Can an atheist experience 'the spiritual'.

[Dondarion]

Aliantha wrote:

(ali goes back to munching popcorn)

Can I join you? I could really use a popcorn break right about now!

[Dondarion]

michaelm wrote:

Comparing ISIS to other religions is a valid comparison though - we have a pretty well documented history of wars, torture, executions and social ostracizations because people worship a different god, or the interpretation of why their prophet left his sandal is different. All of those things described of ISIS were carried out on men, women and children during the crusades.

ISIS (and anyone conducting such practices, past and present) is doing evil. There is nothing of faith in those actions. I do not accept that it is relative, that any kind of faith is just as true or false as the next. Man is fallen! Popes have done great wrongs, evils. God does not will for man to do evil, but we have choice, and we decide to do evil anyway in his name, because it gives the action more credence. Deep down, the actor knows it to be violating a moral law, placed in his heart, and yet personal greed/gain/ignorance/pressures cause him to ignore it, and he does evil. Men do these things not because they worship a different god from one another. They do them in the name of their god because they wish to do evil for pride's sake, the root of all evil.

[Dondarion]

I'm Murin wrote:

If Mark was writing several decades after the events, then he wrote the beginning already knowing the ending, and it's not exactly difficult to foreshadow the ending of your own book within its text. I fail to see how that becomes first-hand evidence?

And Paul didn't have any first-hand connection with Yeshuah, did he?

Mark was a known disciple of Peter, who personally witnessed these events. And Paul walked and talked with Peter personally (and quite likely other eye witnesses), and deferred to him as authoritative. He also experienced his own personal miraculous conversion, so I would consider these things a pretty good first-hand connection. The early desciples believed the Messiah would return in their lifetime, and so writing things down (most people were illiterate anyway) would not have been a first option. Once they realized there was another plan, it was decided to record the events.

So, these things do have logical reasons for why they were done as they were. Why do we leap to refute these accounts out of hand? They proclaim good news (gospels), not something tragic or repulsive. It's a message of hope for the hopeless. It's not a hocus pocus, cherry picking, belief system at all, but you won't see that unless to take a look inside. As CS Lewis described, you'll never know anything about faith until you decide to come in out of the hallway, pick a door. Open it with an open mind, and see where it leads you.

[michaelm]

ISIS (and anyone conducting such practices, past and present) is doing evil. There is nothing of faith in those actions.

I assume you accept the same of the crusaders of the First and Second Crusades?

[peter]

I'm an agnostic which according to Richard Dawkins makes me a 'palid lily-livered namby-pamby fence-squating wall-sitter'. Well, OK - I'll live with that, but the point is I see very little of this, what seems to me, the most rational of positions to take, in arguments of this kind. Why are we so few in number in comparison to those with absolute certainty in thier views? The 'I don't know' position can be just as much a thought-out one as the fundamentalist extremes of the opposing ends of this argument.

[michaelm]

I'm an agnostic which according to Richard Dawkins makes me a 'palid lily-livered namby-pamby fence-squating wall-sitter'. Well, OK - I'll live with that, but the point is I see very little of this, what seems to me, the most rational of positions to take, in arguments of this kind. Why are we so few in number in comparison to those with absolute certainty in thier views? The 'I don't know' position can be just as much a thought-out one as the fundamentalist extremes of the opposing ends of this argument.

Why do we even need the labels? I don't consider myself an atheist or an agnostic, I just don't have the slightest interest in religion other than from a historical or philosophical viewpoint.

If anyone wants to debate the existence of supernatural beings I'll give my viewpoint, but I won't tell them that they are wrong and I am right - just that I am not convinced by their arguments as I have never been given any reason to believe in something based on non-existent evidence.

[Vraith]

I'm an agnostic which according to Richard Dawkins makes me a 'palid lily-livered namby-pamby fence-squating wall-sitter'. Well, OK - I'll live with that, but the point is I see very little of this, what seems to me, the most rational of positions to take, in arguments of this kind. Why are we so few in number in comparison to those with absolute certainty in thier views? The 'I don't know' position can be just as much a thought-out one as the fundamentalist extremes of the opposing ends of this argument.

It's really just a quirk of mine, but I think a somewhat reasonable one:
Many, maybe most, of the believers I know believe in a way Dawkins would probably describe with the same terms...
They believe in a being...but don't know what s/he is really like [and can't], adhere more or less to their particular religion but are pretty sure it has some things wrong---about god, creation, traditions, rules, etc. No uncertainty about the existence...but much on many other issues.
To me, that non-specificity and unknowables makes them a variation on agnostic. [Agnostic Theism is a real thing...Ser is pretty close to it--- believe, but don't KNOW...so why not "I KNOW, but I'm not sure what to believe?"]

[peter]

Fair comment michaelm, but have you ever considered what for you, actually would constitute 'evidence'. And are there any things in this world at all that you are prepared to accept 'as a matter of faith' without evidence to back them up, and if so, what constitutes the difference between those things and the religion that you would not accord the same treatment?

[Frostheart Grueburn]

Carnivorous moss, huh? Now that I'd like to see....

(ali goes back to munching popcorn)

Here's some more for you.

[michaelm]

Fair comment michaelm, but have you ever considered what for you, actually would constitute 'evidence'. And are there any things in this world at all that you are prepared to accept 'as a matter of faith' without evidence to back them up, and if so, what constitutes the difference between those things and the religion that you would not accord the same treatment?

I think I probably do accept things on faith, but I would allow my opinion to be changed if any kind of proof for or against came to light. I'm certainly not going to say I'm immune to it, but in the case of religions I see far too many gaping holes in the arguments for.

As for what would constitute evidence, I would like to at least see correlation between various things, like the text of holy book and reality; praying for something and getting a result; good things happening to good people and bad things only happening to bad people, etc.

Right now I would consider the sum total of evidence for the existence of supernatural beings to be exactly zilch. No matter how many times I have asked the question, I either get the same stock answers or someone ends up flustered and trying to argue their way out of a contradiction of their own making.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm an agnostic which according to Richard Dawkins makes me a 'palid lily-livered namby-pamby fence-squating wall-sitter'. Well, OK - I'll live with that, but the point is I see very little of this, what seems to me, the most rational of positions to take, in arguments of this kind. Why are we so few in number in comparison to those with absolute certainty in thier views? The 'I don't know' position can be just as much a thought-out one as the fundamentalist extremes of the opposing ends of this argument.

It most certainly can be. Don't let people like Dawkins convince you otherwise. Some people have the need to have the absolute, one-and-only answer. Some questions must be answered for them. The psyches of others don't have that requirement.

[Dondarion]

michaelm wrote:

Dondarion wrote:

ISIS (and anyone conducting such practices, past and present) is doing evil. There is nothing of faith in those actions.

I assume you accept the same of the crusaders of the First and Second Crusades?

Absolutely, keeping mind that there were many crusaders being led from a position of ignorance, and so their culpability was perhaps mitigated. Mine is not to judge the person, but the action. And the action was evil.

And btw, while I may be embarrassed by the actions of the ancestors of my faith, I am not personally accountable, just as a modern day southerner is not responsible for all those lynchings, nor today's German citizen for the holocaust. So, let's stop attacking modern day people for the sins of their forefathers. We all have that in our lives, whether big or small, personal or national. Why do we want to take each other down, instead of lift each other up? Why? Again, the message is one of good news!

michaelm wrote:

I think I probably do accept things on faith, but I would allow my opinion to be changed if any kind of proof for or against came to light. I'm certainly not going to say I'm immune to it, but in the case of religions I see far too many gaping holes in the arguments for.

As for what would constitute evidence, I would like to at least see correlation between various things, like the text of holy book and reality; praying for something and getting a result; good things happening to good people and bad things only happening to bad people, etc.

Right now I would consider the sum total of evidence for the existence of supernatural beings to be exactly zilch. No matter how many times I have asked the question, I either get the same stock answers or someone ends up flustered and trying to argue their way out of a contradiction of their own making.

Then refute some of what has been stated in this thread making the argument for a God, and for Jesus Christ, and for a spiritual existence originating from God and meant to be holy. Throughout much of this thread, I have tried to make these cases the best way I know how. Many have taken them on and I have tried to counter (First says I have to do better, I know, but that's okay). Some I don't understand, I admit, but I try. I acknowledge where I am unsure, and where I have been wrong. I claim no absolute knowledge. I am a seeker. The agnostic acknowledges that he is likewise, and that's a good thing. It is correct that I say "I know, but I don't not know all that I think I know, and I am unsure of how I even know all I say I know". That is faith, and faith is real, but it can be supported by rational thought as well. This has been discussed in this thread (as well as the one on prostitution). Address the specific arguments, don't just say "I would allow my opinion to be changed if any kind of proof for or against came to light." Arguments have been made, so counter them, specifically. There are too many convenient generalizations without specific counter-arguments in these discussions. Hit the points that are raised, don't just cherry pick one thing, quote it because it looks like good fodder, and then take it off on a tangent and kill the whole argument because of it. The rest of the argument may (or may not) have merit, so address it all, each point. If you don't want to do that, then at least please don't post generic dismissive responses. It makes one appear as if they are simply predisposed to an opinion, and that's that. It may sound that way for me too, I have no doubt. But I will at least acknowledge merit when I see it.

For instance, nobody (except Orion) has addressed the possibilities of what could have happened on Easter morning. This ties to scripture, which is one of the things you are after. There are countless miracle stories in our world, and good things happen to good people all the time. The fact that they also happen to bad people (and vise-a-versa) is a function of man's choice. And who knows what else is at work anyway? Perhaps a great good or mercy shown toward such a person is just what he/she needs to bring them around? Who are we to judge? Before we pluck the sliver out of your neighbor's eye, we need to get the plank out of our own. (scripture).

michaselm wrote:

...praying for something and getting a result...

True story heard by me at church just a few short weeks ago:
Father and mother lose their 14 year old boy, and are heart broken. They cannot function, they are distraught. They pull away from all their friends, church groups, everything. One day, a couple months after hteir son's death, dad decides to drop to his knees and give it all up to God, but asks only for a sign that his son is okay. Within 10 minutes, the phone rings, and it's the kid's school principal calling the parents to ask them to come into school to do something. Dad goes down. The principal says it's time to clean out their son's locker, and so he does. While pulling things out, he notices a bible, and he thumbs through it and notices it has been used and marked in. He did not even know his 14 year old son had a bible, or cared about religion at all. He takes the stuff home to his wife and dumps it on the counter. When she sees the bible, she asks about it, and he says he is just as confused as she is. Curious, she opens the book, and falls on a page in the Book of Wisdom where it says:

The souls of the virtuous are in the hands of God,
no torment shall ever touch them.
In the eyes of the unwise, they did appear to die,
their going looked like a disaster, their leaving us, like annihilation;
but they are at peace.
If they experienced punishment as men see it,
their hope was rich with immortality;
slight was their affliction, great will their blessings be.
God has put them to the test and proved them to be worthy with him;
he tested them like gold in a furnace' and accepted them as a holocaust.
When the time comes for his visitation they will shine out;
as sparks run through the stubble, so will they.
They shall judge nations, rule over peoples,
and the Lord will be their king forever.
They who trust in him will understand the truth,
those who are faithful will live with him in love;
for grace and mercy await those he has chosen.
(Wisdom 3:1-9).

From that moment on, they returned to church, rejoined in life, and were alive again. God did this in them, no doubt.

[Fist and Faith]

As for what would constitute evidence, I would like to at least see correlation between various things, like the text of holy book and reality; praying for something and getting a result; good things happening to good people and bad things only happening to bad people, etc.

What are bad people? Is there such a thing as a bad person who does not do bad things to good people? Bad people are bad people because they do bad things to good people. If they didn't do bad things to good people, they wouldn't be bad people.

Am I making sense? I know what I mean, I just don't know if I'm saying it well.

[michaelm]

And btw, while I may be embarrassed by the actions of the ancestors of my faith, I am not personally accountable, just as a modern day southerner is not responsible for all those lynchings, nor today's German citizen for the holocaust. So, let's stop attacking modern day people for the sins of their forefathers. We all have that in our lives, whether big or small, personal or national. Why do we want to take each other down, instead of lift each other up? Why? Again, the message is one of good news!

I didn't try to make anyone accountable for the acts of their ancestors - I was just pointing out that calling out a particular religious group and saying their actions are not done out of faith is something that equally applies to christian groups, and I cited what to me was the most obvious example. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you are in any way responsible for any of those actions.

Arguments have been made, so counter them, specifically. There are too many convenient generalizations without specific counter-arguments in these discussions. Hit the points that are raised, don't just cherry pick one thing, quote it because it looks like good fodder, and then take it off on a tangent and kill the whole argument because of it. The rest of the argument may (or may not) have merit, so address it all, each point. If you don't want to do that, then at least please don't post generic dismissive responses. It makes one appear as if they are simply predisposed to an opinion, and that's that. It may sound that way for me too, I have no doubt. But I will at least acknowledge merit when I see it.

I'm not cherry picking something because it looks like good fodder, I'm looking at what makes no sense to me. If you really think I'm looking for argument fodder you're wrong - I'm only addressing the parts that seem to make no sense and don't really see the point in addressing the parts that don't seem to be assertions that aren't verifiable.

The fact that they also happen to bad people (and vise-a-versa) is a function of man's choice.

To illustrate, this is a perfect example of something that makes no sense to me - I questioned why bad things happen to good people and you say that the bad things are "a function of man's choice". Immediately I think of the bad things that happen to good people for no fault of their own. What about stillborn babies? What did they do wrong? What about churches that collapse on those who are worshiping there? What about good virtuous people who are murdered while they are doing the work of their religion? Why did god choose to let them die? He is after all omnipresent and omnipotent, so it makes no sense to me that this happens. The only plausible explanation to me is that there is no god.

michaselm wrote:

...praying for something and getting a result...

True story heard by me at church just a few short weeks ago:
Father and mother lose their 14 year old boy, and are heart broken. They cannot function, they are distraught. They pull away from all their friends, church groups, everything. One day, a couple months after hteir son's death, dad decides to drop to his knees and give it all up to God, but asks only for a sign that his son is okay. Within 10 minutes, the phone rings, and it's the kid's school principal calling the parents to ask them to come into school to do something. Dad goes down. The principal says it's time to clean out their son's locker, and so he does. While pulling things out, he notices a bible, and he thumbs through it and notices it has been used and marked in. He did not even know his 14 year old son had a bible, or cared about religion at all. He takes the stuff home to his wife and dumps it on the counter. When she sees the bible, she asks about it, and he says he is just as confused as she is. Curious, she opens the book, and falls on a page in the Book of Wisdom where it says:

The souls of the virtuous are in the hands of God,
no torment shall ever touch them.
In the eyes of the unwise, they did appear to die,
their going looked like a disaster, their leaving us, like annihilation;
but they are at peace.
If they experienced punishment as men see it,
their hope was rich with immortality;
slight was their affliction, great will their blessings be.
God has put them to the test and proved them to be worthy with him;
he tested them like gold in a furnace' and accepted them as a holocaust.
When the time comes for his visitation they will shine out;
as sparks run through the stubble, so will they.
They shall judge nations, rule over peoples,
and the Lord will be their king forever.
They who trust in him will understand the truth,
those who are faithful will live with him in love;
for grace and mercy await those he has chosen.
(Wisdom 3:1-9).

From that moment on, they returned to church, rejoined in life, and were alive again. God did this in them, no doubt.

The average bible has around 1,900 pages, so the chance of that happening by coincidence is around 1 in 1,900. The chance of winning powerball is around 1 in 175,000,000, yet that happens. The chance of getting a royal flush in the first 5 cards dealt in poker is 1 in 649,740 yet it happens.

1 in 1,900 is not outside the possibility of coincidence not by a long way.

You may have no doubt that god was responsible for this occurring, but to me that's not exactly odds that are so long that it couldn't happen without the existence of a god.

[Orlion]

Well, what really makes that story a "much more likely event" is that it appears as if the son was a pious, practicing Christian, to the point of having a Bible at school that was marked up (or used). During such tough times as what the parents went through, one or both was bound to ask the typical questions of God, why did this happen? Is my son continuing on a different plane of existence? And so forth. The time frame in such cases usually does not matter, just that they asked and felt like they got an answer. Which would have happened from a varied number of passages from their son's Bible (it is important that it was the son's, since that holds more meaning than a "typical" Bible).

So we are left with a narrative that can be interpreted in at least two ways, and it all depends on your belief in God. If you believe in God, you will see these events as God manipulating things to give answers to the parents that they desperately need. Whereas someone who does not believe in God would view it as an understandable and common sense of circumstances. Which is truth?

For the parents, the answer is clear. And though I would disagree, in such circumstances I would keep my mouth shut to the parents. However they get comfort is no skin off of my nose, so I do not need to crusade against their beliefs... that would make me kinda a bastard.

[Orlion]

Now, for a double post because this is different: I do not assign a moral value to mere faith. Faith is, in of itself, neither good nor bad. What gives it its value is what the faith is in. If you have faith in a benevolent God that encourages you to be charitable to your fellow humans, that is a good faith... the truth of the matter does not really factor into whether the faith is good or bad. If, on the other hand, you have faith in a bloodthirsty God that commands you to stone to death or behead anyone who would dare make fun of him or his elected...well, that's bad regardless of the truth of the matter.

I don't mind debating religious/scriptural points, but I am limiting myself in this thread so as not to hijack it. Otherwise, this would become a massive discussion of what Paul thought of the Resurrection event vs. what the Gospels tell of it... and how the Old Testament prophecies (where they weren't just flat out misquoted/madeup/wrong like that the Messiah would be a Nazarene) were clearly about past events and could really only be interpreted as applying to Jesus after the fact and some liberal interpretation on the part of the Matthew Gospel writer.

As I said, even that summary took up quite a bit

In Conclusion, it's Orlion with an 'L'!

[peter]

As for what would constitute evidence, I would like to at least see correlation between various things, like the text of holy book and reality; praying for something and getting a result; good things happening to good people and bad things only happening to bad people, etc.

It doesn't seem quite fair just to home in on this one thing, but in a strange mixed up way isn't this how the world actually works. There are many many people who are absolutely convinced that their prayers have been answered, so we have to accept their word on this and accord it the same weight as the evidence our own experience which might be to the contrary.
In respect of the good thriving and the bad being punished - well ok of course bad things happen to good people and the reverse, but in the main are you not more likely to thrive [under the Rule of Law - which might also be Gods work] if you follow the good path through life rather than the bad. And it's very difficult at the end of the day to actually decide who's good and who's bad [we're all in reality a mix of both] and to understand why [often] good people do bad things [and vica-versa]. Might it not be that on the whole the world does actually deliver on this evidence - just not in the 'micro-managed way' we would all like to see? And then you bring in free-will.......

[Dondarion]

peter wrote:

In respect of the good thriving and the bad being punished - well ok of course bad things happen to good people and the reverse, but in the main are you not more likely to thrive [under the Rule of Law - which might also be Gods work] if you follow the good path through life rather than the bad. And it's very difficult at the end of the day to actually decide who's good and who's bad [we're all in reality a mix of both] and to understand why [often] good people do bad things [and vica-versa]. Might it not be that on the whole the world does actually deliver on this evidence - just not in the 'micro-managed way' we would all like to see? And then you bring in free-will.......

Yes, I like this approach, it says it well. No one can explain all the whys and why nots, but that's our world. We can't judge these things. Who knows why something bad happened to a good person? Maybe there is a connection back through the years of man's bad choices that led to a situation that presented itself, or maybe there's just not. (i.,e., church collapsing on worshippers). Random things happen, I cannot explain them, and they hurt my heart as deeply as anyone else's. And someday I hope I will learn the why about that one. But for now, the point for me to take away is that imho, God allows these things because he wants us to wake up, take notice that life is precious, here and now, so we must seize the moment and turn away from what we know are our many bad ways, and do good.

michaelm wrote:

1 in 1,900 is not outside the possibility of coincidence not by a long way.

A long enough shot for me when I'm opening a book to a random page at a moment like that. And let's add the likelihood of the father dropping to his knees just when he did, and the school principal calling just after that, and the bible being there in the school locker (presumably the kid didn't always have it at school). But that doesn't matter anyway. It was a 'Godincidence' for these folks, and it transformed them. What does hitting a royal flush do for a person, in any truly meaningful/spiritual way?

P.S. Thanks, michaelm, for not taking anything I said in my previous post/diatribe the wrong way.. I wasn't sure how that might be construed. And your points are well taken.

[michaelm]

So we are left with a narrative that can be interpreted in at least two ways, and it all depends on your belief in God. If you believe in God, you will see these events as God manipulating things to give answers to the parents that they desperately need. Whereas someone who does not believe in God would view it as an understandable and common sense of circumstances. Which is truth?

Truth is a different concept from what is a logical conclusion. Truth is an abstract concept, and we can have different interpretations that are both labeled as 'true'. Blind faith allows for a lot of things to be 'truth' without the necessity of including such things as coincidence and possible while not probable.

For the parents, the answer is clear. And though I would disagree, in such circumstances I would keep my mouth shut to the parents. However they get comfort is no skin off of my nose, so I do not need to crusade against their beliefs... that would make me kinda a bastard.

I completely agree - I would never think to utter a word to them if they found comfort from that interpretation.

[Zarathustra]

I'm an agnostic which according to Richard Dawkins makes me a 'palid lily-livered namby-pamby fence-squating wall-sitter'. Well, OK - I'll live with that, but the point is I see very little of this, what seems to me, the most rational of positions to take, in arguments of this kind. Why are we so few in number in comparison to those with absolute certainty in thier views? The 'I don't know' position can be just as much a thought-out one as the fundamentalist extremes of the opposing ends of this argument.

I was a long time agnostic myself, so I can sympathize with this position. It wasn't until I read the God Delusion (Dawkins) that I changed my mind.

I don't think the issue is absolute certainty. After all, Dawkins presented a scale of certainty, and atheism can be held long before you get to the absolute end of that scale. The difference between agnosticism and atheism is the difference between making a decision and withholding judgment. For example, most of us believe in the discoveries and tenets of modern science. We're not fence-sitting or withholding judgment on the issue of black holes or quantum mechanics. These are accepted. But we're not absolutely certain, either. These beliefs--while extremely confident--are still tentative, as are all scientific beliefs. Likewise, if God could be proven, every atheist would believe. I'm not sure what kind of proof could be found, but if any being could prove his existence, an omnipotent being should be able to do the trick.

Dawkins convinced me that agnosticism isn't as rational as I used to think. For one, it's perfectly rational to align your beliefs with the way you live your life. If you behave in a way that doesn't take into account a god, then why hold out for the possibility of something that doesn't affect your life? If you're willing to risk your "eternal soul" on the proposition that religious tenets can't be proven, then why not go ahead and admit you don't believe they're true? You're already making an enormous gamble, according to Pascal. How could that gamble be half-hearted?

Also, Dawkins pointed out that the god concept is actually a quasi-scientific hypothesis which can be falsified, the way it is presented to us. God supposedly created the universe (in a very specific way, according to Genesis) and then repeatedly interfered in its affairs. These interactions with the universe are physical theories. They have all been shown to be false. There was no Flood as described in the Bible. The sun cannot be made to stand still in the sky. People can't be dead for three days and then rise again. People don't live for hundreds of years. Mortality doesn't come from eating Forbidden Fruit. The Bible--the source of the Western world's concept of God--is flat out false. It's a collection of myths, just like the Silmarillion. Are you agnostic about Eru Illuvatar? Probably not.

But even a more general concept of god as Creator is being undermined by quantum cosmology. We are developing testable theories for the creation of the universe itself which do not require magical intervention. Pretty soon there will be nothing left for any hypothetical god to do. What's the point of being omnipotent if you're utterly unnecessary?

It is not irrational to reject unnecessary concepts for which there is zero evidence. We do not have to withhold judgment on a concept just because someone can imagine that it's possible. As David Deutsch pointed out, existence of entities can be decided in as much as they feature in good explanations. God explains nothing.