The honest truth of it?

[Watson]

You guys here talk a lot about intellectual honesty and being truthful with oneself, and it always seems to boil down to what the individual person's view of 'honest' is. What is true to one person is most certainly not always true for another. Perspective is, of course, subjective. It cannot be any other way.

So it is that we are asked to define and explain our own personal world-view by others, so that they may better understand this view and perhaps learn to share in it. This is the nature of learning and expanding as a human being. We seek answers and we search for closure and understanding so we can better progress through life to the best of our abilities.

With that said, of course when an Atheist asks a Christian or any believer for that matter what they believe in and why, we will try to answer to the best of our ability and understanding. It is our very nature to try and understand God as best as we can, of course, and anyone who asks for or seeks answers on what we believe will get the best explanation possible. Or maybe not, depending on the person.

But there is one problem any smart believer will have when faced with attempting to describe and explain God to a non-believer, and it is really a very simple one; the entirity of God cannot be explained.

I fully admit that I do not understand or know everything about God. There is no possible way any one, individual human with our limited subjective perspective could accurately and fully explain something so massive, yet so simple. To do so would require a completely objective stance, a perspective completely free of individual preconception and bias. Essentially, to do so, one would require...well, a complete oneness with God in His entirity. haha

This is how God works. In order to truly understand what a believer is saying, an atheist or non-believer of any sort needs to first experience God for his or herself, and attempt to honestly further their understanding of that experience on their own time. A paradox is created here, you see. A non-believer simply is not going to recognize the experience for what it is, and will likely brush it off with some kind of dismissal or denial of the experience's relation to God.

Thus, a non-believer will turn to a believer for answers that he or she cannot find, and the circle is perpetuated. We can explain, describe, convey, and give examples of God or experiences related to Him all we want, but ultimately it wont make much sense until you recognize your own experiences as part of the same phenomena as what we are describing. A non-believer wants a believer to give him or her all of the answers to all of the questions, and that simply is not going to happen.

So there you have it. You want honesty, you got it. There's a boat-load of honesty about how I feel, about how I believe, about God, how God works, and about how God relats or does not relate to a non-believer. Love it or hate it, discuss it all you want. That's about as honest as I can get, and I am sure you'll all have some nice(or not) counter points to shove in my face as soon as I post this topic. So have at it!

Cheers, friends!

[Paul the Human]

So it all boils down to... you believe god is real and we do not. You talk about the 'experience of god' and how we atheists do not recognize it for what it is... but we think you are imagining things and applying your wishes to your perceptions... thus skewing them.

In order to 'experience god' the way you are saying, one must already believe that god exists. So, as far as an argument to use on atheists... it is not going to work... period.

[Darwinian]

This reminds me of one of the original Star Trek films after Spock had been brought back to life. Bones wanted to discuss what it was like for Spock and Spock replied, "It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame of reference." to which Bones replied, "You mean I have to have been dead before we can have a conversation?"

It was never brought up again :S

[Minimalist]

Next time you think you are experiencing 'god', Watson, take an Ex-Lax and see if you feel better.




In the long run its far cheaper than giving money to some "church."

[Paul the Human]

Here is the atheist version, Watson.

I'd like to think it is possible that someday you will allow yourself to experience the reality of life, the universe, and everything, without coloring that experience with superstitious make-believe. If you do, a bulb might light up in your mind and you will experience an intellectual awakening the likes of which you have yet to experience. Most of us atheists have had that experience. We started out like you and then, one day... we saw the truth. Having never had the experience of non-biased reality, you really don't know how to recognize it. The first step is to give up believing in fairy-tales. Realization and intellectual awakening will follow.

That is the truth as I see it.

[Watson]

I do not give money to any church in the first place, Min.

I like that comparison, actually, Darwinian. It is the same as what I am saying. Because how can you understand something you have not experienced? In fact, if we want to get into it for real...how do we know what death is like without experiencing death? We don't even know if death is an experience or not. Obviously, I would say it is and you would say it isn't, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant here is that we cannot know, and that only belief can give us even an inkling of understanding towards what we do not know. Belief, applied correctly, is completely logical.

Which actually sequeways easily and perfectly into my response to you, Paul. Yes, belief is the only way one can recognize their experiences as God. Yes, I believe in God and you do not. However, one need not name what they are recognizing 'God' at all. As I've stated numerous times, in my own change from atheism to belief, I encountered situations which I recognized as not logically explainable through any means but belief in God.

Belief is the prerequisite for understanding, but it does not automatically instill this understanding in someone. Look at fundamentalists. They believe, but they do not understand what it is they are believing in.

As for your above post, Paul, I can only say that it is reiddled with fallacy. You posit and you speculate, but you show no understanding. You merely demonstrate wishful thinking when you say "I'd like to think that one day..." You delve no further than your own understanding of the world, and make no attempt to see it in an unbiased light. You use condescending terms such as 'make-believe' and 'fairy tale', when you do not understand what it is you are condescending.

If ever I meet a true atheist, I will stop believing on the spot.

[Paul the Human]

As for your above post, Paul, I can only say that it is reiddled with fallacy. You posit and you speculate, but you show no understanding. You merely demonstrate wishful thinking when you say "I'd like to think that one day..." You delve no further than your own understanding of the world, and make no attempt to see it in an unbiased light. You use condescending terms such as 'make-believe' and 'fairy tale', when you do not understand what it is you are condescending.

If ever I meet a true atheist, I will stop believing on the spot.

There is no fallacy. "I'd like to think that one day..." is my way of saying that I think you seem like an intelligent person and I'd like to think that someday that intelligence will win out over your reliance on superstitious self-delusion. My understanding of the world does not rely on invisible deities or miraculous occurrences for explanations. I see it in the light of what I can perceive and know to be true, not what might exist or what I've been told... or what I wish were true.

And I use those 'condescending' terms to accentuate my point that I do not believe in any of that. In my completely honest opinion... it is all make-believe and fairy-tales... and believing in any of it is a form of self-delusion. Perhaps not consciously, but it is self-delusion, nonetheless.

News Flash! You have met a true atheist. I truly do not believe that god(s) of any description ever existed, nor ever will. I do not believe in an afterlife, nor do I believe in Jesus Christ... not even as an historical person. All fiction. Every last word.

Now, don't get upset that I feel that way. I don't hold your tendency to self-delude against you as a person. In fact, I think you're a pretty good guy. I just think you are unenlightened about the existence of god.

[Watson]

I like you, too, Paul. LOL

And if there's one thing I agree with you on, it is that the human mind has the powerful ability of self delusion. It is an incredibly powerful force, but it is nothing that cannot be overcome. Denial only reaches so far and only holds so long. The perserveraance of man can endure. I think you are very much aware of this, just like I am. I simply think that you deny it more than you'd like to admit.

My world-view does not rely on invisible deities or miraculous occurences any more than yours does. First because God is not invisible, and secondd because my definition of 'miracle' is far different from yours. You want to wait for balls of fiery white light to erupt in the sky and begin speaking to you before you declare a miracle has occured. My criteria are far less stunning.

I do not think that God might exist, and I do not think He exists because i have been told He does. I believe he exists, because my own experiences have subjectively and sufficiently proven to me, time and time again, that He exists.

You say that you are a true atheist, but I simpy do not believe there is such a thing. For that to be true, one would have to exist outside of the boundaries of God, and that is simply not possible. God is a part of all things, even atheists. So from my POV, you are the self-deluded one. You are denying a very core part of yourself because you cannot understand that part.

I am not upset that you claim ourself to be a true atheist who completely disbelieves in all of the notions of God. I consider you an intelligent person, and a nice one at that. You are my friend. But I simply understand too much about how God works to truly believe you are an atheist, nor is anyone.

[Welsh cake]

But there is one problem any smart believer will have when faced with attempting to describe and explain God to a non-believer, and it is really a very simple one; the entirity of God cannot be explained.

I fully admit that I do not understand or know everything about God. There is no possible way any one, individual human with our limited subjective perspective could accurately and fully explain something so massive, yet so simple. To do so would require a completely objective stance, a perspective completely free of individual preconception and bias. Essentially, to do so, one would require...well, a complete oneness with God in His entirity. haha

This is how God works. In order to truly understand what a believer is saying, an atheist or non-believer of any sort needs to first experience God for his or herself, and attempt to honestly further their understanding of that experience on their own time. A paradox is created here, you see. A non-believer simply is not going to recognize the experience for what it is, and will likely brush it off with some kind of dismissal or denial of the experience's relation to God.

So by your definition God is all 'mystification' and whatever we deem to be 'incomprehensible' at the time, how convenient, except this is nothing grander than a logical fallacy of untestability. You continually affirm this god as being beyond scrutiny and/or investigation yet you make claims about its existence repeatedly. Nothing of what you or anyone else understands "God" to be produces any kind of consensus, all you can manage is a half-arsed "You have to be god to understand god" pile of nonsense, its all one circular argument.

The "paradox" as you put it stems from another contradiction in your premise in that you stated it is impossible to know this god's nature. However you already used the term "god" in the monotheistic sense and not more honestly proposing a 'hidden cosmic creator' hypothesis, so you've already got a working conceptual definition in place and then run on to assert various properties and attributes about this entity that supposedly exists outside space, time and more worryingly, outside human knowledge. If you can't understand god, give a measure of it, or explain how it works to others then why even claim its real to start with? Why bother associating the idea with anything else demonstrable when you can't define what it is even or how to identify whether we've ever encountered or interacted with said entity at all?

[Paul the Human]

I like you, too, Paul. LOL

And if there's one thing I agree with you on, it is that the human mind has the powerful ability of self delusion. It is an incredibly powerful force, but it is nothing that cannot be overcome.

I hid the rest to save space.

---

Denial only reaches so far and only holds so long. The perserveraance of man can endure. I think you are very much aware of this, just like I am. I simply think that you deny it more than you'd like to admit.

My world-view does not rely on invisible deities or miraculous occurences any more than yours does. First because God is not invisible, and secondd because my definition of 'miracle' is far different from yours. You want to wait for balls of fiery white light to erupt in the sky and begin speaking to you before you declare a miracle has occured. My criteria are far less stunning.

I do not think that God might exist, and I do not think He exists because i have been told He does. I believe he exists, because my own experiences have subjectively and sufficiently proven to me, time and time again, that He exists.

You say that you are a true atheist, but I simpy do not believe there is such a thing. For that to be true, one would have to exist outside of the boundaries of God, and that is simply not possible. God is a part of all things, even atheists. So from my POV, you are the self-deluded one. You are denying a very core part of yourself because you cannot understand that part.

I am not upset that you claim ourself to be a true atheist who completely disbelieves in all of the notions of God. I consider you an intelligent person, and a nice one at that. You are my friend. But I simply understand too much about how God works to truly believe you are an atheist, nor is anyone.

---

I'm sure all that makes perfect sense to people that believe in god, as you do. To me, it sounds like someone trying to justify their belief in make-believe. To me, it seems as if you are the one that simply doesn't understand what you are experiencing. I understand the concept of god just fine, but I find it lacking in believability.

I do not believe the claim that god(s) exist. That makes me an atheist in the truest sense of the word. Just because you believe I'm wrong about god(s), doesn't mean that I believe you... so... still an atheist.