Ask an atheist

[Maniacal]

As I keep saying, that's a very bad idea if you want to understand what God's about.

Well yeah, I've found myself to be very much in agreement with the phrase "the best evidence against christianity is the bible". Of course, there isn't anything else you can use or do either since the christian god (if there was a god) is extremely unlikely to exist.

 

[Akka]

I would probably need more example to fully understand this. Magical entity? Whats magical about God?

Okay, if you don't even consider God has a magical entity, I guess we're not going anywhere.
Discussion can only go so far if we can't speak the same language, and my point has obviously flown far above your head.

 

[Maniacal]

Um, yeah, magic and religion are pretty intertwined.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Okay, if you don't even consider God has a magical entity, I guess we're not going anywhere.
Discussion can only go so far if we can't speak the same language, and my point has obviously flown far above your head.

This comes from ever more popular wikipedia:Magic is the claimed art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science. It is in contrast to science, in that science does not accept anything not subject to either direct or indirect observation, and subject to logical analysis, whereas practitioners of magic claim it is an inexplicable force beyond logic. Magic has been practiced in all cultures, and utilizes ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world somewhat akin to those offered by religion, though it is sometimes regarded as more focused on achieving results than religious worship. Magic is often viewed with suspicion by the wider community, and is commonly practised in isolation and secrecy.
Modern Western magicians generally state magic's primary purpose to be personal spiritual growth. Modern perspectives on the theory of magic broadly follow two views, which also correspond closely to ancient views. The first sees magic as a result of a universal sympathy within the universe, where if something is done here a result happens somewhere else. The other view sees magic as a collaboration with spirits who cause the effect

What I actualy wanted to say was that if something is or seem to be beyond our capacity or beyond capacity of the means we use as a mediator for understanding(e.g. science, logical thinking) certain phenomena we tend to call it magical or supernatural but once we understand the phenomena or achieve the same capacity we no longer see these things as such becouse they become part of our nature or understanding.
Thus perhaps if my nice who is a small child sees me spelling an alphabet she may consider me a magician but once she grows she will easily do the same and will stop thinking that way.
Simiralry if a mystic or great spiritual figure crosses beyond the ordinary conscioussnes and reasoning intelect and meets God or some aspect of it he may stop considering that as something supernatural.

So you may be very well right in calling God magical entity. I just wanted to change the outlook and point out that in this case it shouldnt mean that God is unlogical or unnatural but rather supernatural and beyond logic.

 

[Leoreth]

So you may be very well right in calling God magical entity. I just wanted to change the outlook and point out that in this case it shouldnt mean that God is unlogical or unnatural but rather supernatural and beyond logic.

As is Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

As is Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Thats not logic thats associative thinking: Prominent Victorian theorists identified "associative thinking," (a common feature of practitioners of magic) as a characteristic form of irrationality. As with all forms of magical thinking, association-based and similarity-based notions of causality need not involve the practice of magic by a magician. For example, the doctrine of signatures held that similarity between plant parts and body parts indicated their efficacy in treating diseases of those body parts, and was a part of Western medicine. This association-based thinking is a vivid example of the general human application of the representativeness heuristic.[2]

 

[Leoreth]

What are you talking about?

The point is, from the atheist perspective, all three (Santa, Fairy, God) require to accept "illogical" assumptions on the basis of belief and them being beyond human comprehension.

I can accept that. But I don't treat people who believe in God differently than those who believe in Santa Claus. Think that's offensive? Ask those who believe in Santa Claus.

 

[Flying Pig]

What are you talking about?

The point is, from the atheist perspective, all three (Santa, Fairy, God) require to accept "illogical" assumptions on the basis of belief and them being beyond human comprehension.

I can accept that. But I don't treat people who believe in God differently than those who believe in Santa Claus. Think that's offensive? Ask those who believe in Santa Claus.

The difference is, people believe in God because they think he's affected their lives - that works as evidence, however impossible it is to prove to anyone else. That's very different to belief in Santa Claus, which has absolutely no evidence at all. The offensive part is to have the arrogance to say that whatever people think God has done for them they must be wrong, because you haven't had the same experience.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I would agree that the sheer number who've 'felt' God should count as evidence of God. In that, it's evidence that should be considered and examined. I discount it as a natural phenomenon, as an illusion that we fall for (some with greater propensity than others), and I discount the experiences based on both neurological and theological reasoning.

But I agree that it IS evidence that is fair to consider. And this evidence is superior to that generated by Santa Claus.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What are you talking about?

The point is, from the atheist perspective, all three (Santa, Fairy, God) require to accept "illogical" assumptions on the basis of belief and them being beyond human comprehension.

I can accept that. But I don't treat people who believe in God differently than those who believe in Santa Claus. Think that's offensive? Ask those who believe in Santa Claus.

Small but important mistake. There is many occasions in your life where logic has no importance. Do you love someone/ something becouse of logic? Does that mean that love is nonexistant? No and I bet that feeling of love plays an enormous part and often decisive role in shaping every human life yet logic has nothing to do with that. And thats just a begining of the worlds of vast knowledge beyond and outside of scope of logic and rational thinking in general. Still people say that God does not exists becouse they cant confirm his existence through reasoning. It is like saying there are no atoms becouse I cant see them with my naked eyes.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I have come to two conclusions.
1. The existence of God is self-evident.
2. Every man is by nature a worshiper as much as he is a rationaly thinking creature. It is up to everyone if he is going to worship reality in its absolute form or in some other(lesser) form.

 

[Akka]

The difference is, people believe in God because they think he's affected their lives - that works as evidence, however impossible it is to prove to anyone else.

You realize that was my point about own's people psyche being the actual real reason behind the idea of god ?

Yeah, I would agree that the sheer number who've 'felt' God should count as evidence of God. In that, it's evidence that should be considered and examined. I discount it as a natural phenomenon, as an illusion that we fall for (some with greater propensity than others), and I discount the experiences based on both neurological and theological reasoning.

But I agree that it IS evidence that is fair to consider. And this evidence is superior to that generated by Santa Claus.

There is countless examples of people in denial, for big and small things, in plenty of different ways - our own psychological defenses account probably for a good deal of everyone's action during our lives.

I count THIS as a much better, more reliable and more reproductible evidence than some magic guy in the sky.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Small but important mistake. There is many occasions in your life where logic has no importance. Do you love someone/ something becouse of logic? Does that mean that love is nonexistant? No and I bet that feeling of love plays an enormous part and often decisive role in shaping every human life yet logic has nothing to do with that. And thats just a begining of the worlds of vast knowledge beyond and outside of scope of logic and rational thinking in general. Still people say that God does not exists becouse they cant confirm his existence through reasoning. It is like saying there are no atoms becouse I cant see them with my naked eyes.

There are very logical biological (maybe I should just have said [bio]logical) reasons for the existence of love - it leads to mating, reproduction, strong family units who can feed and protect each other etc.

And when you can show me an electron microscope that can show me God I might agree with the last sentence

 

[Luckymoose]

Small but important mistake. There is many occasions in your life where logic has no importance. Do you love someone/ something becouse of logic? Does that mean that love is nonexistant? No and I bet that feeling of love plays an enormous part and often decisive role in shaping every human life yet logic has nothing to do with that. And thats just a begining of the worlds of vast knowledge beyond and outside of scope of logic and rational thinking in general. Still people say that God does not exists becouse they cant confirm his existence through reasoning. It is like saying there are no atoms becouse I cant see them with my naked eyes.

Love is a very logical chemical reaction in our bodies. The feeling that God is in your life is also explainable by a chemical response that makes you feel like there is something there. Most people call it insanity when referring to God, I call it insanity when referring to both.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is countless examples of people in denial, for big and small things, in plenty of different ways - our own psychological defenses account probably for a good deal of everyone's action during our lives.

I count THIS as a much better, more reliable and more reproductible evidence than some magic guy in the sky.

Yeah, the naturalistic explanation is much more parsimonious. But my point is that it's a phenomenon that's not completely obvious regarding its source. (some of the psychological understandings we take for granted are actually less than a hundred years old).

 

[Flying Pig]

Love is a very logical chemical reaction in our bodies. The feeling that God is in your life is also explainable by a chemical response that makes you feel like there is something there. Most people call it insanity when referring to God, I call it insanity when referring to both.

What about divinely-inspired insanity?

 

[Leoreth]

The difference is, people believe in God because they think he's affected their lives - that works as evidence, however impossible it is to prove to anyone else. That's very different to belief in Santa Claus, which has absolutely no evidence at all. The offensive part is to have the arrogance to say that whatever people think God has done for them they must be wrong, because you haven't had the same experience.

How so? For somebody who genuinely believes in Santa Claus is affected by the whole "behave and get rewarded" principle.

I don't want to invalidate peoples' religious experiences nor the conclusions they draw from it, but I won't accept it that they demand a form of respect from me that's different from every other belief.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There are very logical biological (maybe I should just have said [bio]logical) reasons for the existence of love - it leads to mating, reproduction, strong family units who can feed and protect each other etc.

And when you can show me an electron microscope that can show me God I might agree with the last sentence

I see the what you are saying. But love can take many forms so please try to see it that way too.
I go to prostitute and make love I feel satisfied for the evening. I merry someone and feel satisfied for few years or I my love someone psychicly and be satisfied yet differently. I am sure that at each instance there are going to be to some extent similar or different chemical reactions traceble in my body.
The wisdom not logic tells me which love is going to give me most satisfaction and what is the right action which should take place at what time. Now this is getting tricky as we are hitting some subtle realities and it can be very relative. The point is that in spite of biological "need" I may choose not to get involved with prostitute becouse of my self-control (again outside of scope of logic).
I cant go further with this for now.

That microscope you (humanity)will have. Only you have to know it will take longer time then developing the electron one(counting since the emergence of first human creature) and it will look totaly different than you imagine

 

[Luckymoose]

What about divinely-inspired insanity?

Vitamin deficiency.

 

[Seon]

I see the what you are saying. But love can take many forms so please try to see it that way too.
I go to prostitute and make love I feel satisfied for the evening. I merry someone and feel satisfied for few years or I my love someone psychicly and be satisfied yet differently. I am sure that at each instance there are going to be to some extent similar or different chemical reactions traceble in my body.
The wisdom not logic tells me which love is going to give me most satisfaction and what is the right action which should take place at what time. Now this is getting tricky as we are hitting some subtle realities and it can be very relative. The point is that in spite of biological "need" I may choose not to get involved with prostitute becouse of my self-control (again outside of scope of logic).

Of course it's still in the realm of logic. Logic goes deeper than mere pandering to our biological needs. A simple thought on future benefits of being with somebody that you knew for many years versus a random pretty girl off the street determines that marrying somebody you knew is more beneficial, no matter how beautiful that the random person looks.