Question for atheists...

[BeeDeePee]

If empirical evidence for a metaphysical being is impossible, do you have any non-empirical evidence that doesn't fall flat on its face by relying on logical fallacies?

Yes, I think I have good non-empirial evidence or reasons for believing in God. And not in a God in purely philosophical manner, but in a personal God.

1. In my opinion and opinion of some other theologians and philosphers, religion is not something that deals with politics or science. It's not a job of religion to give answers on such a questions. It doesn't deal with morality as much, because universal moral vaules are familiar to all people. As many scientists pointed out, morality is a product of evolution.

2. So, what is the subject of religion if it's not science, morality, culture? What can it give to us? The answer is that religion deals with our inner state. Religion is interested in transformation of our personality in its completeness. This determines religion as discipline that offers us a way (or ways, if we talk about many religions) how to change ourselves; how to improve and transform some properties and potentials that we have and how to set us free from others.

3. But the question that still remains and that should be resolved is: what God is the real one in which we should believe in? From my point of view, the answer on this question depends on analyzing of different "ways of transformation" and goals that different religions are suggesting to us. It would take too much time to speak about many religions and their teachings and techniques. That's why I'll speak only about religion to whom I belong. It's Orthodox Christianity.

I believe in Christ as a perfect model of person, with whom I want to identify myself, my personality and complete existence. It doesn't mean that the goal (according to Orthodox Christianity) is to convince yourself that you're Christ or something like that. It's rather a mental state someone is trying to achieve by using some techniques and living as a Christian.

But what kind of mental state is it? A state where you're released from negative passions (anger, pride etc.), while positive passions (sex drive etc.) are developed and transformed, so that you now live a new life, that overcomes biological existence. It is existence where you can be in loving communion with God and others in true and full sense of the word.

That's the goal I'm trying to achieve, and I know it is possible (not completely) because there are a lot of people through history who made it. Such people exist even today, and I met some of them.

So, in a brief: I think that other religions don't have better existential models but Christ. I may agree with other religious teachings at some degree, like buddhism and I appreciate some of them, but I think that Orthodoxy gives best answers on some of the most important questions, and has best effects on my person.

5. As I've said, morality has a little to do with religion. Someone who's atheist can be good or evil, and it has nothing to do with his/her beliefs/lack of beliefs. Thus, someone can ask me: "Can you be good without religion?Can you achieve the same goal without your religion"?

Yes, you can be good without religion, and no, you can not achieve the same goal. Although you can improve your potentials, you can not reach the same level of spiritual evolution. My experience and experience of others told me that this is not possible. I have period(s) when I declared myself as atheist, and lived without religion. But I couldn't achieve it. Therefore, I believe that this goal (that we in Orthodox Church call "theosis" or "deification") is a consequence of sinergy of God and man. That's why we insist on taking part in holy communion, where, we believe, we unite with God, through his energies, and on personal effort, that includes fasting, praying and other kinds of asceticism.


Hope this helps to understand my beliefs.

[downbeatplumb]

Yeah you believe because you want to...got it.

[BeeDeePee]

See you guys, I'll answer on other questions tomorrow.

---

Yeah you believe because you want to...got it.

Of course. I've chosen to believe in Orthodoxy because I found myself in this was of living.

[Angrboda]

I'm using the term "logical positivism" in a right way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
I've never said that they thought Bible can help us to understand and explain natural mechanisms. They just rejected the claim that all metaphysical claims are meaningless because they are not proven.

Priceless.

Claims to be using the term logical positivism properly... Gives an improper definition of logical positivism in the very next sentence...
Says that metaphysical claims from the past have been proven... Gives examples of non-metaphysical claims...
Claims to think for himself.... Presents the same arguments you've heard from a billion other theists....
Titles a thread "Question for atheists".... Uses it as a stalking horse to give you the theist's answer...

*sigh* Another day, another liar for God...

[Annik]

Sadly, that kind of evidence isn't proof of anything but that you get snuggly feelings when you think about your god.

[Mister Agenda]

What were the main reasons that led you to the conclusion that you shouldn't believe in God and belong to any religion?

Kudo given for no apparent deliberate attempt to build a trap into the question, although it is really two questions. My expectations in this regard have gotten severely low, so I think basic courtesy deserves recognition.

I don't believe in any God or gods because I don't know of any good reason to think they exist. I used to believe almost everything (Bigfoot, alien abduction, ghosts, ancient astronauts, ESP, Atlantis, etc.). As I got older, I learned about things like burden of proof, logical fallacies, and standards of evidence. After I stopped believing in all those other things, I realized I had stopped believing in God, too. I belong to a religion: Unitarian Universalism.

To be precise, I didn't conclude I shouldn't believe in God, there wasn't a day when I decided 'I'm not going to believe in God anymore due to lack of a coherent definition and convincing evidence'. I just noticed that at some point along the way, I had stopped believing. I don't think believing or not believing is something you decide: you believe what you're convinced of and you don't believe what you're not convinced of.

[pocaracas]

---

If empirical evidence for a metaphysical being is impossible, do you have any non-empirical evidence that doesn't fall flat on its face by relying on logical fallacies?

Yes, I think I have good non-empirial evidence or reasons for believing in God. And not in a God in purely philosophical manner, but in a personal God.

1. In my opinion and opinion of some other theologians and philosphers, religion is not something that deals with politics or science. It's not a job of religion to give answers on such a questions. It doesn't deal with morality as much, because universal moral vaules are familiar to all people. As many scientists pointed out, morality is a product of evolution.

---

2. So, what is the subject of religion if it's not science, morality, culture? What can it give to us? The answer is that religion deals with our inner state. Religion is interested in transformation of our personality in its completeness. This determines religion as discipline that offers us a way (or ways, if we talk about many religions) how to change ourselves; how to improve and transform some properties and potentials that we have and how to set us free from others.

The warm fuzzy feeling.
I can get that with a blanket!!

3. But the question that still remains and that should be resolved is: what God is the real one in which we should believe in?

Do we need to believe in the existence of some god?
If any god exists and wants us to acknowledge its existence, it should be self-evident.
If it isn't, then it must not want us to acknowledge it, or it doesn't exist. Either way, the atheist position seems the most reasonable.

I believe in Christ as a perfect model of person, with whom I want to identify myself, my personality and complete existence. It doesn't mean that the goal (according to Orthodox Christianity) is to convince yourself that you're Christ or something like that. It's rather a mental state someone is trying to achieve by using some techniques and living as a Christian.

But what kind of mental state is it? A state where you're released from negative passions (anger, pride etc.), while positive passions (sex drive etc.) are developed and transformed, so that you now live a new life, that overcomes biological existence. It is existence where you can be in loving communion with God and others in true and full sense of the word.

Ah... the warm fuzzy feeling again. -.-'

5. As I've said, morality has a little to do with religion. Someone who's atheist can be good or evil, and it has nothing to do with his/her beliefs/lack of beliefs. Thus, someone can ask me: "Can you be good without religion?Can you achieve the same goal without your religion"?

Yes, you can be good without religion, and no, you can not achieve the same goal. Although you can improve your potentials, you can not reach the same level of spiritual evolution. My experience and experience of others told me that this is not possible. I have period(s) when I declared myself as atheist, and lived without religion. But I couldn't achieve it. Therefore, I believe that this goal (that we in Orthodox Church call "theosis" or "deification") is a consequence of sinergy of God and man. That's why we insist on taking part in holy communion, where, we believe, we unite with God, through his energies, and on personal effort, that includes fasting, praying and other kinds of asceticism.


Hope this helps to understand my beliefs.

Aye, you believe what was implanted in your brain. And you were implanted with the notion that you belong in this social group called "orthodox christians", and you hang in there by following its rites.

[Mister Agenda]

Not just that such evidence doesnt' exist, but it is impossible to exist. Claim that states something like "God exists" is not scientifically tested, becaue you can not use hypothetico-deductive method upon that claim.

If God exists, why would it be impossible for evidence of God to exist? Well, I'm pretty sure the answer is that most people who make God claims nowadays have retreated to an undectable God who doesn't do anything detectable, but that's clearly because all the definitions of God that would allow him to be detected have already been falsified, so only an unfalsifiable God is left, and an unfalsifiable God is an unprovable God.

A God who made the universe and world and every living thing in six days: evidence says otherwise. A God who submerged the entire earth up to the mountaintops with water: evidence says otherwise. A God who is the eneffable ground of being: maybe, but who cares how many angels can dance on the head of THAT pin? The subcategory of creator Gods who might exist but there's no way of knowing is venerable and some of them contradict each other so they can't all be real but they can all be imaginary.

It's reasonable to want more than hearsay and speculation to believe something that important-and if it's true, it's VERY important-is true. It's not like you're asking us to believe you tied your shoelaces yourself this morning: THAT, I would take your word for.

[LastPoet]

Well, to put it simple, apparently, god is shy. Poor fella, lacks self confidence.

[Mister Agenda]

examples please

Examples for what? I've already given the examples of metaphysical claims (today, scientific claims) that are true.

They were always scientific claims about the actual state of the universe that were subject to falsification in theory even if the means to do so in actuality hadn't been achieved at the time. The propositions were based on reason applied to crude observations, not on reason applied to naked ideas.

---

My point is that you can not say that you know God doesn't exist, because there's no evidence that supports that statement.

Most of us don't say we know God doesn't exist. Most of us say 'give us a good reason to think God exists, and we'll consider it.'

So, any scientist who is setting a hypothesis (=probable explanation of some natural phenomenon) is irrational?

You've changed the terms from metaphysical claims to 'probable explanation of some natural phenomenon'. What we're saying is that heliocentrism and atomism were precisely probable explanations of some natural phenomenon-hypotheses. Someone would only be irrational to believe the earth revolves around the sun if they did not have a good reason to think it was true. Someone who takes a toke and says 'hey man, what if the EARTH revolved around the SUN?' and then believes its true without any more going into it is being irrational, and they are only right by coincidence.

Also, saying that something is irrational says mainly nothing about the qualty of it. Many things that we all appreciate (like art) are irrational, and it doesn't make them bad.

How is art irrational (not in accordance with reason or sound judgement)?

They are not metaphysical today, when scientists can use a lot of methods to test whether they are true or not. But they were metaphysical in the past when it was not possible.

They were based on observations. The observation that there seemed to be no end to how finely matter can be divided. I presume the heliocentric hypothesis arose from observations about the parallax of stars that couldn't be confirmed before telescopes were invented. It's not the property of 'unconfirmable yet' that makes a claim unscientific. I would say 'based on no observations' would be one tip off that a claim is unscientific.

---

Slow down people, I can not speak with ten of you.

No worries, we understand. Pro tip: if you focus on the most substantive posts (or sections of posts), we tend to be understanding. Skip the quips and jibes entirely, they're just chatter.

---

If empirical evidence for a metaphysical being is impossible, do you have any non-empirical evidence that doesn't fall flat on its face by relying on logical fallacies?

Yes, I think I have good non-empirial evidence or reasons for believing in God. And not in a God in purely philosophical manner, but in a personal God.

1. In my opinion and opinion of some other theologians and philosphers, religion is not something that deals with politics or science. It's not a job of religion to give answers on such a questions. It doesn't deal with morality as much, because universal moral vaules are familiar to all people. As many scientists pointed out, morality is a product of evolution.

2. So, what is the subject of religion if it's not science, morality, culture? What can it give to us? The answer is that religion deals with our inner state. Religion is interested in transformation of our personality in its completeness. This determines religion as discipline that offers us a way (or ways, if we talk about many religions) how to change ourselves; how to improve and transform some properties and potentials that we have and how to set us free from others.

3. But the question that still remains and that should be resolved is: what God is the real one in which we should believe in? From my point of view, the answer on this question depends on analyzing of different "ways of transformation" and goals that different religions are suggesting to us. It would take too much time to speak about many religions and their teachings and techniques. That's why I'll speak only about religion to whom I belong. It's Orthodox Christianity.

I believe in Christ as a perfect model of person, with whom I want to identify myself, my personality and complete existence. It doesn't mean that the goal (according to Orthodox Christianity) is to convince yourself that you're Christ or something like that. It's rather a mental state someone is trying to achieve by using some techniques and living as a Christian.

But what kind of mental state is it? A state where you're released from negative passions (anger, pride etc.), while positive passions (sex drive etc.) are developed and transformed, so that you now live a new life, that overcomes biological existence. It is existence where you can be in loving communion with God and others in true and full sense of the word.

That's the goal I'm trying to achieve, and I know it is possible (not completely) because there are a lot of people through history who made it. Such people exist even today, and I met some of them.

So, in a brief: I think that other religions don't have better existential models but Christ. I may agree with other religious teachings at some degree, like buddhism and I appreciate some of them, but I think that Orthodoxy gives best answers on some of the most important questions, and has best effects on my person.

5. As I've said, morality has a little to do with religion. Someone who's atheist can be good or evil, and it has nothing to do with his/her beliefs/lack of beliefs. Thus, someone can ask me: "Can you be good without religion?Can you achieve the same goal without your religion"?

Yes, you can be good without religion, and no, you can not achieve the same goal. Although you can improve your potentials, you can not reach the same level of spiritual evolution. My experience and experience of others told me that this is not possible. I have period(s) when I declared myself as atheist, and lived without religion. But I couldn't achieve it. Therefore, I believe that this goal (that we in Orthodox Church call "theosis" or "deification") is a consequence of sinergy of God and man. That's why we insist on taking part in holy communion, where, we believe, we unite with God, through his energies, and on personal effort, that includes fasting, praying and other kinds of asceticism.

Hope this helps to understand my beliefs.

Not for nothing, but I don't see anything in that, that leads to the conclusion that a supernatural being who created the universe is real. Are you saying that believing that is necessary to the spiritual practice you're engaged in, and that's sufficient reason for you to believe?

I'm not going to give you a hard time about that, as I observed before, belief isn't something you can turn on or off a a whim, if you believe, it's because you're convinced, even if others wouldn't find the same reasons convincing.