Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a hollow statement. If it never effects us and can never be found then its no different from something that doesn't exist.

And there's another obstacle in the argument: If it never effects us.
We wouldn't exist without our DNA, yet we existed prior the first discovery of it. We didn't know of it, but it was essential for our existence, and always have been.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The ache in your hand can be sensed (if couldn't your hand wouldn't ache). From my own experience I know that creatures like me can feel such things, and from my reason I know that an ache in the hand does not contradict itself.

You misundestood me. What I meant was that if I say I have an ache in my hand, and you ask me to prove it, there'll be no way for me to do so. That doesn't mean the ache ain't there, just that you don't have any evidence of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And as such there was zero reason to think they existed.

True. That's not a reason to say they don't, though. You may not have a reason to believe they exist, but should they exist, they don't exist less just because you don't believe in them. They serve you no purpose (That you know of), there's no logical reason for their existence and there's no proof of their presence.

None of the latter listed however, is proof that they don't exist. Just that we don't know if they do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And as such we had no reason to think they were real until it was proven, just like atoms.

But it turned out that atoms had a purpose for being, a very important one. We just didn't know it. It's a mistake to believe we're at the peak of our knowledge on things today, any things (Spiritual or otherwise)

Why? Because we don't know what's left to find out.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're still having trouble grasping the meaning of things I see. My earlier post reflected how I felt and how you feel dictates what you do. Your statement inadvertently claimed to know that I truly felt some other way. You must understand that at least. Also If you TRULY didn't care how I felt then your posts wouldn't be so full of contempt and disdain. Your many posts where you referred to me as "it" also sought to let me know that you wanted me to feel your spite. You constantly respond to my posts with unfounded accusations of utilizing tactics that in truth I find unnecessary. Ask me a question and I'll just give you the straight answer. The point is that you want people ( me included ) to feel as though you've got me pegged. 😮‍💨

No, you are incorrect. I spoke only of how you argue, nothing about what you think or feel. I think you might also be confusing contempt with pity. I certainly pity you; not for the character you're playing, but certainly anyone who gets into a debate with you. "It" was an illustration of how you want to hurang people into agreeing with you. That's why you did such things to me. If you find these tactics unnecessary, then stop using them. You can't say you give staright forward answers when in the time I've been here you've gone from saying Noah's Ark is literal and then saying that you agree totally with Symetric Chaos' post earlier. I don't need people to feel I've got you pegged, I know I do.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia

But it turned out that atoms had a purpose for being, a very important one. We just didn't know it. It's a mistake to believe we're at the peak of our knowledge on things today, any things (Spiritual or otherwise)

Why? Because we don't know what's left to find out.

👆

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
And there's another obstacle in the argument: If it never effects us.
We wouldn't exist without our DNA, yet we existed prior the first discovery of it. We didn't know of it, but it was essential for our existence, and always have been.

You misundestood me. What I meant was that if I say I have an ache in my hand, and you ask me to prove it, there'll be no way for me to do so. That doesn't mean the ache ain't there, just that you don't have any evidence of it.

True. That's not a reason to say they don't, though. You may not have a reason to believe they exist, but should they exist, they don't exist less just because you don't believe in them. They serve you no purpose (That you know of), there's no logical reason for their existence and there's no proof of their presence.

None of the latter listed however, is proof that they don't exist. Just that we don't know if they do.

But it turned out that atoms had a purpose for being, a very important one. We just didn't know it. It's a mistake to believe we're at the peak of our knowledge on things today, any things (Spiritual or otherwise)

Why? Because we don't know what's left to find out.

You know what, I don't think you're getting my position at all.

In simplest terms I won't accept that something exists until it is proven to me. Obviously that doesn't mean it didn't exist until it was proven (I can't believe that doesn't somehow go without saying) but when you say "we don't know about [something]" I don't accept it as a deep philosophical insight, unless you propose a way to learn about that thing it's a meaningless statement.

Originally posted by skekUng
No, you are incorrect. I spoke only of how you argue, nothing about what you think or feel. I think you might also be confusing contempt with pity. I certainly pity you; not for the character you're playing, but certainly anyone who gets into a debate with you. "It" was an illustration of how you want to hurang people into agreeing with you. That's why you did such things to me. If you find these tactics unnecessary, then stop using them. You can't say you give staright forward answers when in the time I've been here you've gone from saying Noah's Ark is literal and then saying that you agree totally with Symetric Chaos' post earlier. I don't need people to feel I've got you pegged, I know I do.

The people sitting in a bus arguing alone seem to know that someone is there. You can say you know whatever you want to say you know about me. I don't want people to agree with me when I'm wrong whatever you may think. I also pity anyone who gets into a debate with me and doesn't know how to have an intelligent discussion. Eventually it becomes obvious that they can't support their arguments with evidence or logic. Quote one of my many tactics if you can. If you can't then you're just confusing me with someone else. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You know what, I don't think you're getting my position at all.

In simplest terms I won't accept that something exists until it is proven to me. Obviously that doesn't mean it didn't exist until it was proven (I can't believe that doesn't somehow go without saying) but when you say "we don't know about [something]" I don't accept it as a deep philosophical insight, unless you propose a way to learn about that thing it's a meaningless statement.

I get you, and I apologize if this has gone unremarked. All I'm saying is that to me, not seeing is no reason not believing. All that I'm saying is that not knowing does not mean something ain't. That's been my whole case, and it remains my case.

As a final note, I'll point out that I do not believe in God. I don't believe in organized religion, nor in written words of God. I don't deny his existence however. It's not my place to do so, because I don't know he ain't.

This has been my point all along, and I apologize if it's been anything less than clear.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I get you, and I apologize if this has gone unremarked. All I'm saying is that to me, not seeing is no reason not believing. All that I'm saying is that not knowing does not mean something ain't. That's been my whole case, and it remains my case.

As a final note, I'll point out that I do not believe in God. I don't believe in organized religion, nor in written words of God. I don't deny his existence however. It's not my place to do so, because I don't know he ain't.

This has been my point all along, and I apologize if it's been anything less than clear.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I get you, and I apologize if this has gone unremarked. All I'm saying is that to me, not seeing is no reason not believing. All that I'm saying is that not knowing does not mean something ain't. That's been my whole case, and it remains my case.

As a final note, I'll point out that I do not believe in God. I don't believe in organized religion, nor in written words of God. I don't deny his existence however. It's not my place to do so, because I don't know he ain't.

This has been my point all along, and I apologize if it's been anything less than clear.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But by that logic, you should have to believe in literally anything anyone suggests. I deny the existence of undetectable floating octopi, sure I can't prove they don't exist, but there's no point in even bothering with the idea until evidence is put forth for them. The whole reason atoms were conceived were because they explained discoveries of the time; until then, people were perfectly in the right to deny their existence.

If you believe in the existence of undetectable floating octopi, who am I to question it? It's your belief, not mine. I know what I believe in. What you believe in is up to you.

I can't, nor would I say you're wrong, because I don't know. But does that mean there's no point?
I see a large point with faith, and that is faith itself. I believe in something, and this makes me feel stronger, it makes me feel more confident, it makes me feel I have a purpose.
It makes me feel as if I matter, something I quite strongly feel I'd lack without this faith of mine.

Is it your place to say my faith is false because it can't be touched, because it can't be seen? What does it matter if it doesn't actually exist, if it gives me strength to manage the day? If I believe in it and I alone?

If an undetectable floating octopi gives you faith, then I'll never stand in your way. I'll not question it, I'll not deny it, because just because it's not real to the world, doesn't mean it's not real to you.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Perhaps.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
If you believe in the existence of undetectable floating octopi, who am I to question it? It's your belief, not mine. I know what I believe in. What you believe in is up to you.

I can't, nor would I say you're wrong, because I don't know. But does that mean there's no point?
I see a large point with faith, and that is faith itself. I believe in something, and this makes me feel stronger, it makes me feel more confident, it makes me feel I have a purpose.
It makes me feel as if I matter, something I quite strongly feel I'd lack without this faith of mine.

Is it your place to say my faith is false because it can't be touched, because it can't be seen? What does it matter if it doesn't actually exist, if it gives me strength to manage the day? If I believe in it and I alone?

If an undetectable floating octopi gives you faith, then I'll never stand in your way. I'll not question it, I'll not deny it, because just because it's not real to the world, doesn't mean it's not real to you.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What if the floating octopi creed demands I kill all non-octopi? Surely you would require some kind of evidence this is true before allowing me to act on this belief.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You would be able to attempt to carry out your octopi's demands and others would likely attempt to stop you even if you presented evidence for it and they could produce no evidence against it. At the end of the day you would still be able to believe that you were right no matter what others told you.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You're being facetious. No, obviously people with beliefs that inevitably harm others can't be treated with a "live and let live" attitude. Any suggestion of such is wrong.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
The first one speaks of something that exists. Problem is, you don't know that spiritual things doesn't exist. You just don't have proof of that it does. Again, just because it can't be seen, doesn't mean it's not there. You can't see an atom with the naked eye, but I can assure you it's right in front of you.

To take a more solid example, there's been quite recently the discovery of a life-form that grows on arsenate instead of phosphate. By this logic of yours, that life-form didn't exist until we discovered it.

Believers in God, gods, or "spirituality" such as yourself experience the influence of those things all the time. It is something else entirely to experience their presence. And if you're not with one of your five senses--that means it has no presence. But it doesn't detract from it's influence (that humans have created for it).

And I have absolutely no idea where this:

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
By this logic of yours, that life-form didn't exist until we discovered it.

came from. If you honestly took what I've been saying to be some form of human-wide solipsism, then there's no hope for you. I spoke of humans experiencing the presence of objects, at no point did I insinuate that our perceptions bring matter in to existence.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What if the floating octopi creed demands I kill all non-octopi? Surely you would require some kind of evidence this is true before allowing me to act on this belief.

What makes the floating octopi demanding blood to be spilled any different from the Abrahamic God demanding such? Neither can be proven, but that doesn't mean followers of the Abrahamic God doesn't kill for their belief.

I don't find religious killings any more justified than any other sort of killing, even would their God or belief be proven.

I've been trying to think of ways to phrase all of this in a proper way, but all I can come up with is quite simple: One can not say what you can or should believe in, nor the opposite. One can only hope you have the degree of morality that prevent you from taking an innocents life despite it being expected of you.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Stop attempting to twist words (or misinterpret them, whichever one you like). Feeling and experiencing the presence of something is different from experiencing the influence of something. The first requires perception of one of the senses. The latter needs only faith. One requires physical being, the other does not.

Believers in God, gods, or "spirituality" such as yourself experience the influence of those things all the time. It is something else entirely to experience their presence. And if you're not with one of your five senses--that means it has no presence. But it doesn't detract from it's influence (that humans have created for it).

And I have absolutely no idea where this:

came from. If you honestly took what I've been saying to be some form of human-wide solipsism, then there's no hope for you. I spoke of humans experiencing the presence of objects, at no point did I insinuate that our perceptions bring matter in to existence.

To me, spirituality is just another sense. A sixth or seventh sense if you will.

I'm not twisting words. You are limiting them short of what they actually can mean. We were talking about the word "presence" back there, not about feeling or influencing.
We were talking about presence, and even though we didn't know this GFAJ-1 existed, it was very much present. Which is the point I've been trying to make. Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it's not present. It was still there, and near.

This is the very definition of presence. You're trying to limit the word to some obscure Earthly thing, but nothing in any dictionary suggest that something has to be earthly to be present. It's simply your idea of logic for something to be so, not a definition of the word.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
My point is that just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there 😐 I don't know how you came to that conclusion through my post.

argh, my appologies, because this is going to seem a bit rude, especially considereing you have described what you meant, but the initial points you were making were that we should consider spiritual experiences as real, and this is not logically congruent with the point you have since elaborated.

Simply, if there is a god that is "under a blanket", that is not congruent with a group of people who experience the presense of this entity. Tautologically, as in by definition, an entitiy that exists only "under a blanket" could not peoduce the feeling of a presence, because we are defining it as unknowable. If you can feel its presence, it would be measurable, if only indirectly.

That such experiences are completely different depending on the individual, or that such experiences have readily available neurological explanations, seem to offer a much better explanation of these phenomenon than the "god-of-the-gaps" you appear to be arguing for. Sure, both post-modernism and science itself posit that we can not know anything for sure, but empiricism stands as the only epistemological tool that can confirm its own predictions.

Building from this, Sym has covered most of what I would say about untestability and the burden of proof, but ultimately, and at the risk of sounding rude, the arguments you were making are not the same, and in fact, not even consistent with the points you are making now.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
To me, spirituality is just another sense. A sixth or seventh sense if you will.

demonstrably untrue

Originally posted by inimalist
demonstrably untrue

To you.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
To you.

what sensory organ would you suggest is tuned to divine presence?

what biological difference are you positing between people who experience this presense than between those who do not?

What you guys fail to realize is that the whole universe is completely relative and everything is a matter of perspective or "a certain point of view", therefore, Q'Anillia is 100% right.

As are all of you.

/thread 313