Emotions, God, and Atheism

[Ferde_Rombola]

Sigh, it seems as though you are saying, I’m not starting with a blank canvas because I don’t believe in the “miracle” of Fatima. Not much more I can really say on that.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. You made it up. I say you do not start with a blank canvas because you have an anti-religion bias which is evident in your approach to everything said to you on this forum and in your refusal to consider objectively evidence and arguments presented to you . I think I said that in my last to you and I wonder how you concluded it’s because you don’t believe in the Fatima miracles.

Thank you for your suggestion I do some research on the Fatima claims. Ever thought of taking your own advice?

If there were so many skeptics that saw the miracle and believed, why is there no written account of them?

You beg the question. Who says there are no written accounts of them? I mentioned the written accounts in my last message to you. Did you read it? How could you have missed it? Here are a couple of them. Try reading them this time.

"Columnist Avelino de Almeida of O Século (Portugal’s most influential newspaper, which was pro-government in policy and avowedly anti-clerical),[1] reported the following “Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws - the sun ‘danced’ according to the typical expression of the people.”[6] Eye specialist Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem reported “The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceeding fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat”.[7] The special reporter for the October 17, 1917 edition of the Lisbon daily, O Dia, reported the following, “…the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds…The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands…people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they.”[8]

According to contemporary reports from poet Afonso Lopes Vieira and schoolteacher Delfina Lopes with her students and other witnesses in the town of Alburita, the solar phenomena were visible from up to forty kilometers away."

Why are the eye-witness accounts that are documented so varied in what actually occured?

Why is the evidence for this based on the research by ONE man, who was catholic(and already had a reason to believe it), when any research done by a non-catholic into these accounts is dismissed.

First paragraph: That’s the way it is with eye-witness accounts. There are always differing versions of what was seen no matter what the event described and you should know that. Using it in this instance is disingenuous. The question is not whether the accounts differ, but whether they all describe the same phenomenon. They, and the newspaper accounts, do.

Second paragraph: Your ‘one man’ assumption is wrong. As to the research by non-Catholics, I’d have to see it before I could comment. A lot of non- and anti-Catholic “research” is bogus to begin with and is begun with its conclusion already settled.

Why are people indicating that reporters claimed it was also a miracle, when they were the ones who took several photographs that showed no actual miracle?

Your question makes no sense. How does one take a photo showing no miracle occurred? And, again, your presumption is wrong. Photos were taken of the crowd when it was raining and again when everything had become dry in an instant. You really need to get yourself some information before sounding off like you do.

Why are the scientific explainations for this so called visual phenomenom completely ignored while claims are made that science cannot explain it?

Again you beg the question. What you call ‘scientific explanations’ are not science at all, but mere denial. Saying 50,000 people all had the same delusion at the same time is preposterous on its face. Science cannot explain how muddy ground became dry in an instant. In the month of October, BTW.

 

[HappyRevert]

Can you accept that an athiest may have exactly the same understanding and knowlege as you and simply disagree? or do you find them lacking in some way?

If not, then my compliments to you. This is a rare quality indeed

I guess I can’t believe that an atheist may have exactly the same understanding and knowledge than me because if you did, I think you would come to the same conclusion that I do. To tell you the truth I have puzzled over this for a while. I am left handed and perhaps it is because I process information differently than a left brained person that it comes as second nature to me (although perhaps you’re left handed too). I’ll clarify here a position I realize that I didn’t make clear before. I’ve been arguing for theism and not Christianity, because Christianity does take a certain leap of faith that cannot be proven.

I think you run into frustration with us (theists) because at some point we run into a insufficiency of language to describe how we are perceiving the world, which for us is just like our eyes, ears and hands. We have trouble then communicating how and why we perceive what we do to someone who doesn’t have this same basis for examining the world. I think to say you are lacking something may be what we are saying, but not in a harsh way. I think you continue to disagree because we aren’t explaining it to you in a way you can understand, and I’m quite frankly flummoxed by it.

I guess I’ll ask you - do you think all of this is perfectly random and meaningless? If you don’t think it is ordered and created, what do you think explains the beauty and order of the universe?

I keep coming back to how theists believe all this order and beauty comes from a force/entity/power that we call God and we believe it because we gather the information through our senses and the universe is our proof. If you don’t process the information in the same way, I’m not sure how to proceed.

 

[Dameedna]

I guess I can’t believe that an atheist may have exactly the same understanding and knowledge than me because if you did, I think you would come to the same conclusion that I do.

I think a LOT of people struggle over this, but it was an epiphany I had one day, that even with the “exact” same knowlege and understanding, it is entirely possible(and probably) that we will not agree.

No only am I completely and utterly convinced of this now, it is one of the concepts that has lead me toward a more agnostic view of the world, rather than a militiant athiesm which I used to support.

I can go into this in more detail if you want, but not sure if the OP is interested.

I think you run into frustration with us (theists) because at some point we run into a insufficiency of language to describe how we are perceiving the world, which for us is just like our eyes, ears and hands. We have trouble then communicating how and why we perceive what we do to someone who doesn’t have this same basis for examining the world. I think to say you are lacking something may be what we are saying, but not in a harsh way. I think you continue to disagree because we aren’t explaining it to you in a way you can understand, and I’m quite frankly flummoxed by it.

Perhaps you are making an assumption we understand less then you, rather than more?

I guess I’ll ask you - do you think all of this is perfectly random and meaningless? If you don’t think it is ordered and created, what do you think explains the beauty and order of the universe?

I do not know. I’m of two minds about the universe. It is extrodinary, not just because it actually exists(although that’s big enough in and of itself), but that it has created life.

However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Right now, the hubble telescope is showing 2 Galaxies colliding, one is a huge galaxy the other medium size.

What the universe shows’, it brutal strength and power that we can only understand conceptually with numbers, and theories and forumlas. In reality, it is just too immense. It doesn’t show love, comfort or security that’s for sure. I doubt the dinasours thought that the universe was particularly beautiful when a asteroid(or was it comet?) plowed into our planet and wiped them out.

Natural selection is quite possibly the most brutal of all mechanism in the creation of life. Animals that tear each other’s flesh for food, volcanoes that cause immense destruction and shifting plates that create waves 100 feet high.

Are you sure you aren’t seeing what you want to in this universe, instead of what is?

I keep coming back to how theists believe all this order and beauty comes from a force/entity/power that we call God and we believe it because we gather the information through our senses and the universe is our proof. If you don’t process the information in the same way, I’m not sure how to proceed.

The athiest will simply say, just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true. Our universe is only proof…of itself, nothing more.

Perhaps the reason we speak such a different language is because there are some things, that both of us can, or cannot accept and that is really a matter of who we are as individuals and what stage we are in, in terms of psychological(or spiritual) development.

 

[Dameedna]

As to your post Ferdre, We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I’ve read enough about these miracles to know there are numerous “natural” explanations for them requiring no supernatural cause.

So if you want to believe it, go ahead. I’ll maintain my skepticism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think a LOT of people struggle over this, but it was an epiphany I had one day, that even with the “exact” same knowlege and understanding, it is entirely possible(and probably) that we will not agree.

No only am I completely and utterly convinced of this now, it is one of the concepts that has lead me toward a more agnostic view of the world, rather than a militiant athiesm which I used to support.

i didnt qoute the whole post for space reasons, but i am curious as to how you explain the idea that you are vastly outnumbered philosophically.

i mean we all have access to essentially the same information, we are all of essentially the same education and we are all of the same essential intelligence. on the broad spectrum of humanity how is happyrevert wrong in his feelings?

given that i wonder what argument you could produce that might deny an expectation of belief from similar starting states?

you could argue individuality for yourself and only yourself. but that wouldnt satisfy the average starting state, as spread across all atheists, meaning it wouldnt disprove happyreverts idea.

so what argument might you make?

 

[Dameedna]

you could argue individuality for yourself and only yourself. but that wouldnt satisfy the average starting state, as spread across all atheists, meaning it wouldnt disprove happyreverts idea.

so what argument might you make?

He was talking about knowlege and understanding. I can often understand what another is talking about, and gain the knowlege that that individual has, but I will still disagree because I’m a different person. My life experiences will have been different even subtly so.

What if the person disagreeing actually has more knowlege, not the same? What if the person disagreeing understands something better, not worse than the individual claiming that other’s don’t understand?

We alway’s assume that when some-one doesn’t agree, it’s because they don’t understand, OR a variety of negative assumptions such as “you just can’t obey the rules, you reject God, you are willfully ignorant(that one is particularly annoying) etc etc etc etc etc”.

Same assumptions are made all the time, and athiests will do the same thing. Sometimes, both sides “assumptions” may even be correct. However, It’s easier to think another person doesn’t understand, than think that maybe they do, they just don’t agree.

The question is, who is actually right? Well…each of us thinks that we are ourselves correct obviously…lol!

 

[HappyRevert]

I can go into this in more detail if you want, but not sure if the OP is interested.

Perhaps you are making an assumption we understand less then you, rather than more?

I would be interested in the details of your ideas. They would be enlightening…

I think you are right I do make the assumption that you understand less than we do. Again, I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m just trying to reconcile in my own mind why we are landing on different sides here. I’ve puzzled some more, and I think we believe atheists are like people who are red and green color blind and we’re trying to explain what they look like, without much success I might add

I have personally had intensely religious experiences which made me doubt my own sanity. I believed I was having a psychotic break, or perhaps some weird manifestation of a bi-polar syndrome (the analyzer in me does not particular appreciate those particular manifestations of my faith ). Since the end results of those experiences have only come to good (and I have no identified mental illness), both for myself and those around me, I have concluded that they are as real as me touching my cup of hot coffee in the morning, just not something we normally accept because it doesn’t come through our identified 5 senses. That is why I say I believe because of what I experience, not just what I am told. I think that is why we both think the other doesn’t understand. I can no more discount those experiences than I could chop off my right arm (or for me the left would be more problematic ) because to discount them would be to deny all of my perceptions of the world (including my nice hot cup of coffee), not just those particular ones. You could write it off to some undiagnosed mental disorder, but since nothing else that I am or do would support that, it would be highly unlikely…

PS I’m a woman and not a man - I forget no one can tell gender on here.

 

[Dameedna]

I would be interested in the details of your ideas. They would be enlightening…

I think you are right I do make the assumption that you understand less than we do. Again, I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m just trying to reconcile in my own mind why we are landing on different sides here. I’ve puzzled some more, and I think we believe atheists are like people who are red and green color blind and we’re trying to explain what they look like, without much success I might add

Atheists do the same thing. I bite my tongue all the time when I want to say “But you don’t understand”…then I sit back and remember, they may not understand…they may also understand more than me.

Its hard to be quite so humble.

Occasionally I find such a person who surpises me and doesn’t deliver the same rhetoric about athiests that most believers seem to give(and which I know isn’t true)

The only possible conclusion I’ve come to is that we are at different stages in spiritual development. That’s…my very tentative suspicion(if there is such a thing as spiritual development)

The question is…who’s ahead of who? AND DOES it really matter?

I have personally had intensely religious experiences which made me doubt my own sanity. I believed I was having a psychotic break, or perhaps some weird manifestation of a bi-polar syndrome (the analyzer in me does not particular appreciate those particular manifestations of my faith ).

This is the problem with all religious experiences, is that they are very much in the eye of the beholder, and hence cannot be held up to the scrutiny of “proof” that a lot of us require.

And, we don’t require “proof” because we don’t want to believe, we require proof, because truth has way too often been claimed in the name of terrible things and we refuse to do it.

No matter the cost to our peace of mind.

Since the end results of those experiences have only come to good (and I have no identified mental illness), both for myself and those around me, I have concluded that they are as real as me touching my cup of hot coffee in the morning, just not something we normally accept because it doesn’t come through our identified 5 senses. That is why I say I believe because of what I experience, not just what I am told. I think that is why we both think the other doesn’t understand. I can no more discount those experiences than I could chop off my right arm (or for me the left would be more problematic ) because to discount them would be to deny all of my perceptions of the world (including my nice hot cup of coffee), not just those particular ones. You could write it off to some undiagnosed mental disorder, but since nothing else that I am or do would support that, it would be highly unlikely.

And as I said, this is the dilema with any personal revelation. It could be a product of the human being, no matter how humbling it was. Humans seem to have a predisposition to this(which many see as evidence of God), and therefore without that same experience, I see you are simply a person who had that experience. To you , it is meaningful, to me…it is meaningless.

Having said all that, I do not entirely negate religious experience, because in all honesty I’ve had my moments. I’ve analyzed them and put them down to certain biological phenomenom, but…I can’t negate every single experience every single person has down to supersition.

To do so, would be to presume that every person who has these experiences is less intelligent, less rational, more dishonest, and less knowlegable than me. That…would be a tad arrogant(even if I think a LOT of these experiences are explainable)

I’ve come across that in religion a lot, but can I really make the claim that EVERY person who has an exprience is kidding themselves?

I did for a long time, but realized…that wasn’t exactly the most humble path to take…haha.

Maybe your experience was real, but the only way I can explain these experiences, is that humans are at different stages of spiritual development and they are given exactly what they need during that stage.

The pinacle of Faith, is not…institutionalized christianity, it’s something much bigger and beyond that.

I read this recently, and it’s a quote about something said by a muslim mystic.

*“Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.”

Some spiritual teachers have suggested that doubt is not only healthy, but that doubt in itself is a form of faith.

For example, doubt as to the existence of a certain “kind of God” can itself be faith in a “higher kind of God.”

If you doubt there ever would be a kind of God who would create human suffering, you are saying there is a kind of God who is all Good and all Loving.

If you doubt there is a kind of God who would hate people and punish them, you are believing in a Higher God - a God of love and of forgiveness"
*

Hit quite a nail on the head for me…(and If I actually had the hammer, would have hurt my poor fingers )

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He was talking about knowlege and understanding. I can often understand what another is talking about, and gain the knowlege that that individual has, but I will still disagree because I’m a different person. My life experiences will have been different even subtly so.

which is why you can argue individuality for yourself, but only for yourself, see below

What if the person disagreeing actually has more knowlege, not the same? What if the person disagreeing understands something better, not worse than the individual claiming that other’s don’t understand?

because thats not a possible scenario when applied to a significantly large sample size of humanity. though some individuals may be more or less educated, intelligent, or knowledgeable, when averaged across the total population we are essentially equal in these qualities

if theism, and atheism were of equal validity, than under the conditions above we should expect to see approximately a 50/50 split. where half the population is theist and half is non-theist

however the actual distribution seems to be 10:1 to 20:1 reflecting a rate of atheism of 5% to 10% of the total population. (though i think that number a little high)

so if the arguments as to individuality were true and both propositions were equally valid then we should see a 50/50 distribution.

but we dont

in order to explain that unequal distribution we have to assume the following positions

1. theists are less intelligent than average, by a large enough amount to account for the rate of that position in society. (9.5 out of 10 would have to be less intelligent than average)
2. atheists are less intelligent than average by a rate significant enough to account for that distribution (1 to 2 out of 20 would have to be less intelligent than average)
3. the propositions of atheism vs. theism are not of equal validity.

as the first two are false on the face of them, that strongly suggests that the third position is true

the proof being that if they were equally valid than there should be an even distribution among the population

as we dont see that, and the other possibilities are false on their face.

we can only conclude that atheism and theism, are not of equal validity

in fact by the numbers of adherents atheism is only 1/10 to 1/20 as valid as theism (a little tongue in cheek )

do you have an argument that might refute these assertions?

 

[Dameedna]

Warpie…

You are trying way to hard here. It’s okay to have doubts

 

[HappyRevert]

The question is…who’s ahead of who? AND DOES it really matter?

Some spiritual teachers have suggested that doubt is not only healthy, but that doubt in itself is a form of faith.

For example, doubt as to the existence of a certain “kind of God” can itself be faith in a “higher kind of God.”

If you doubt there ever would be a kind of God who would create human suffering, you are saying there is a kind of God who is all Good and all Loving.

If you doubt there is a kind of God who would hate people and punish them, you are believing in a Higher God - a God of love and of forgiveness"

Hit quite a nail on the head for me…(and If I actually had the hammer, would have hurt my poor fingers )

We of course would definitely reply that the theists are ahead. Christians drive atheists and agnostics crazy, because even though we don’t come across in this way, we get quite panicked at the thought of someone not knowing Christ, or at least God in whatever form they can understand. I apologize in general if we come on too strong. It is definitely because ultimately we believe that it matters more than anything else so we argue with you because we are trying to fight for you. Difficult positions for both sides.

Doubt is a wonderful thing. You should keep exploring it. Even Catholics believe you are only held responsible for what you know, so if you doubt you should absolutely continue investigating. Thanks for the honest conversation.

 

[Dameedna]

We of course would definitely reply that the theists are ahead…

Are ALL thiests ahead? Are ALL non-believers the same?

You attempts to understand are appreciated by me

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpie…

You are trying way to hard here. It’s okay to have doubts

doubt away but i have seen you work harder. good for the goose, good for the gander and all that

but that doesnt change or answer my arguments,

i think the idea of some parity between the validity of the two positions might be dying here…,

… better try to save it.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

As to your post Ferdre, We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I’ve read enough about these miracles to know there are numerous “natural” explanations for them requiring no supernatural cause.

So if you want to believe it, go ahead. I’ll maintain my skepticism.

Thanks for letting me believe what I believe, but that does not respond to what I wrote. Your dismissing the facts I presented to you with the unsupported statement you have read ‘enough’ about ‘these miracles’ is nothing but the usual obstinate denial. The truth is, you have not dealt with a single one of the facts I posted and I have serious doubts, based on your demonstrated intelligence, that you have read anything objective ‘about these miracles.’ I’m sure you’ve read many slanted and loaded versions written by people with an agenda, but I have no doubt the truth, which you claim to seek, has evaded you. Or you it.

In any event, I hope we will hear no more from you about approaching these matters with a blank canvas. It just ain’t so.

 

[Dameedna]

Thanks for letting me believe what I believe, but that does not respond to what I wrote. Your dismissing the facts I presented to you with the unsupported statement you have read ‘enough’ about ‘these miracles’ is nothing but the usual obstinate denial. The truth is, you have not dealt with a single one of the facts I posted and I have serious doubts, based on your demonstrated intelligence, that you have read anything objective ‘about these miracles.’ I’m sure you’ve read many slanted and loaded versions written by people with an agenda, but I have no doubt the truth, which you claim to seek, has evaded you. Or you it.

In any event, I hope we will hear no more from you about approaching these matters with a blank canvas. It just ain’t so.

Are you having the last say ?

Oops…no I think I just did

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Are you having the last say ?

Oops…no I think I just did

Well, you haven’t really said anything in the last 2 posts and I’m certainly not going to let you squirm out of this with the ‘last say’ being empty denial. You can joke about it if you wish (it seems to be your only way out) but it isn’t a joke. You’ve made serious allegations against what Catholics believe and have offered no proof to support them. Even your opinions are flimsy.

I’ll give you the same permission you gave me. Be an athiest if you want. Keep your head in the sand. Be sure to keep your eyes shut tight. That’s the way to the truth, isn’t it?

 

[Fran65]

Maybe your experience was real

Actually, Happyrevert’s experience was ‘real’. She has told you about it, been very clear that it occurred and it has had an enduring effect on her life.

That’s real enough for me.

It is the meaning of the experience that can be discussed.

Even if a vision had a purely neurological basis - due to activation of a particular region of the brain for example - that does not imply anything about its meaning or lack of meaning. It tells us about the immediate origin, but that’s about it.

 

[Dameedna]

It tells us about the immediate origin, but that’s about it.

The brain is a pretty big “IT” in terms of our beliefs.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Actually, Happyrevert’s experience was ‘real’. She has told you about it, been very clear that it occurred and it has had an enduring effect on her life.

That’s real enough for me.

It ought to be enough for anyone and that’s what I find so disingenuous – if not downright dishonest – about athiests. HappyRevert tells about her experience, and I have had no less than four such experiences, and the athiest will casually wave it off as delusion with no attempt whatever to make the presumption of truth. It’s a handy way to oppose believers, but not the way to debate.

 

[Swan]

It ought to be enough for anyone and that’s what I find so disingenuous – if not downright dishonest – about athiests. HappyRevert tells about her experience, and I have had no less than four such experiences, and the athiest will casually wave it off as delusion with no attempt whatever to make the presumption of truth. It’s a handy way to oppose believers, but not the way to debate.

Personal experiences are subjective. Do you really suggest that we all just take everyone’s experiences as objective revelations? What about folks of other religions, or even other Christians, who have expeiences that seem to contradict one another? For example, someone who has an experience that leads them to be, say, Methodist or Quaker or whatever. Would Catholics counter that these weren’t geunine because they didn’t lead to the RC church? What about experiences that lead people to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc? My point is that anykind of personal revelation is just that, personal. Jim Jones have a personal revelation too and look how that turned out. He believed it, though.

I’ve had personal experiences (paranormal, or whatever you want to call it) myself but I finally realized that I was making huge assumptions about where they came from and what they meant. I don’t do that anymore. And I would never expect other people to simply take my word for for experiences and follow me based on them.