Strong Atheism starts from faith

[tackattack]

---

I'll try to keep this concise since my conversations are spread over several PM's and lots of threads.

1- I believe you're associating my idea of God's aspects with the possibility of God's existence. They are distinctly different.

One assumes the other. They are different concepts, but you cannot have an idea of God's aspects without the possibility of his existence, and vice versa. They are connected.

2-The beginings of my religion started with faith alone. I rejected my parent's faith and soughts answers for myself through other religions and attempted to reationalize their beliefs. Then I starting doubting any faith, so I guess I was an agnostic atheist for a while and was sufficed to live my own life. I applied logic and materialism to reality till I had developed those processes. After a time it seemed hollow and I found myself searching again. This time armed with reason (inductive and deductive) I went about assesing my beliefs in any and everything. When I came to religion. I then reassed my religious beliefs nad that's why I label myself as Christian. I used:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts;

Empirical facts not available to everyone or interpreted the same way. Purely subjective and used for your sole purposes. Not testable by independent sources or verifiable. Am I correct?

Forming hypotheses.
My experiences lead me to for a hypothesis that God could exist. I place faith in that hypothesis for furthering of the study then ..

You need to understand that when you place faith into it, it becomes non-falsifiable, and therefore a null argument. You can't use the scientific method on something that you've already concluded and can't disprove even if you wanted to.

Inductive Reasoning- The quantum singularity (which I'm deeply studying now.. well procrastinating a tad bit) would be the only qualifiable falsifier for the premise.

You conclude that something which you do not understand could be the only viable falsifier for the premise, yet you've already concluded the experiment and called it for Christianity. I don't agree with it being a viable falsifier, because it still does not release the possibility of there being any gods in any alternate universes or realities, or any gods that operate in frequencies we cannot yet determine.

Deduction: Deducting consequenses of hypotheses as testable predictions. I couldn't claim tru or false on this but it was valid IMO.
Testing: I tested, albeit subjective as best I could for something otuside the realm of the known universe and it was repeatable and seemed to coincide with peer review.
Evaluation: I am constantly evaluating reevaluating and going through the process again, which was one reason I'm here.
3- I believe you are underestimating my convictions. I freely admit that my concepts of God rest solely conceptually in my mind. That doesn't equal "there's no evidence for God". Those mental constructs (which I would group with math, etc.) along with inductive reasoning and subjective personal perspective and peer-review help me form my belief, which is well above the threshold of belief in God for me. I may not have developed the most accurate concept of what God is, but I have little doubt that God doesn't exist in some form beyond our current understanding.

Validation of the hypothesis is a conclusion. If you couldn't claim true or false, then you didn't have enough evidence to make the claim - it becomes a null argument.

What did you test, and where is the peer reviewed article?

The fact that the evidence for God rests solely in your mind is exactly why there is no OBJECTIVE evidence for God. You can use rationalization, find evidence, but unless it's repeatable and testable by independent unbiased sources, you cannot make that claim for everyone else.

I would love to see the article and in which journal it was published.

4- Let's talk specifically about your alternate explinations for 4.3/5/6/7and 8. I'm too tired and have to go home and to bed. I've spent far too much time in my PM's so state your alternate explination please and we'll compare notes.

I don't look to invalidate your reasons for believing, but if you want to delve into this, it's fine by me.

This is what you wrote:

4.3-There is a strong distinction from the biological responses from stimuli and the "rushing of the spirit". I won't specify what outside stimuli on the forums (whether chemical or psychological).
4.5-Synchronicity every day, minor and major
4.6-Healing from laying on hand and prayer for others and self.
4.7-A galvanizing force, not explainable with my logic to originate from self, acting on my perception, will and control
4.8-a buried post waiting for seponse from Void


4.3 - When you are in a highly suggestive and excited state, your brain creates stimuli that can manifest in other regions of the body. You can feel a presence that's not really there. It's the same effect when football players get hyped for a big game. They are overcome with an intangible force, when it's just their brain releasing amounts of dopamine and adrenaline.

This effect has been replicated artificially and tested.

Here are some sources:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/ne...hmood.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/26/news/mn-43266

http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~bhidalgo/litreview.htm

4.4 - lulz.

4.5 - The concept of synchronicity is purely subjective. Obviously not everything is a cause for everything else. Not everything contains a profound meaning. It means just as much as you want it to mean, and should understand that chance plays a part in every facet of life. The fact that something happens in a coincidental manner is not evidence for a divine being, it just means you're noticing it more and making the connection between causality and God. Your perception of synchronicity came from the belief in God, not the other way around.

4.6 - You have an immune system. That immune system has also been shown to heal faster and work more efficiently when you don't have stressors acting on it, much the way you would when you're in prayer - a relatively more relaxed state. Think about this - if prayer was an effective and verifiable healing method, why is there modern medicine? Why not teach doctors to summon God's healing powers? It's because it's a psuedoscience, and has no merit in the scientific world. This is another case of subjective connect the dots.

4.7 - For lack of a more suitable term, it's a psychological defense mechanism to rid yourself of any personal responsibility. It's an excuse. The only one controlling you is you. If you think you really have voices in your head controlling your thoughts and actions and impacting your will, get to a psychotherapist, because something is wrong.

What would happen if that force decides to do harm in the name of God? Would you allow it? Or would you just have faith that such a thing would not happen?

The conscience is a concept that can guide you based on your personal moral views as they pertain to your survival and procreation, but saying something has taken over control of your body is somewhat disturbing. If that is the case, get help.

4.8 - You wrote around 30 points. To each of those points you could write a paragraph explaining faulty reasoning. You'd have to write nothing less than a 4-5 page essay on the subject, just so it can be dismissed because faith trumps all. Some people just don't have that kind of time nor devotion to arguing on an internet forum.

I attempted to do it, but it was an exercise in futility as there were simply too many points made to argue every single one in a respectable time frame. I stopped caring and let it go, frankly.


Again, I don't mean to invalidate a damn thing you experienced, but please know that none of these things are outside of the realm of explanation. They have happened before and will happen again to people. They are not isolated or unique phenomena.

---

You act like I'm afraid to lose my belief? Do I really seem to be that unopen to new ideas? Am I not a Christian talking openly on an atheist forum? True I didn't come here to question my belief ony to understand a different POV, but that doesn't mean I'll reject it outright because I'm afraid I'll lose some reward in heaven... that's preposterous. Make your points or don't, but don't try to save me from your almighty logic, before you even posit a response.This is just an exchange of ideas.. in no way a formal debate (which I refuse to participate in) and I'm fully capable of accepting new ideas.

1- correct but you also assume the possibility that God exists, unless you're an absolutist, which I don't gather. So we'll discus my concept of God then.
2-Empirical as in data produced through experiment or experience (subjective or objective). Verifiable through continuous and exploration and logical inference.
3-The validity is sound only when all variables are accounted for. Since we're talkigng on a scale as large as God then I simply look for more varialbles to eliminate and reassess. The whole of me being on this forum is a search for variables I've missed.
3.5-Do you really expect a peer review article published in a scientific journal? Yoiu can do better than that. If you would like documented or shared experience look up the word testimonial.
4.3- I too was in wresting as a youth and definately had that dopamine/adrenalin rush before a game when we were psyching ourselves up. That is dependant on either suggestability or seeking a "high". I rarely seek the holy spirit's intervention, in fact that's probably my worst trait as a Christian not seeking God's help in my daily life. People are deemed to be suggestible if they accept and act on suggestions by others. I only act of my own volition whenever I'm not forced to do something, which is rarely I'm 6'4" and 260 lbs.
4.4 lolz ?? idk what happened I was tired and it was longer than I wanted already.
4.5-I agree that my perceptions of synchonicity have greatly increased since my reentering into religion. I wouldn't say I didn't see any coincidence while a nonbeliever. The causality train just seem far smaller without religion. Perhaps I was just paying attention less to why I was doing what I was doing?
4.6healing by prayer is probably more of a psychological stress relief allowing the immune system to work better I'll conceed that. How then could I know when to "randomly" pray for someone in need when consciously I had no thoughts on that person's wellbeing or life?
4.7-Once again another atheist saying I need clinical help... really? Why when I rationally and honestly answer the quesitons in as concise a manner as I can, am I reffered to psychiactric help or told to jump into traffic? Sounds like someone has a psychological defence mechanism preventing them from actually looking at themselves and focusing solely on others for accountability.. and it's not me. I'm away I act on my own, I have no puppetmaster pulling strings so that I grab a girls butt as she walks by... ridiculus. I don't take credit for anything the holy spirit does, it's actually a common Chrisitan habit. I do however take complete responsibility for everything my body does. I've never heard a Christian that I've know say I stole her purse because God told me to do it, not a rational one at least. Maybe you should take some responsibility for that vomit you just threw up, or am I responsible for that?
4.8- If you don't care that's fine we'll just dismiss those, I have no problems saving time.

"They have happened before and will happen again to people. They are not isolated or unique phenomena. " That's exactly my point. They're not unique, just shared experience. atheists say they're unique not theists. Perhaps you're missing out?