Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.

[Tempus]

HO HO HO, PAPA BEAR IS BACK. SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

Right, now let's get this circus on the road!

---

---

Ok let's discuss the following two possibilties:

1) God exists.
2) God doesn't exist.

If 1) is true, do you think it's logically possible that God makes us perceive him and know of him intuitively or in properly basic knowledge manner?

If #1 is true, you'd still have your work cut out to make a logical argument that it's possible to know god intuitively. A logical conclusion is reached by a logical argument, which must be both sound and valid to justify said conclusion. Logical arguments can be false though if, for example, they don't take into account relevant information. In such cases it could be because this information constitutes an "unknown unknown" - i.e., a necessary variable which is not only unaccounted for, but it's very existence is outside the scope of current knowledge. Logical arguments are used to determine how justified we are in believing things and aid in discovering new things, but they don't necessarily adhere to reality. I think what I've said here is right, someone correct me if I'm wrong!

For a logical argument about a god to begin to take form we would need some premises which were true to create an argument from; something like "a god exists", for example. If a god exists but we don't know about it we can't make logical arguments about it. I know you're not Christian, but I'll use an example with the Christian god below:

1) God exists.
2) This god dictated its will in the Bible.
3) The Bible says we can know and develop a relationship with God via means other than traditional forms of communication (such as writing, speaking, etc).
4) Therefore we can know God via [prayer, intuition, whatever].

The point I'm illustrating here is that you'd need to actually establish a god exists prior to making any logical conclusions about its methods of communications. Other requisite premises might include "this god is interested in communication with humans."

I actually take issue with your dichotomy. I think you adopt to narrow a view like Pascal with his wager. To me it's not quite as simple as either a god exists or it doesn't. What about gods?

1) God A exists.
2) God B exists.
3) God C exists.
4) God D exists.
etc, etc
5) Set of gods X exist (e.g. Norse, Greek, Aztec gods, etc).
6) Set of gods Y exist.
7) Set of gods Z exist.
etc, etc
8) No gods exist.

If 2) is true, what is the basis of the delusion and how do I get out of it?

Firstly, I don't know if it's a delusion. According to the first line of Wikipedia's article on delusion (I'm too lazy to read further): "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." While I don't think there's any reason to believe in a god or gods, I personally wouldn't say there's "superior evidence to the contrary", nor that you have a "strong conviction" since you're actually examining your beliefs. I think you've used poor reasoning to reach your conclusion. I don't think you're deluded. The reason I don't believe in gods is because I have no reason to. While it's true sometimes I feel bad when I see suffering, this isn't always the case and there have been times in my life where I've actually enjoyed inflicting suffering upon others (should I have listened to all the feelings inside me telling me to hurt that person?), or when I've thought someone betrayed me when they didn't (false intuition). I often find myself restraining my instincts and intuition (I'm not saying they're the same by the way) rather than following them.

The best way to avoid believing falsehoods is to stop believing things without justification and/or evidence. For some people this means a fundamental change in their worldview, especially if they're assuming the existence of gods, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, etc. I'd recommend familiarising yourself with good reasoning and logical fallacies as well as cognitive biases and psychology as it relates to such beliefs.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

It is clear that Mystic is unwilling to examine the difference between reasoning and "feelings". This has been pointed out and he refuses to consider there is a difference. If you call that sensible, you can have it.

You're certainly not inviting any change in attitude by being an asshole. If you're trying to promote rational thinking, you're doing a piss poor job of it.

And you think that my criticizing his irrational rationale is an ad hominem fallacy (it is not) and a personal attack (which it was not either), and accuse me of being an asshole over it (thereby turning around and employing the same sort of personal attack you are whining about as you try to strawman it at me). How interesting. If you think you are promoting or using rational thinking, you're doing a piss poor job of it.

---

Is Mystic paying you to brown-nose him like this?


You kiddies have fun dreaming up smoke screens for your disingenuous little friend, I've got far better things to do this night than entertain your irrelevant quibbling.

Oh, I'm sure you do. That's why you're here injecting your hateful bullshit into this thread.

Casting my criticism of his rationale as "hateful bullshit". No wonder you are so enamored with his illogic.

I like how you ignorantly accuse Annik's hyperbole as being a strawman, then turn right around and commit a logical fallacy of your own.

You have demonstrated no logical fallacy here on my part, but yes you have shown a great deal of your own ignorance.

---

...you'd need to actually establish a god exists prior to making any logical conclusions about its methods of communications. Other requisite premises might include "this god is interested in communication with humans."
....I actually take issue with your dichotomy...[etc]

Precisely.

[Mystic]

It makes sense not to kill people, it's something you should know naturally.

This what I was getting at. You know it naturally. Yet many people despite knowing this naturally, also believe otherwise.

---

HO HO HO, PAPA BEAR IS BACK. SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

Right, now let's get this circus on the road!

---

---

Ok let's discuss the following two possibilties:

1) God exists.
2) God doesn't exist.

If 1) is true, do you think it's logically possible that God makes us perceive him and know of him intuitively or in properly basic knowledge manner?

If #1 is true, you'd still have your work cut out to make a logical argument that it's possible to know god intuitively. A logical conclusion is reached by a logical argument, which must be both sound and valid to justify said conclusion. Logical arguments can be false though if, for example, they don't take into account relevant information. In such cases it could be because this information constitutes an "unknown unknown" - i.e., a necessary variable which is not only unaccounted for, but it's very existence is outside the scope of current knowledge. Logical arguments are used to determine how justified we are in believing things and aid in discovering new things, but they don't necessarily adhere to reality. I think what I've said here is right, someone correct me if I'm wrong!

For a logical argument about a god to begin to take form we would need some premises which were true to create an argument from; something like "a god exists", for example. If a god exists but we don't know about it we can't make logical arguments about it.

Well to me if God exists, he can give us knowledge of anything he wants. This seems to be a solid premise. Aside from that, if he exists and we are linked to him, it seems possible that we can be aware of this link. Also if the nature of greatness, honour, goodness, all have him as the eternal basis, then I don't see why they wouldn't point to Eternal Basis and Person-hood of God.

I think also if we a spirit/soul, then spiritual knowledge, eyes of the soul, is very possible.

Naturally if God exists, he can create us with knowledge of himself. The knowledge would be based on reality and a link to him.

If God is like the Sun behind the rays of morality, greatness, honour, why shouldn't we able to perceive him?

[Whateverist]

If God is like the Sun behind the rays of morality, greatness, honour, why shouldn't we able to perceive him?

Good question. Why then are we unable to detect such an entity?

[Mystic]

What about gods?

A god is just a being worthy of worship. We already honour some humans to a very high degree. I would not be suprised if God's plan for every creation to to ascend to godhood and beyond.

This would not make the equal to God in anyway. Because God is Ultimate Greatness.

To me however it seems logical if God is Ultimate, he is also Ultimate Life. And if he is Ultimate life, there is no life that is really "aside from him" but is rather existing DUE to him. There life is not their own, but that God gives it to them.

This would mean originally, there had to be One Creator.

Does it mean a creation can never reach the level that they deserved to be honored to the level of worship?

No. It depends on you perception of "worship". To me an honourable human can reach the level of godhood. Why? Because his goodness in him has that potential.

Do I know of any "gods" aside from God? No.

But a character like Batman if he were to exist, to me, would be a god.

---

Good question. Why then are we unable to detect such an entity?

lol but I think we are able to! Well perhaps you mean "we" as "us atheists".

I am going to go back to my "don't kill apostates" rule. Because some Muslims feel the need to follow their scholars and hadiths regarding this issue, they will "bury" that knowledge, but the knowledge is never gone and always shouting at them, whenever they think of the issue.

Now Atheists did an honest mistake in my perspective. They said "We aren't aware of an analytical proofs of God, no logical argument, so I have no reason to believe". Then they perceived all those believing in God to do so without knowledge.

Then they lived a long time and got emotionally attached to their decision.

Now just as "religion" can blind people, for example, some think it's "good" to torture humans for disbelieving in a true religion, due to religion, while deep down inside, they know to be wrong and ugly and evil, the same can be about emotional attachment to "atheism" (non belief in God).

So the knowledge of God to me, that perception is still there, even in Atheists, it's just they have to pull "God's sword" (so to speak) out of the rubble (so to speak).

Another issue is that religions like Christianity and Islam paint a very ugly image of God, and once you leave the religion, "God" is that to you, and you feel emotionally against that God.

Of course, those that mixed knowledge of God with that of indoctrination and religions, and then those chose to rely on religion's concept which was somewhat correct, and somewhat wrong, and relied on the wrong, and buried the correct knowledge, then when indoctrination left...it felt that all the knowledge of God was a delusion. The reason is because THAT god was a delusion.

The real God however, the true beauty, the true greatness, is not a delusion.

That God is not to be perceived through eyes of religion, but through the eyes of the soul unshackled from pressure of religion.

[Ace Otana]

This what I was getting at. You know it naturally. Yet many people despite knowing this naturally, also believe otherwise.

People who aren't grown up enough or mentally unstable who know that killing people is wrong and still think it's ok to kill are known as psychopaths, religious fanatics/terrorists and many more. People who have no problem killing or rationalising killing tend to have some kind of mental disorder.

Killing someone because they're not in your particular religion is pathetic. You don't see scientists killing people just because some don't like facts.

[Mystic]

Killing someone because they're not in your particular religion is pathetic.

Well, they don't kill people just because they are not in particular religion. They kill people for leaving their religion.

I see it as wrong and evil, but it's a "buried" evil with them. Scholars of Islam from all schools teach this law.

It's also wrong because it contradicts their own holy book which teaches otherwise. (They follow narrations here over Quran)

Any ways, the point is we can KNOW some things naturally (not everything), without needing to rely on analytical proofs.

There are something we only know after analytical reasoning. There are something we know without analytical reasoning.

Killing people for fun is properly basic knowledge to be evil and wrong. We don't need to argue why even if there is good arguments as to why it's evil and wrong. We simply know it and perceive it as such.

[Ace Otana]

Well, they don't kill people just because they are not in particular religion. They kill people for leaving their religion

And that's any less stupid? It's pathetic. If someone leaves your religion, you don't kill them. It's barbaric. Change is important, if that change means the leaving of one ideology and adopting a new perspective on things, then perhaps it's better to just let the change occur.

I see it as wrong and evil, but it's a "buried" evil with them. Scholars of Islam from all schools teach this law.

And I consider them vile.

It's also wrong because it contradicts their own holy book which teaches otherwise.

It's wrong because we're supposed to be smart enough not to kill each other. Especially for such stupid reasons. There's no need for it.

We don't need to argue why even if there is good arguments as to why it's evil and wrong. We simply know it and perceive it as such.

We need a sense of right and wrong. We naturally care for one and another. It's a requirement for our survival. If we went about killing each other, we'd go extinct. And that's natural selection, we survive by working together, if that stopped we'll be selecting ourselves for extinction.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

It makes sense not to kill people, it's something you should know naturally.

This what I was getting at. You know it naturally. Yet many people despite knowing this naturally, also believe otherwise.

It is reasonable for a lot of reasons, but none of them require a supposed divine authority.

Well to me if God exists, he can give us knowledge of anything he wants.

Way to totally disregard the good advice given you. Your presupposition "if gawd exists" begs the question, and everything that you follow with falls because of it. Again you are attempting to sidestep your burden of proof, an end run around your responsibility to support logic with facts. Again you got caught in your own end zone.

This seems to be a solid premise.

That is not a premise. That is an assertion by fiat. It is also circular reasoning, presupposing your own conclusion.

Aside from that, if he exists and we are linked to him, it seems possible that we can be aware of this link. Also if the nature of greatness, honour, goodness, all have him as the eternal basis, then I don't see why they wouldn't point to Eternal Basis and Person-hood of God.

All of this the product of your initial question-begging. And all of this simply being made-up as you go along. Patho-logical.

I think also if we a spirit/soul, then spiritual knowledge, eyes of the soul, is very possible.

Begging the question again. You would have to demonstrate that this "soul/spirit" exists.

Naturally if God exists, he can create us with knowledge of himself. The knowledge would be based on reality and a link to him.

And this is just hyperbole and word salad.

If God is like the Sun behind the rays of morality, greatness, honour, why shouldn't we able to perceive him?

And, as has already been pointed out, no one has perceived such a being. If anyone could have, they would have shoswn it to the rest of us.

[Mystic]

Ace Otana - we agree.

Well sort of, I don't consider scholars or those whom believe in this law to be vile. Just twisted and indoctrinated.