3 universal truths all religions agree upon:

on weight of evidence, and are open to changing them as the weight of evidence changes. Religious groups do not and are not. That's the simple difference, cbayer, but I'm betting you won't even acknowledge or discuss it, because you are as rigid and unyielding in your faiths as the religionists you're an apologist for. You've decided what's true, and will close your eyes and ears to anything contrary.

Enjoy your safe little bubble world.

I know plenty of non-believers just as stupid and arrogant as many believers. Enjoy YOUR bubble

Well, there's an argument for you. Try asking a hundred religious people "What evidence would make you seriously doubt your belief in god?" and then ask a hundred atheists "What evidence would convince you that a god probably exists?". See which group gives you more "No evidence would convince me of that" answers, then get back to us.

And btw, I've been a believer and a non-believer, so I have personal experience and understanding of both sides, as do most atheists. Can you say the same?

are right, ergo everyone else is wrong, and they are
better than others on that account?

Just trying to comprehend the message here.

atheists find no convincing reason or evidence to support belief in a god, and that it is rational to base the strength of one's convictions on the strength of the evidence supporting them. And that atheists are much more likely to change what they think if sufficient evidence in presented than people whose convictions are based on "faith" (which by definition is immune to evidence).

Comprehend now?

and its a perfect fit.

Well. If they're honest. Not all believers are as easily categorized as you wish. Try not to use the broadbrush so much. I do not condemn my non-believing friends. They are as entitled to their beliefs as I am to mine.

difference, and you know that perfectly well, so why are you making shit up? Ok, I know why, you're just trying to fit in with the other intellectual giants here, who do that constantly.

And you do condemn non-believers, btw...apparently just not the ones who kiss up to you and are fawning and deferential.

someone elses. nothing changes but the names of the people yelling at each other.

then you're very badly out of touch. Do you really need to be educated on that point?

And which of us is being stubbornly dogmatic here, in the face of evidence? (hint: it's not me)

The weight of "evidence" is as much a subjective tyrant as faith. It all comes down to core beliefs.

For example, although I'm an atheist, I strongly disagree with the contention that the universe is rational. There is far less evidence to support this position than is supposed and often the objectiveness that is assumed is not.

if you jump off the top of a 20 story building, you'll hit the ground very fast and very messy. I dare you to try to alter that "subjective truth" with the best of your "faith".

Go ahead, try it. Then report back. If science is just another faith based belief system, no better at getting to the truth than any other, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

that doesn't believe in gravity although you might have a different answer if the building were on the moon? Your descent will be a bit less rapid and less lethal perhaps.

My point was: It is not a question of faith; it is a question of what you have faith in?

In reality there is no more "proof" for theism than atheism. You can no more prove god exists than disprove god exists. Many atheists believe that science supports their position; it doesn't. Many religious people believe science contradicts their belief in god; It does not. In fact science can only strengthen a theists belief in god but his dogma may not survive intact.

Thanks for your reply.

Most atheists do not believe that "science supports their position". Atheists are not making an affirmative claim for the existence of anything, and do not have a position that needs either "support" or "faith". We simply withhold acceptance of the existence of the god of the Bible, or the gods in anyone else's pantheon, because we find no convincing evidence for them. Do you believe firmly in the existence of Zeus, Thor or Queztalcoatl? Do you give the possibility of their real and actual existence any credence at all? If you're like most people, I doubt it, and you don't need to have their existence "disproven" in order to feel entirely rational in rejecting it utterly. Seriously, this is Atheism 101. Can it really be that this is all a mystery to you?

And the dodge that "you can't prove god exists" is just lame hand-waving. If a "god" is claimed to influence and be influenced by events in the physical world (as most are), then evidence for or against their existence can be had, whether you admit it or not. Obviously, nothing like that is ever proven to a 100% certainty (That's Thinking 101), but there can be so much evidence for the existence of something (like atoms) that no sane person would deny it. A "god" like the one described in the Bible could surely provide such evidence if it existed, yes?

this it is self evident that god does not exist, and no evidence exists that "it" does.

Atheism is a belief that is supported by contentions that its own preconceived notions about god are fictitious.

Further I dispute that atheism is self-supported and in fact contend that it is irrational. Nothing in atheism would suggest that an abundance of matter should contain life, should be expected to contain life, or would actually have a mechanism that would evolve this life much less formulate the conditions to make this life occur. Lets step even farther. "If" you believe in the Big Bang Theory, where did this matter and energy originate and where did the spark of life come from. A swirling super-heated mass of immensely pressurized matter would not contain life so why would it be assumed that life would pop up at all, much less formulate into incredibly complex biological systems. Evolution is frankly not a very satisfying answer including natural selection. (Not to suggest I don't believe in evolution. I do) The process to evolve must be premeditated in some way. Assuming, or taking for granted, that single celled organisms would form in the first place, why would you therefore conclude that they "evolve" at all. To maintain their own species? Where does the "program" or mechanism to evolve the species originate? Why would there be a mechanism at all? If natural selection is the vehicle, where did natural selection come from? To an atheist a pile of rocks is a pile of rocks; why would anything self formulate from a pile of rocks? Where does intelligence come from? Why would a single celled organism evolve into an incredibly complex system capable of questioning its own existence? Expand further: this universe goes forever in all directions, an incredible collection of immensely complex systems that we have not even begun to understand.

I dispute your contention that most atheists do no believe that science supports their position. Historically science and atheism have been bedfellows contradicting church teachings for centuries. Refer to this article...

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/science.html

I'm glad you have framed your argument in this way because it was exactly the point I was trying to make: The tyranny of belief.
Additionally the remainder of your argument points out the existence of preconceived notions.

Presupposing that a belief in theism automatically precedes from a belief in a religious text or pantheon is a fiction, although widespread. The point you missed from my reply is: "dogma will not survive intact." From this statement you would draw the conclusion: theism at it's essence does not need to arise from the descriptions of God, and the gods of the pantheon, as described in any religious or historical text. Simple theism, as I am defining it, rejects all anthropomorphism as an attempt to describe the indescribable and most of what is included in religious and historical texts is lack of understanding, historical revision, and outdated belief systems.

There is no solid irrefutable indication that god influences us in any judgmental way. This is a preconceived notion that God is other or separate. There are those in the Christian faith who insist that events in their life are directed by god. I don't think it explains all available data and I don't believe in the cliches "god works in mysterious ways, and god has a plan".

I actually have a lot of misgivings about using the word at all. This word has been used for centuries to describe anything from idols, to a force. I am unable to use this word in an analytic way without a preconception by others as to what the word would mean and my context for using it hence your belief that I must be describing what must amount a man in the sky.

The real question at this point is what is god then? It's a really challenging question to answer. I think of god as being both the source, creation and force. On the other hand understanding these concepts with the mind is impossible because they are beyond dualism. But really beyond all that god is experienced.

I offer up this analogy: An alien space ship is found on planet earth and a group of atheists and dogmatic theists are sent to provide explanations. The atheists study the ship and conclude that the ship just happens to be here. The dogmatic theists conclude that a massive humanoid being put the space ship here.

Thanks for your reply.

No, my statement was NOT "another way of saying that it is self evident that god exists" It is a statement that there is no good evidence that a god exists, not that no god does or could ever be found to exist, or that such evidence could never come to light.

Atheism is not a belief..it is a lack of belief, and does not need "support" A very simple concept that you seem unable to grasp. And irrational? Is it rational or irrational to base the strength of one's convictions on the strength of the evidence supporting them? Because that's all atheism does. So let's have a straight and direct answer to that question before I waste time on the rest (which is all intellectual twaddle, btw).

The strength of the evidence is in what atheism ignores as well as by what is revealed in the physical world. The proof of god lies in the lack of answers to the questions posed in the second paragraph in the other post. It is not something that can be tested in the laboratory or intellectualized. It is the fundamental mystery of life.

Do you really believe that this world just happens to be here, no purpose, no ryhme, no reason, just masses of matter swirling around in space. Consider this incredible mind, amazingly complex biological system that you take for granted, this eternally complex universe, infinite in all directions. I considered all this for a long time and the more reasonable conclusion is that there is god, god as source, substance and force but not the anthropomorphized judgmental god that is described in ancient texts.

This was the entire purpose for writing the rest of my last post which you then derided as intellectual twaddle which I dispute. Everything I wrote I have considered and written in as accurate a way as possible. I have considered and reconsidered these questions many times. I've thought about atheism and theism and agnosticism at length. I've studied religions from all over the earth. Please consider carefully what I wrote in the other post, before making arrogant, angry, dismissive comments.

Thanks for your reply

You called atheism "irrational". I asked you a simple and direct question to see if you could justify that statement:

Is it rational or irrational to base the strength of one's convictions on the strength of the evidence supporting them?

You refused to answer. What should that tell me about the strength of your position or your intellectual honesty?

And in a nutshell, here's why all the rest is twaddle . When faced with something that can't be explained, "god" as an explanation doesn't win by default. Why should it? "God" is the only "preconceived notion" here, and that line of thinking assumes without evidence that there must be one, and that if other explanations don't satisfy you, "gawddidit" MUST be correct, rather than, "I don't know". Something as powerful and influential as you describe your "god" as being has to have direct, affirmative evidence in favor of it. I'm totally convinced that the sun exists. Why should the existence of your "god", so much grander and more powerful, have to be inferred through such tortured arguments?

And yes, atheists HAVE considered the stuff you wrote, over and over and over. You're the one who is arrogantly assuming that your "proof" for god is something we've never heard or thought about before.

Not directly but I did answer the question. It is of course rational to base the strength of ones convictions on evidence. I was trying to infer that the weight of evidence supports theism and hence that is where the evidence lies. That's why I wrote the second paragraph where I did in the last post.

Can you offer any explanations for any of the questions I posed? If there is a semblance of an answer to explain any of these questions it would be of value.

The fact is Scott, that I'm trying to have a discussion. I'm not trying to be dismissive or arrogant or anything negative towards you. If you have taken anything I've written in that way I apologize. It seems like you are being unnecessarily overbearing.

you called me and all other atheists "irrational". I'd hate to see what you'd fling if you WERE being negative. And now you're saying that the manner of thinking that atheism (and all skeptical inquiry) is based on IS rational? Or are you simply saying that because you have a different take on the "weight" of evidence, that makes you rational and us irrational? If someone came on here and called religious belief or believers "irrational", they'd be branded as a bigot, or something else equally uncomplimentary. So why does the god-believing equivalent get a free pass on the same thing?

And you are one for dodging questions, aren't you? So I'll ask again:

Why is "god" (out of all the myriad unconsidered and undiscovered possibilities) the default explanation for all of those things that baffle you? Why does your inability to explain them constitute evidence for "god", and not for anything else? Could it be only that you'd already decided or been indoctrinated into believing that "god" exists, and now need to make everything you experience conform to that preconceived notion, or to constantly morph your concept of "god" to make it immune to examination or criticism? If you'd never heard or thought of the concept of "god" before, can you honestly say that the first thing that would have popped into your head when confronted with all of the things you mention would have been "Wow...god must be behind this"?

And again why should the existence of your "god", creator and director of the entire universe, have to be inferred through tortured, fallacious and discredited arguments such as Design and Personal Incredulity?

Every single one of your comments on this OP had been insulting to someone and negative. I even apologized for what you incorrectly considered to be "negative, irrational, dismissive, arrogant" comments by me, to try to have a normal conversation. I even thanked you for your replies. I have really made attempts to be civil, as I am with everyone here. I hate having these flame fest quarrels with people. It is completely unnecessary. I'm just trying to discuss and learn.

When I say "irrational," it is part of an argument. I'm not trying to put people down.

I actually spent a considerable amount of time writing a reply that I considered to be pretty effective in explaining my point of view. I lost it due to hitting a wrong key somehow...ugh

I'll summarize the main points:

1.) God is beyond mind. There is no scientific proof for it, but it obviously exists. It is what makes up your existence. Existence is the proof that it exists. It is also obvious that the universe we live in is beyond mind. ie Considering the fact that we know we live in an eternal/infinite universe with mind boggling numbers of balls of rock moving at incredible speeds, that life would exist at all on these planets is amazing: that these incredible biological systems would spring up. Really, considering that brings it home. I consider all our incredible scientific pursuits and "vast" knowledge and see that it really, only strengthens the case for god. Our knowledge is a pathetic little ant compared to what we will never know. We may as well know nothing.

2.) God has no human qualities and is not described in any human cognitive function. This is because God is beyond dualism. The mind can only conceive dualistically. The mind is very limited. It has a limited function, and we subscribe it powers it does not have at all. ie the ability to rationalize existence.

3.) God is experienced, beyond the mind, through states of meditation and through many many other pursuits. When some musicians play there is a state in which it is said the music is playing the musician. It is a state beyond mind. This is an experience of God. There are untold other ways to have this experience but it is not a product of reason or mind. You are never going to be able to take a subjective experience like this and bring it down to rationalize it. An inability to do so doesn't make the experience anything less. But to those who experience this state of "oneness" there is no other proof needed. God is an experienced truth not a scientific truth.

4.) The word god, like i said before, is extremely poor for this discussion because it is challenging to get past preconceived notions of what the word means.

5.) There is an abundance of evidence to support all this but you are probably not really that interested, so I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for our conversation. Have a pleasant day.

to support the notion that "god" is totally different than what billions of religious believers think? Apparently you not only think that atheists are irrational, but all Christians, Muslims and Jews, as well, just to mention some. Must be nice to look down your nose at everyone else and know you've got it all figured out. And if your "evidence" is simply more of your own ignorance and arguments from personal feelings, you're right...I'm not interested. You apparently have a deep psychological and emotional need to call something, anything "god", so I'll leave you with that.

Could you possibly be any more arrogant? And could you possibly be any more weasely in dodging questions with uncomfortable answers?

Btw..who's "Christ"?

Are you actually protecting these religions? These are religions that burned millions of people at the stake, caused genocide across entire civilizations, the list could go on and on. So I am in some way obligated to honor these religions by sticking to their idea of god because you think I'm looking down upon their beliefs? Are you serious? The idea of God has so many manifestations it is almost uncountable. In addition I'm not reciting anything at all new. I think many religious people would agree with me in fact.

I am not arrogant scott. Once again read a couple of your comments up thread...

I'm still not sure what you mean by dodging questions? There are no questions that I'm unwilling to answer.

Thanks for your reply. Have a nice day.

but neither does the fact that horrific things have been done in the name of the Abrahamic religions and their "god" constitute evidence that their god doesn't exist and yours does. Jehovah may not be the kind of god you'd wish for as lord of the universe, but tough.

And yes, you are arrogant to declare that your concept of "god" is the one and only correct one, out of all of those "uncountable" versions that people have described and believed in down through the ages. And billions of religious people don't agree with you, so what does that tell you about your argumentum ad populum?

As far as questions that you've dodged, follow your own damned advice and read unthread (AGAIN):

Do you believe firmly in the existence of Zeus, Thor or Queztalcoatl? Do you give the possibility of their real and actual existence any credence at all, even without their being "disproven"?

When faced with something that can't be explained, why should "god" as an explanation win by default?

Why is "god" (out of all the myriad unconsidered and undiscovered possibilities) the default explanation for all of those things that baffle you?

Why does your inability to explain them constitute evidence for "god", and not for anything else?

If you'd never heard or thought of the concept of "god" before, can you honestly say that the first thing that would have popped into your head when confronted with all of the things you mention would have been "Wow...god must be behind this"?

Why should the existence of your "god" have to be inferred through such tortured arguments?

You called me and all other atheists "irrational". And then you backpedaled and said that the manner of thinking that atheism (and all skeptical inquiry) is based on IS rational. Were you simply saying that because you have a different take on the "weight" of evidence, that makes you rational and us irrational?

If someone came on here and called religious belief or believers "irrational", they'd be branded as a bigot, or something else equally uncomplimentary. So why does your god-believing equivalent get a free pass on the same thing?

Have at it. Further dodging and intellectual dishonesty will end this discussion.

I don't have my own god. This has been around for thousands of years. My statements a couple posts up is bare bones spirituality. The essence of god. Everything else is human extrapolation. I never dodged any of those questions. My answers are inferred from my responses. None of those questions are a challenge for me to answer, or contradict my views. I could answer each again more directly if you like. Not sure where I'm being intellectually dishonest? Why don't you just share your views instead of attacking mine?

Once again god is not something that can be understood with the mind. It is not a mental conceptualization. It is intuited. A lot of these questions are meaningless, they lead you away from truth. This is why the Buddha wouldn't answer questions about the nature of the universe and about the afterlife. He wanted his followers to focus on their own ego and not enhance it with meaningless mental constructs.

I wish we could have a real discussion but this is really a waste of time. I wish you the best in 2013.

their "god" concept has been around for thousands of years, too.

And you do you even grasp that saying "god is not something that can be understood with the mind" requires some degree of the kind of understanding that you say is impossible? You can't know that your "god" is radically different than the "god" of other people without understanding something about it.

Oh wait..that's another question. And it's obvious your claim that "There are no questions that I'm unwilling to answer" was a blatant lie. We're done here.

A lot of these questions are meaningless

I never dodged any of those questions. My answers are inferred from my responses. None of those questions are a challenge for me to answer, or contradict my views. I could answer each again more directly if you like.

Truly astounding reality you inhabit.

And I'll leave the "reading comprehension" challenged with a big hug. Have a great life Scott.

is your irrational, dismissiveness.

and the rest.

What a joke.

I have NEVER considered myself better than anybody else. However I see that often in religious people.

I have met both believers and non-believers who think they have the one truth and are superior to everyone else.

harumph

(no offense taken)

Best friend I ever had.

how you sensed your friend?

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend

I was thinking about "objectivity" and "consensus reality", then remembered you telling about imaginary friend, and how differently children experience the world from normative adult "consensus" reality.

My parents have told me about it, though, and it sounds like I sensed her physically.

It's always fun to realize something that you've always known, on some level, but become at a moment conscious enough to be able to put in words. As slow and clumsy they are:

Also academic studies show that children with imaginary friends in fact learn a lot from those relations, and that they help to adjust and to adopt to various "consensual realities" and to go beyond those. And imaginary friends of children are not different from guardian angels, spirit guides, etc. Carl Jung (and many other) shamans without flesh and blood tradition and just spirit guides of "imaginary friends" to teach and guide them - without underestimating the difficulties and suffering of those journeys and sufferings - the "spirit words" of imaginary friends, who people sense in various ways and in my experience not necessarily always just alone - are great teachers and friends. The concepts of "subjective" and "objective" don't always and necessarily much apply, as the teachings and friendship is more about the relation of part and whole - and the holographic creative aspect of that relation between "parts" and "wholes".

To be honest, I don't have much experience of such relations, but the thought that "shamans" are just big children with lots of imaginary friends, guardian angels, spirit teachers, healing helpers etc. etc. gives me great joy.

instead of supporting and encouraging belief in their imaginary friend, would you still believe Pocke to be real?

Which begs the question; is there really any difference between the imaginary friend you believed in as a child and the one you believe in now?

There are children and also older people with multiple imaginary friends they can differentiate between, and also people like that can be also Christians and what ever and believe for example that God is source of love. Or people that don't believe and God and believe that all experiences are not really really but only those experience that he believes everybody else can or does experience. People define experiences and words in various definitions and choose to believe and use and prefer some definitions, some definitions not.

But I'm sure that's different. It's OK for you to behave that way, right? Just not anybody else.

Not a better cook, footballer, chessplayer, or what ever, than anyone else, ever? You have never compared yourself to others in any field?

I can draw better than most people.

I'm glad there are people who can draw better than me, and do lots of stuff better than me. As for me, nobody is better being me than... guess who?

You'll notice that there are at least sixteen non-believers who post in this forum who're convinced that they're better than religious people. The OP does exactly what he accuses others of doing, ie., hypocritical weenie-wagging.

People will use whatever excuse they can to justify being horrible to each other.

Universal means common to all.

Those are are rigid egomaniacal points of view, and
don't apply only to religious.

For many non-religious, they are just as true.
Even some DUers. (some days)

The best that can be said is that such views are more common among faith based systems but even that hasn't been definitively proven.

and there are certainly large populations in religions and entire sects that believe, "there are many paths to god."

According to Stephen Bachelor, in his book Confessions Of A Buddhist Atheist, Tibetan Buddhists traditionally despised Zen Buddhists as "heretics" until the current Dalai Lama told them to knock it off.

For some raised in the culture he was raised in the current Dalai Lama is very progressive and open minded, a lot more so than the current Pope.

There are individuals in certain certain religions who espouse that hateful shit, but most? No.

Witness the regular apologists round here constantly doing their best to avoid repeating it.

The author later seemed to clarified that he is okay with religion but the not the church. That's where I stand: the framework of the religion is fine, but its practice often bears no resemblance to the original intent.

I can't even blame Abramic monotheism, because even very strict Orthodox Judaism doesn't claim to be the right answer for everyone.

Hinduism and Sikhism don't even have "doctrines", per se.

Forget not that Christianity is a spin off of the Hebrew faith.

But first it will piss you off.

This must be true judging from how many people it's pissed off so far.

Perhaps you just don't want to look at what is happening in the religious world. I decry the same things you decry. To portray ALL religion as you have is to be unaware of vital world-wide trends in religion.

You obviously don't decry the same, since you are one of those people yourself.

Do you behave ethically or morally? Always, most of the time, seldom, never? At which point of the continuum behavior becomes being?

Or is that wrong question? How do you behave when you behave ethically or morally, and what is the source of such behavior, how does it happen?

It may have a new coat of paint and shiny new name, but it is still the same old turd.

One need only go back and read your posts to find where your "vital world-wide trends in religion" are nothing more than the same old hateful screed we all know so well from the likes of Robertson, Ham, Westboro... Yours just uses a nicer tone to disparage.

You see "vital world-wide trends in religion", we see more waffle and bullshit.

Can you not just understand that what you need to see as something "real", necessary and important to the world is just a source of amusement and ridicule to many others?

Is it any less real to you because there are those of us who find it ridiculous?

"If you send me lots of money, I can guarantee you'll go to heaven. Key word here is 'lots'."

unless it is for class fees. This goes for all branches, btw.