific explanations of how the universe came to be. I sure hope that they are at least as reasonable as "some magic dude snapped his fingers".

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

The fact that I acknowledge that this is possible and the fact that it could be wrong makes me more open-minded than you.[/b]

I have stated that I do acknowledge it to be possible, just infinitely improbable. And just for the record, you not only 'acknowledge that it's possible', you 'believe it to be true'.

Originally posted by Yume@
It is because you have not proven with evidence that could make you right in the fact that green homunculi, unicorns, sasquatches, giant pink invisible bunnies, flying polkadot zebras that only exist when no one is looking makes me not believe this.

If I wrote a book on them would you believe it then?

<!--QuoteBegin-dreee&#045;e&#045;EEm&#045;scape
that is rather funny considering all you do is play word games around here.

Ok?

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy

If there is no death, how can you be scared of it? But the point is that the \"ancient fairy tales\" are not so ancient, but happening right now.

It's called denial, the easiest way to deal with something stressful is to deny its existence all together. We have evolved to hold spiritual beliefs to deal with the thought of our own death (check out a book called \"The God Part of the Brain\"). The fairy tales, ancient or current (inluding the list of people you mentioned), are a result of this denial and evolution.[/b]

If you believe death is the end, then you are in denial of your essence. Do not mistake what I am saying, I do not believe in an afterlife or an eternal soul that is reincarnated. When I say there is no death, I am not talking about your personal self, for that is an illusion as well. When you look carefully at yourself, you cannot find your essence. There is no personal self, there is only fleeting sensations that are tied together loosely by memory. Where is the constant I? It is no where to be found, science hasn't got a clue as to where consciousness exists or how it got there. Death is the one area science can have no objective evidence of.

I have not read \"The God Part of the Brain\", but from reading the idea behind it, it does not sound like scientific evidence, but uses science to promote an opinion. Finding out that there is a God part of the brain is not evidence for or against God.

It is foolish to think that science is truth. Science is a never-ending discovery, constantly redefining itself. It creates an illusion of a single established worldview.

Originally posted by bradybaker
If God does exist, large parts of these fields of study would have to be partly or wholly incorrect: evolutionary biology, cosmology, physics, palaeontology, archaeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history.

First, it is hilarious to even talk about God's existance or non-existance, two things God is neither. Second, why do people think it has to be religion OR science? Both offer something the other cannot, they are equal in their own respect.



No one has answered my original question yet. Atheism depends on monotheism to exist, so why define yourself by others beliefs? It is pointless to call yourself an atheist because you are not saying anything other than "I don't believe what that guy believes." This does not get you anywhere. Atheism could have never existed in a polytheistic society, if you don't believe in god A, you believe in god B. Christianty started the quest for ultimate truth, and atheism is just another form of it. Positive and negative poles are just extremes of the same thing.

To explain your position by the dictionary definition "a disbelief in the existence of deity" does not explain anything. Maybe the better question is: what is the God that you negate?

Originally posted by bradybaker
Yume, I hate to break it to you. But the Bible isn't proof of anything. It's just a story that was written a really long time ago.

That is mistake one. The Torah in my religion was written by God and given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. It was so that people could gain morals from the stories. They could relate the stories to their everyday lives. It also setup laws like in Leviticus when it says that a man should not lay with a man like he lays with a woman. That was a law written by God that God wanted us to follow. To think it is just a storybook is ridiculous. Until you have read and studied it do not think that you know what it is. It is not just a story. You need to rethink that comment.

Sometime over the next few days, I'll write up a blurb outlining some scientific explanations of how the universe came to be. I sure hope that they are at least as reasonable as \"some magic dude snapped his fingers\".[/b]

If it can seem more logical than God creating the earth I will accept it, but you have to have reasons proving your theory. It cannot just be something happened and the world was created. If you prove how it could be done scientifically and is more logical than my thinking that God created the Earth I will consider it true.

I have stated that I do acknowledge it to be possible, just infinitely improbable. And just for the record, you not only 'acknowledge that it's possible', you 'believe it to be true'.[/b]

I believe my religion to be most likely out of all possibilities. I am not saying it couldn't be wrong, but it is the most likely. If you can find a way to also disprove me on my thinking and a way that is more likely that my existance came to be and how the earth was made I will accept your idea, but once again it cannot be a half-assed comment that you come up with on the top of your head. You need to research and give proof to your theory. My religion has given me proof whereas you have just come in and said I think you are wrong. I am going to stick to my religion because it has given me logical answers that make sense unlike yourself. You should define to yourself infinitely improbable. You need to calculate what could be possible and improbable in your mind instead of just pointing to something and saying \"wrong\".

If I wrote a book on them would you believe it then?[/b]

If it was a book with logical information yes I would.

I have never said you were wrong. I have only said that I think by logic you are the most incorrect.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Syntex

Geez? Reading all those pages has made me barf. Damn I wish we all just knew the truth of things. I personally want to debate this: How can anyone say that atheism is logically the correct choice? It is a belief as well, is it not (help me out if I'm wrong.) But wasn't it defined earlier as: one who believes that there is no deity. If atheists are believing in something, then how is that logical? Can you prove to me that the world was created by physical means?> (no you have theories, based on empirical evidence <thats evidence based on experience and observation>)

As far as I'm concerned, Logically, we should all be agnostics: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Simply because all we're debating here is opinions, theories, and unknowns.

Can't we just simply say, \" I DON'T KNOW! \" we can be sure of that. Fact: None of us can prove or logically state any of these beliefs as true in any one religion or perspective and until that somehow happens or doesn't happen, we should logically see that we don't know anything (in how we exist)... it's all just a belief, which is illogical to assume is correct no matter what.

And thats not 'in my opinion' its logical... is it not? Please correct me if i'm wrong, thats what debatings for, to see flaws in our thought process.

I'm personally Agnostic, believing in things and saying their absolutely true, to me is... illogical.

-Daniel

P.S. Brady, I like the way you think, Amen.

I thoroughly acknowledge the possibility that God could exist and that I could end up burning in hell for all eternity. I also acknowledge the possibility that unicorns, sasquatches, invisible pink bunnies and green homunculi exist. The tooth fairy and easter bunny? Sure, why not?

But come on, there are countless unfalsifiable arguments that could possibly explain how the universe was created and humanity has settled on the ones that:
a) provide us the greatest possible reward (eternal happiness)
B) can be used as tools to control the masses (extreme negative consequences for misbehaving)
c) can justify destructive behaviour (the Crusades, the Inquisitions, suicide bombings, human sacrifice)
d) let us skip out on our own death (afterlife/eternal soul)

It seems to me that its a game of probability. Sure it's possible for a giant magic guy in the sky to exist, but its infinitely more probable that he does not.

Questions (that I'm sure all theists will be able to come up with answers to):
Why did God create a ginormous universe just for us, and make it physically impossible to explore it?
Why does God favor humans over fish? or goats? or hydrogen? or Coke?
How can God be all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time? (think before you answer)
How can God be all-powerful and all-loving at the same time?

If God does exist, large parts of these fields of study would have to be partly or wholly incorrect: evolutionary biology, cosmology, physics, palaeontology, archaeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history.[/b]

Agreed, I also think that God is highly improbable... But answer me this: A atheist is defined as someone who BELIEVES there is no God. Are you really an athiest if you acknoledge it is possible for there to be a God? It seems to me your an agnostic, who has simply weighed the theories of existance, and chosen one to be more likely. Isn't that different then believing whole hardily that there is no God, Period.?

People are really pusing hard on this because by saying your an Atheist, it's agitating them to say that, HEY GOD could exist, IT's Possible... but you've acknowledged this.... I think you need a new title that all, or define what you believe more accurately than the word atheist.


Otherwise, I'm in full agreement

-Daniel

P.S. as for you theists, the only problem I have with some of you is that some of you say: God exists and it's impossible for him not too (acting on Faith, saying something is true, without absolute proof of it) Otherwise, it's perfectly fine to believe in God i think, Basicaly because society has a big problem with Ignorance, based on what you know (the information you have in your mind, God probably is the most logical answer) SO basically the only people who can really argue something is those who have knowledge in all the religions and all the scientific research. Otherwise ignorance is going to screw your "weighing of God Over science" up.

Start talking with logical statements, emperical evidence, and research/studies... otherwise its just hersay and disorganized opinions that say little.

Originally posted by Syntex

Agreed, I also think that God is highly improbable... But answer me this: A atheist is defined as someone who BELIEVES there is no God. Are you really an athiest if you acknoledge it is possible for there to be a God? It seems to me your an agnostic, who has simply weighed the theories of existance, and chosen one to be more likely. Isn't that different then believing whole hardily that there is no God, Period.?

People are really pusing hard on this because by saying your an Atheist, it's agitating them to say that, HEY GOD could exist, IT's Possible... but you've acknowledged this.... I think you need a new title that all, or define what you believe more accurately than the word atheist.

That's not the best definition of atheist. Atheism is seperated into two camps: Strong atheism and Weak Atheism.

Weak atheism is the atheism you're describing (agnosticism by another name). Agnosticism is neutral to the existance of god, it is merely ("I do not/can not know for sure"). It's a pretty safe position, you've just examined the evidence (or not, in some people's case) and come to the conclusion that there is no definate conclusion. But you decide that god probably doesn't exist (hence the atheism ). Think about this, are all theists actually agnostics? If you're applying a rigid criteria of proof to atheism's side, you'd better be doing it to the other too.

Strong atheism is When you make the statement "I know that god does not exist". How can you prove something like that? Well it's not like you can ever have 100% certainty of anything (aside from "I exist") so "knowing" is not as objective as you'd believe. But niether is "knowing" the monitor you're reading from exists. So discarding all annoying thoughts about solipsism.. how can you be certain there is no god like you're certain the monitor in front of you exists?

On the level of physical existance testing something is pretty easy. You can do things with the monitor: touch it, look at it, bounce things off it. You cant really chuck a bouncy ball at god though. God's arent physical anymore (why can't anyone believe in zeus? That'd make this easy) and metaphysically testing something is a lot harder.

Thankfully the gods people usually care about in discussions of atheism are well defined gods. Not as well defined as a monitor unfortunately, but they do have several characterstics that help you perform some tests. A few examples of these characteristics (and how it is testable):

- An all-loving, all-powerful god. (Suffering in general or suffering to believers depending on unconditional/conditional love)
- An intelligent cause of time (* I like this one, see below)
- An all-knowing creator and freewill (Knowing in advance what you do is not freewill)
...Or if you're a determinist - An all-knowing creator and being responsible for our actions (thats pretty self explanitory)

Sure, you might claim that you can never know for certain that zeus doesn't exist, but you can take a wander up mt olympus and see if he's there. Taking a metaphysical wander works well too!

(did that help?)

-spoon

*If:
-God made the descision to create time (first cause)
-Deciding something needs 2 states:
a) A state before the descision
B) A state after the descision
-The change from a) to B) requires time
-Thus, before time was created: god didn't have enough time to create time

Originally posted by spoon
Atheism is seperated into two camps: Strong atheism and Weak Atheism.

Weak atheism is the atheism you're describing (agnosticism by another name). Agnosticism is neutral to the existance of god, it is merely (\"I do not/can not know for sure\"). It's a pretty safe position, you've just examined the evidence (or not, in some people's case) and come to the conclusion that there is no definate conclusion. But you decide that god probably doesn't exist (hence the atheism ). Think about this, are all theists actually agnostics? If you're applying a rigid criteria of proof to atheism's side, you'd better be doing it to the other too.

Traditionally, theists hold the view that we can know there is a God. Atheists hold the view that we can know this is not a God. Agnostics hold the view that it is impossible for us to know whether or not there is a God, and therefore suspend judgment on such issues.

In more modern times, the lines between these have become somewhat blurred, as agnostics who hold that the existence of God is not impossible, but highly improbable, are not far off from an atheist. Somewhere I suppose between these border agnostics wanting to be associated with atheists and actual atheists not wanting to be associated with these agnostics, "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" were created. Strong atheism being actual atheism in the traditional sense of the term. Weak atheism being agnostics who walk very close to atheists. So while weak atheism is agnosticism, all agnostics are definitely not weak atheists (I'm not sure if you were saying that or not, but you kind of gave that impression).

So in the traditional use of the terms, theists and atheists fall on the two most extreme views one can take on the existence of God. Agnostics fall somewhere in the middle (can be straight down the middle, close to the atheists, close to the theists, or anywhere in between). But the lines have become blurred, and yes just as some people calling themselves atheists are actually agnostics, some calling themselves theists are actually agnostics as well if we consider the traditional use of the terms.

But to answer your question more directly, no all theists are not agnostic, just as all atheists are not.

In any case they are just labels we place on ourselves and others in order to categorize them. Meanings change slightly from person to person and change over time as well.

i never understood why preachers and others always denounced evolution and tried to disprove it?!?? i mean its quite obvious isnt it? we know for a fact that we have dna and that it can mutate. there you have it evolution. in conclusion god created evolution. why is that so hard to except. its not even a big deal.

You see, that is a horribly weak argument, I mean look, through your logic, court proceedings could become like:

Judge: Why did you kill this man?

Dude: God made killing people, therefore, god made me do it.

Judge: Thats okay the, your free.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

When you look carefully at yourself, you cannot find your essence. There is no personal self, there is only fleeting sensations that are tied together loosely by memory. Where is the constant I? It is no where to be found, science hasn't got a clue as to where consciousness exists or how it got there.[/b]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
I have not read \"The God Part of the Brain\", but from reading the idea behind it, it does not sound like scientific evidence, but uses science to promote an opinion. Finding out that there is a God part of the brain is not evidence for or against God.

Evidence that belief in a Supreme Being is an evolved behaviour seems pretty relevant to me.

Originally posted by syzygy
It is foolish to think that science is truth. Science is a never-ending discovery, constantly redefining itself.

Not \"redefining\", but \"refining\". That's the beauty of it. It's a self-correcting process. Not once have I said that science has all the answers, it does have some pretty intriguing explanations though, if you take the time to look.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

First, it is hilarious to even talk about God's existance or non-existance, two things God is neither.[/b]

Talking in such vagueries isn't really helping your argument.

Originally posted by syzygy@
Second, why do people think it has to be religion OR science? Both offer something the other cannot, they are equal in their own respect.

Well its quite simple really, when you get rid of the foolish ideas of theism, all you have left is science.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
No one has answered my original question yet. Atheism depends on monotheism to exist, so why define yourself by others beliefs? It is pointless to call yourself an atheist because you are not saying anything other than \"I don't believe what that guy believes.\" This does not get you anywhere. Atheism could have never existed in a polytheistic society, if you don't believe in god A, you believe in god B. Christianty started the quest for ultimate truth, and atheism is just another form of it. Positive and negative poles are just extremes of the same thing.

To explain your position by the dictionary definition \"a disbelief in the existence of deity\" does not explain anything. Maybe the better question is: what is the God that you negate?

Actually, if you consider how human history and evolution would've played out, you would realize that all forms of theism are actually offshoots of atheism. Assuming that the first homo sapien did not have a concept of a supreme being, it would've been a later human that was the first to hold such a belief.

In essence, theists are those that 'don't not believe in God'. My guess is that the definition of 'atheist' in the dictionary was written by a theist (I'm not implying that the theist did that on purpose, that would simply be the definition that would naturally occur to them).

Originally posted by Yume
That is mistake one. The Torah in my religion was written by God and given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. It was so that people could gain morals from the stories. They could relate the stories to their everyday lives. It also setup laws like in Leviticus when it says that a man should not lay with a man like he lays with a woman. That was a law written by God that God wanted us to follow. To think it is just a storybook is ridiculous. Until you have read and studied it do not think that you know what it is. It is not just a story. You need to rethink that comment.

Someone who has as much experience as yourself in debates should surely know about the concept of \"circular reasoning\". You're assuming what you're trying to prove when you say that a document written by God proves the existence of God, thus negating your entire argument. That's mistake one......wait, I mean 7 or 8.

Originally posted by Yume
If it can seem more logical than God creating the earth I will accept it, but you have to have reasons proving your theory. It cannot just be something happened and the world was created. If you prove how it could be done scientifically and is more logical than my thinking that God created the Earth I will consider it true.

I'll see what I can do.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Someone who has as much experience as yourself in debates should surely know about the concept of \"circular reasoning\". You're assuming what you're trying to prove when you say that a document written by God proves the existence of God, thus negating your entire argument. That's mistake one......wait, I mean 7 or 8.

Just because it was written by God does not mean it cannot be true. The only problem with your argument is the fact that it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Technically there was a witness to prove that God really did write the Torah. If there is someone to say that this being called God did write the Torah and has their own testimony of it the reasoning that God did write the Torah the chance of it happening is most likely true. Since there was a witness to prove it your argument is negated. You should know that.

Originally posted by bradybaker

I'll see what I can do.

Thank you. It will be an interesting read.

Originally posted by Yume
Just because it was written by God does not mean it cannot be true. The only problem with your argument is the fact that it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Technically there was a witness to prove that God really did write the Torah. If there is someone to say that this being called God did write the Torah and has their own testimony of it the reasoning that God did write the Torah the chance of it happening is most likely true. Since there was a witness to prove it your argument is negated. You should know that.

And how do you know that it was given to moses on Mt. Sinai? It's.... in the torah! That's still circular reasoning.

-spoon

Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume

Just because it was written by God does not mean it cannot be true. The only problem with your argument is the fact that it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Technically there was a witness to prove that God really did write the Torah. If there is someone to say that this being called God did write the Torah and has their own testimony of it the reasoning that God did write the Torah the chance of it happening is most likely true. Since there was a witness to prove it your argument is negated. You should know that.

And how do you know that it was given to moses on Mt. Sinai? It's.... in the torah! That's still circular reasoning.

-spoon[/b]

Not only is it in the Torah, but in the Mishnach which was written by rabbis from the beginning who new Moses.

And they're for real, yo. They dont make shit up.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)

When you look carefully at yourself, you cannot find your essence. There is no personal self, there is only fleeting sensations that are tied together loosely by memory. Where is the constant I? It is no where to be found, science hasn't got a clue as to where consciousness exists or how it got there.[/b]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here.[/b]

How can I die if my essence is not in the physical world? It is neither born nor dies, it is constantly renewing itself. Therefore death is an illusion.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker@
Evidence that belief in a Supreme Being is an evolved behaviour seems pretty relevant to me.

Again, I have not read it, but if I get time I'll check it out.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Not \"redefining\", but \"refining\". That's the beauty of it. It's a self-correcting process. Not once have I said that science has all the answers, it does have some pretty intriguing explanations though, if you take the time to look.
[/quote]
Well both. I would put quantum theory under the \"redefining\" category. And that soft tissue they just found in a t-rex bone might redefine how fossilization works. Its a self-correcting process that has no end, and it can never replace subjective experience.

I have taken the time to look, I was never against science. I just understand it can only go as far as the senses. But if that is where you stop, then that is your reality.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Well its quite simple really, when you get rid of the foolish ideas of theism, all you have left is science.[/b]

Explain how science can objectively measure something that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

Actually, if you consider how human history and evolution would've played out, you would realize that all forms of theism are actually offshoots of atheism. Assuming that the first homo sapien did not have a concept of a supreme being, it would've been a later human that was the first to hold such a belief.

In essence, theists are those that 'don't not believe in God'.

You are kidding here, right? How can you be an atheist if you don't know what a God is? In order to deny something, there has to be something that once was accepted. You can't say that someone who has never thought of the concept of God is a theist or an atheist. If you don't not believe in God, then you are an aatheist. Haa. I understand what you are trying to say, it just doesn't work.

As I said before, the problem is that God can only be experienced subjectively. So no matter how much I try to explain how I understand God to you, you will never get it. You would have to experience it yourself. Its like me trying to explain to you how an apple tastes if you've never eaten one, impossible.

Some of this debate reeks of word games and dancing around the dictionary, but that's probably just me.

Originally posted by syzygy


As I said before, the problem is that God can only be experienced subjectively. So no matter how much I try to explain how I understand God to you, you will never get it. You would have to experience it yourself. Its like me trying to explain to you how an apple tastes if you've never eaten one, impossible.

If God can only be experienced subjectively, then you can never know if it's just you creating him in your mind. The only way you could know God exists is if God tells you one night, hey the moon is going to explode (and you have no way of knowing this) then it explodes the next day. Something outside of you must happen. I'm sure your experiencing something, but how do you know it's labeled God, that its not some other anomoly? Dramatized Ex. If you hallucinate an apple falling on your head, could you really say that that subj. experience proves that an apple fell on your head? or could it be in fact something else.? The point is if your experiencing Gods love or whatever, how do you know it's not just something inside of you, if you believe in God, without reason, just do (Faith) then couldn't you be having a self-fullfilling belief going on?

On the other hand experiences can tell us something exists, for instance Lucid Dreaming... You know that exists because you've experienced it. But in Gods case, its different, there is no way of knowing its truely coming from him or you.

-Daniel

P.S. I've experienced God before by the way, I used to truely believe in him (had a personal relationship and felt his love, yada yada)... until I actually questioned his existance and if what I was experiencing could be evidence of a God... which logically.. you can't say experiencing God in that way is proving him.

Originally posted by Syntex
If God can only be experienced subjectively, then you can never know if it's just you creating him in your mind. The only way you could know God exists is if God tells you one night, hey the moon is going to explode (and you have no way of knowing this) then it explodes the next day. Something outside of you must happen. I'm sure your experiencing something, but how do you know it's labeled God, that its not some other anomoly? Dramatized Ex. If you hallucinate an apple falling on your head, could you really say that that subj. experience proves that an apple fell on your head? or could it be in fact something else.? The point is if your experiencing Gods love or whatever, how do you know it's not just something inside of you, if you believe in God, without reason, just do (Faith) then couldn't you be having a self-fullfilling belief going on?

You can only experience things subjectively, its all that exists. When you get rid of the idea of a difference between subject and object, you understand there is only being. Space and time don't actually exist objectively, they are only a perception. When you stop searching for something outside of yourself, you realize what you were looking for you already have, within.

On the other hand experiences can tell us something exists, for instance Lucid Dreaming... You know that exists because you've experienced it. But in Gods case, its different, there is no way of knowing its truely coming from him or you.[/b]

But that's the point, there is no difference between "him" and "you". When you get rid of this false distinction, then you can experience it for yourself. Its as if you are looking at a reflection of yourself and taking the reflection as the truth. When you realize that everything is connected and that your ego (reflection) is not the "doer" then it gets out of the way for something beyond it, your true self.

Of course, as I said, this does not happen just by merely thinking about it, you have grown up your whole life in this illusion. It takes practice just like anything else. It is just a change in perspective. The past is just a memory, the future a conjecture, and the present is gone before you realize it as such. There is only infinite being, presence.

Ok Fine, whatever... I forget what we were even arguing about? I can see where everything is a subj. experience but some things we know, like "I exist" or "I can do this or that". God just isn't one of them, and to look into a mirror and assume its a true reflection, isn't helpful.

I think were thinking too deep here... looking way to much into it.

Yep nevermind forget it, this is silly to argue about... Circles are not fun once you've been around a few times.

-Daniel

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue

Amen.

How very ironic [/b]

On a side note, "Amen" means "let it be so" in case anyone was curious.

That's all I have to say.

So it goes.

Originally posted by CT+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CT)</div>

And they're for real, yo. They dont make shit up.[/b]

Hahahah.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
How can I die if my essence is not in the physical world? It is neither born nor dies, it is constantly renewing itself. Therefore death is an illusion.

Good logic, except for the wild assumption that some \"essence\" exists, and that it's not in the physical world. And let me guess, the 'non-physical' world can't ever be detected or objectively measured right? That's a pretty damn convenient argument, just like green humunculi!

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

But if that is where you stop, then that is your reality.[/b]

And if that's not where you stop, what can you hope to gain? If you're happy to continue deluding yourself into thinking that there is something 'more' to be experienced, by all means have a blast.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
Explain how science can objectively measure something that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled.

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12381

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

You are kidding here, right? How can you be an atheist if you don't know what a God is? In order to deny something, there has to be something that once was accepted. You can't say that someone who has never thought of the concept of God is a theist or an atheist. If you don't not believe in God, then you are an aatheist. Haa. I understand what you are trying to say, it just doesn't work.[/b]

The point I was making is that we could play this chicken and egg word game for days and get nowhere. And really, it doesn't matter. Some people believe in God(s), some people don't. We're having a discussion. Just keep in mind that the whole concept of a Supreme Being is man-made.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
So no matter how much I try to explain how I understand God to you, you will never get it. You would have to experience it yourself.

Ah, here we are again. The one argument (aside from \"God did it\") that theists have to fall back on when they realize that their belief is wholly without justification.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

Space and time don't actually exist objectively, they are only a perception.[/b]

By that logic, if humans ceased to exist, so would space and time. Do you really believe that? Also by that logic, the universe itself would not have existed until the first living organism evolved the capablility to percieve it.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
The past is just a memory, the future a conjecture, and the present is gone before you realize it as such. There is only infinite being, presence.

A delightfully worded idea indeed, but it has no more substance than a weekly tabloid. Unfortunately, humans are not the centre of the universe and its continued existence does not depend on ours.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Good logic, except for the wild assumption that *some \"essence\" exists, and that it's not in the physical world. And let me guess, the 'non-physical' world can't ever be detected or objectively measured right? That's a pretty damn convenient argument, just like green humunculi!

Yes, I agree a paradox exists where we cannot measure our consciousness because it is beyond the physical world. We can't think about it, it can only be experienced.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

And if that's not where you stop, what can you hope to gain? If you're happy to continue deluding yourself into thinking that there is something 'more' to be experienced, by all means have a blast.[/b]

I can gain a deeper understanding of who 'I' am.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12381

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Just keep in mind that the whole concept of a Supreme Being is man-made.[/b]

I don't disagree. I also don't believe in a Supreme Being. This is why I was asking atheists to explain what they thought the God was that they don't believe in, because I knew we weren't thinking the same thing.


<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Ah, here we are again. The one argument (aside from \"God did it\") that theists have to fall back on when they realize that their belief is wholly without justification.

Again, I think we have a different idea of what God is.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

By that logic, if humans ceased to exist, so would space and time. Do you really believe that? Also by that logic, the universe itself would not have existed until the first living organism evolved the capablility to percieve it.[/b]

I think everything is consciousness, we are just conscious that we are consciousness. Everything is inter-connected and inter-dependant, all is one, all is God.

Originally posted by bradybaker@
<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy

The past is just a memory, the future a conjecture, and the present is gone before you realize it as such. There is only infinite being, presence.

A delightfully worded idea indeed, but it has no more substance than a weekly tabloid. Unfortunately, humans are not the centre of the universe and its continued existence does not depend on ours.

I totally agree, becuase that is not what I am saying. I don't put humans in the center of the universe, it is obvious the universe is much older than we are. But as far as we know, we are the only beings that are aware of our own existance, which means we can think beyond ourselves, which means we can have the understanding that non-duality is Reality, Pure-Being.