The Socratic Method takes on Atheism ...

reply to post by dominicus

However this one will be inclined using the Socratic method to investigate the claims of an Atheist.

Atheists by definition are not making a claim they are simply announcing their lack of belief in something. So it would seem that you have a long way to go in order to understand something as simple as not believing something.

1. Why are you an Atheist?

I was born like it, the label was added at a later date by other people .

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?

No more no less than not believing in something does.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Yes, Do you agree that the evidence of absence is not not absence of evidence ?

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?

That will entirely depend on which god they claim to have experienced.

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?

I'm not claiming not to have experienced a god whichever of the alleged gods you are referring to I simply observe no proof through lack of evidence of any of the gods that have been brought to my attention and are alleged to exist.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?

If a god (of the type that has been alleged to me) did exist then surely I would not need assume its' nature, there again that would entirely depend upon its' nature.

If Aphrodite did really exist and decided to make herself known to me I would hope she was smoldering hot with real breasts. There again she might be a right dog so i wouldn't be interested.

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?

I don't know so obviously my mind at least so far, has its' limitations.

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?

That would entirely depend on which god science proved existed, although it would be fair to say that should it be one of the more popular gods I should probably remain an atheist in the eyes of other types of theists and no doubt be antitheist when it came to this god.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.

Not unlike demons and angels are today ?

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?

At this time my eyes don't see in the infrared spectrum, my ears don't hear what my dog does, my nose will never be a sensitive as a shark nor my tongue as a snake nor my touch as a moth. My logic and reason may expand or contract and science may be wrong.

Nevertheless, if one of these gods created me then if he/she/it wanted me to know he/she/it was not imaginary then he/she/it would unless he/she it/was limited.

So far as I can ascertain all of the gods that I've been made aware of are either piss poor communicators or completely imaginary, using logic and reason I opt for the latter and base my lack of belief (atheism) upon that. In conclusion I think it's all bollocks for lack of proof .

How familiar are you guys with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

From a scientific perspective we can very much apply that principle in the belief of god!

I am not an atheist I am an agnostic, however I thought i'd take the exam anyhow!

Thank you for providing cover, MA. I'm an aggie; I'll play, too.

1. Why are you an Atheist?
A: I am an agnostic because I have seen no evidence about the question of gods. Not much in the way of coherent argument, either.

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?
A: No.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
A: That depends entirely on the quality of the search which failed to turn up the evidence. If the search ought to have tiurned up evidence if something is present, then if it didn't, that is evidence of absence.

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?
A: I think it provides them a reason to believe something about the question. I am always happy to discuss that with people, and some people who report such things are in my ATS network of friends. I am honored to know them.

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?
A: Evidently so, if I understand what you're asking.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?
A: Odin. Accept no substitutes.

7a. Is logic and reason limited?
A: Yes.

7b. And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?
A: How would I know? By assumption, there wouldn't be a logical or reasonable showing of such a thing if it existed.

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?
A: Not a chance. Science doesn't do the supernatural thing.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.
A: I am unaware of anytime that airplanes or the internet were superstitions. I am open to instruction, of course. So, apparently no, I don't agree.

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?
A: Who said there were only five senses? Anyway, why is the answer to this question not covered by my answer to question #1? No. There is no evidence for me to work with. My senses, logic, reason, knowledge of science... any cognitive attainment whatsoever is irrelevant.

reply to post by OnceReturned

Put simply, an Atheist does not believe in God. God is not well defined, however for the common definitions that I am familiar with, I do not believe in it. I don't believe in any supreme being, or spiritual entities.

Ok, for the sake of this thread lets insert some definitions. Some Mystics of the past that claim to have experienced God say that God is indefinable by the the very reason of that "they" say God is Unlimited and so in anyway that you make a definition about God, limits the unlimited undefinable to a relative and limited definition. I.e. the color red, everyone has a different idea of what it is, ie. (it relative) some think apple, some think car, some think maroon, some think cherry, etc.

While others say omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. In both these cases we can completely discard any ideas of some guy with a beard on a cloud. I'm just putting these definitions out there because they seem to be the most universal through-out the religions of the World.

I accept the scientific worldview and reject mystical worldviews.

You know there was a Mystic named Kanada (2nd century B.C.) who first discussed the possibilities of Atoms, protons, molecules etc and credited this to his decades of meditation and spiritual insight.
kanada
Certainly this carries some weight with folks being that a Spiritual person was first in this area of science?

There are several reasons for this, including the relative success of each system in terms of demonstrating understanding of the world by using theories to make successful predictions, the underlying philosophical ideas about reality and how to understand it, and the lack of logical progression within mystical beliefs system compared to the astounding logical progression in science.

Ok but Mystics call themselves spiritual scientists and claim that just like in the scientific method, if one follows that precepts of a certain number of hours of meditation a day and other spiritual exercises, one to can come to the knowledge and experience of God. They also say that logic and reason are limited and that beyond these faculties are even greater faculties that can only be understood by others who have the faculties activated. Does that not sound like a "system that demonstrates understanding of the world, these faculties and also show at least theoretical evidence of logical progress? Im simply showing the flip side to the coin you have stated here.

Accepting the scientific worldview entails accepting a very specific system for evaluating beliefs. In this case, the crux of the issue is faith vs. reason.

What about those who claim that beyond faith is the experience and knowledge of God or direct knowing. Doesn't that trump faith?

I don't think that there is any evidence of god, and I don't think that the facts which are presented as evidence really support the existence of god.

But would you say that we don't have all the facts about everything there is to know yet? Couldn't we then say, "perhaps we may one day find scientific evidence for the existence of God?"

A good theory is the best explanation for the observations; it fully explains the set of facts in question, it is not inconsistent with other strongly confirmed theories, and no better theory exists to explain the observations/facts in question.

But can't we say that many states and other things are currently impossible to observe based on where we currently are in our knowledge base of science? Isn't science the study of materialism and yet we have quantum states that are immaterial? For example the Atom could only be proven until a microscope specific to see the microcosm of atoms was made.

However, the results are not compelling; in every case where god has been used as an explanation which science has become equiped to investigte, the scientific explanation has always turned out to be better than the mystical explanation related to the existance of god.

Then can't we say that eventually, if God does exist, God will be scientifically explained as say for example a quantum state? Can we also say the science is uncovering and explaining what once was mystical to some, and can't we say that these mystical characteristics can still hold mystical values to some?

Basically, according to my standards for reasons to believe something, the belief in god's existence should not be accepted.

But, "should not be accepted" based on what criteria? Can we say that science does not look for God? If this is true then because science has not yet explained or cannot explain God than doesn't that make the reason for being an Atheist null/void?

we experience what exists and based on experience we try to form a system of beliefs about what exists.

But according to this logic, we have those amongst us and through out history who have claimed to experience God and we are left with systems of beliefs based on this.

that absence of evidence is synonymous with absence of a reason to believe.

Isn't this relative though? I found that mystics are telling me that if I meditate for X amount of time and do X amount of training that then I will experience God. Then I find others who were once Atheists, underwent these exercises which ultimately concluded in proof for themselves that this is real. In this case the evidence is subjective and while subjectivity isn't evidence to some, others say it is to them.

I also know that, even while awake, we have experiences that do not correspond with phenomena in the external world.

How do you know that waking life is not a dream?

I believe that those experiences are best explained by neurological phenomena and that neither the experiential event nor the neurological event can be traced back to a god in the external world.

But can't it be said that having an experience of smelling a rose shows certain activity in specific sections neurologically and that those who are not smelling a rose are not having those brain activities? Can it also be said that if the brain lights up in certain ways based on real life experience, that those who show specific brain activity when experiencing God are also experiencing a real God experience?

I believe that experiencing god is one of the types of experiences that does not correspond very well with external reality.

Do you believe that external reality is the only reality?

I may be missing the point here but if what you're asking me to do is to make something up and tell you about that made up thing, I'm going to have to pass. If you can explain what you think we would get out of this, and if that sounds reasonable to me, I would play along.

The purpose of this question is to reveal and reflect any motivations and assumptions about your train of thought. It is a fair question. For example when someone says a guy on a cloud with a beard who punishes certain folks and rewards others well then you may find unexplored childhood angst behind the choice to be an Atheist. Different answers reveal different things about your character.

infinite number of ways, and reason can be applied to an infinite number of statements and combinations of statements to derive an infinite number of new statements.

Are there areas in mathematics, philosophy, science, and many other branches where we use illogical and unreasonable principles to study a topic? If there are infinite ways/statements but our logic and reason are based on limited knowledge that we have thus far, does that conclude logic and reason to be limited?

Of course not, everything just is what it is.

I'm glad you mentioned that because many mystics say the "Isness"of all things is God. What would you say about this statement?

I would say that logic and reason are purely human concepts, because nothing had a concept of reason or logic before humans(for the sake of convenience, I'm not accounting for ETs or other higher primates or any other intelligent creatures on earth). Reason and logic are ultimately just concepts. To attempt to describe their scope or what may or may not be beyond that scope is more a game of semantics than anything else.

Would you agree then that the man made concept of something is not the actual something but is just a representation of that thing for communications sakes?

My atheism is not faith based. I accept the scientific worldview, and I am a scientist. There are a number of reasons that I don't accept the existence of god, but the main two are that I think it is made up,

So you would say that the existence of God is man made concept? Earlier you just said logic and reason are man made concepts. So basically all of our science, logic, reason, everything we know and methods we use to know about things is all based on the concepts (man made) of logic and reason?

and think that the scientific worldview is more accurate, justifiable, and successful than any mystical worldview, and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. If there existed evidence which was best explained by god, then I would accept that explanation.

If science is not looking for God, is it logical and reasonable to base our decision on whether or not God exists on whether or not science has proof of something it is not looking for?

That being said, theories are explanations and the best theory is the best explanation, and the best explanation is all that we have.

Would you agree that these theories and explanation are built from logic and reason all of which are concepts?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that airplanes and the internet were once considered superstitious.

We have accounts of people predicting horseless carriages (cars) and airplanes in the 1700's and earlier and these folks were labeled superstitious simply for the fact of the modern day knowledge was devoid of what we know now. In which case do you agree we can entirely toss out the word and associated semantics that comes with the word being that it relatively relies on the knowledge of the day?

You could say that. I base my beliefs on those things, and, based on those things, I have no reason to believe in god. God is an awfully significant belief to accept into my worldview for no reason.

So would you agree that you hold to a certain systematic set of beliefs? Would you say you believe there is no God or that you know there is no God?

I believe that science is the best way to understand the world. Accepting this worldview means that I accept a certain methodology for forming and evaluating beliefs. So far, this worldview has been unbelievably successful, especially when compared to the hundred thousand years of mysticism leading up to it.

So are you saying that science instead of psychology is the best way to study behavior? Would you say that instead of using mathematics (which studies numbers) we should use science? Would you say that instead of using mystics (who say they study God) we should use science?

I'm not sold on faith. If god were supported by reason and evidence, I would be on board. At this point, that's not the case.

In the mystics case, they say that the only faith you need is that a direct experience of God will follow if you proceed with the necessary ingrediants it takes to make this spiritual experiment repeatable. Couldn't we say that this is reason and evidence?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How familiar are you guys with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

From a scientific perspective we can very much apply that principle in the belief of god!

Which god ?

reply to post by dominicus


Dude, I have to say that my impression of you from what you've written in posts is not very nice, you come across as completely arrogant and up your own arse (mods please bear with me here I'm not on the attack so hear me out).

But I have to take my hat off to you for having the balls to put this thread out there if you intend to respond to each poster responding to your list of questions. You may be not as smart as you like to think you are but you're most defiantly smart enough to know that you've got a lot of typing to do over the next few days.

I really hope you stick it out , very often when people do they tent to calm down a little and remove heads froma arses, sometimes they may even agree on a few things.

Don't bother replying to this mate you've got enough to do already.

First define God. No. Really. Is God definable? What is God?
For me to discuss something of this complexity, I need definitions, concepts in order to analyze your archetypal image of God in relation to my own model.
Your concept of what God means is almost certainly different than my own.
Do I believe in your God?

Are we as human beings capable of describing something completely outside of our own conceptions of reality?
How are we to supposed to know God exists?

Apply the same as above to Atheism.

Let's define terms.

Hey guys, please be patient as I am hoping to get to everyone and the socratic method rather takes a while for me in how I formulate questions based on your initial response.
reply to post by The Djin

Atheists by definition are not making a claim they are simply announcing their lack of belief in something. So it would seem that you have a long way to go in order to understand something as simple as not believing something.

Unfortunately, after 4 hours the author cannot edit the original post. How about, "...However this one will be inclined using the Socratic method to investigate the "mindset and logic" of an Atheist. "mindset and logic"

I was born like it, the label was added at a later date by other people .

So you were born an Atheist? Can you explain this as I am having a difficult time understanding the gist of this comment as I can go down different paths of questioning with it and want to make sure the right path is chosen.

No more no less than not believing in something does.

Did you mean "no more or less than believing in something does? Because I already asked the first part.

Yes, Do you agree that the evidence of absence is not not absence of evidence ?

I personally never hold myself to such a thing as evidence of absence itself because we don't know yet everything there is to know.

That will entirely depend on which god they claim to have experienced.

So are you saying that these claims of experiences of God from different people are of different Gods? What if it is many different ones and what if it is a Monotheistic one?

I'm not claiming not to have experienced a god whichever of the alleged gods you are referring to I simply observe no proof through lack of evidence of any of the gods that have been brought to my attention and are alleged to exist.

What then would define satisfactory beyond a doubt proof for the existence of a God?

If a god (of the type that has been alleged to me) did exist then surely I would not need assume its' nature, there again that would entirely depend upon its' nature.

But what if this alleged being left freedom to assume its nature or not?

If Aphrodite did really exist and decided to make herself known to me I would hope she was smoldering hot with real breasts. There again she might be a right dog so i wouldn't be interested.

Ok so we agree there has been ideas of multiple deities, however it seems Aphrodite has died out while the idea of a Monotheistic omnipresent God seems to still be flourishing and popular as ever. Does this have an effect of what your version would be?

I don't know so obviously my mind at least so far, has its' limitations.

If you admit that you dont know whether or not logic and reason are limited does that mean this question cannot be answered or it is impossible to know the answer? If you admit your mind has limitations, why is that.

That would entirely depend on which god science proved existed, although it would be fair to say that should it be one of the more popular gods I should probably remain an atheist in the eyes of other types of theists and no doubt be antitheist when it came to this god.

So if science proved the existence of a monotheistic omnipresent all encompassing (let's say) God then you would still be against it?

Not unlike demons and angels are today ?

yes some consider demons and angels superstitious these days. However a thousand years ago the idea of electricity in every household was considered on the same plane as demons and angels. Therefor do you agree the word "superstition" itself is relative to the times and knowledge base of humanity?

So far as I can ascertain all of the gods that I've been made aware of are either piss poor communicators or completely imaginary

For the sake of questioning, some Mystics have said that God is all of existence. In this case would existence itself be a piss poor communicator?

using logic and reason I opt for the latter and base my lack of belief (atheism) upon that. In conclusion I think it's all bollocks for lack of proof .

Did you say earlier "I don't know so obviously my mind at least so far, has its' limitations." in regards to the question of whether or not logic and reason are limited? What if the current level of logic and reason is insufficient to realize God? What if God can be known or experienced through intuition and not logic and reason? What if intuition was originally a superior faculty than logic and reason and we programmed ourselves away from that?

reply to post by The Djin

Dude, I have to say that my impression of you from what you've written in posts is not very nice, you come across as completely arrogant and up your own arse (mods please bear with me here I'm not on the attack so hear me out). But I have to take my hat off to you for having the balls to put this thread out there if you intend to respond to each poster responding to your list of questions. You may be not as smart as you like to think you are but you're most defiantly smart enough to know that you've got a lot of typing to do over the next few days. I really hope you stick it out , very often when people do they tent to calm down a little and remove heads froma arses, sometimes they may even agree on a few things. Don't bother replying to this mate you've got enough to do already.

no thats fine, I'll reply to this, since its rather quick. Yes I intend to reply to everyone..... it is the Socratic Method that will reveal anything through questioning, then questioning then responses, then questioning those responses.

I don't have to say anything or prove myself, as I am asking you guys for your explanation of your systematic thought structures, logic, and reason based on being an Atheist. Its obvious Im not here saying im right and your wrong, Im simply asking questions. If you contradict or make yourself look foolish in your answers then that is completely on you. I claim to know nothing in this thread, except that if you post an absolute stance on anything, I will bring up the yin to your yang and ask more questions.

My head up my ow arse is this a projection you are projecting on me. Would everyone that meets me say I have my head up my own arse or is this statement relative only to you, a few of you, or all of you?

Oh and smarts I know I am not that smart. We have physicists who, when they are speaking their lingo, sounds like Japanese to me. Smart is relative. I do know philosophy and the socratic method to a certain degree so I will stick to that.

Cheers and thanks for dropping by the thread and being part of it. I appreciate it

reply to post by dominicus

Ok, for the sake of this thread lets insert some definitions. Some Mystics of the past that claim to have experienced God say that God is indefinable by the the very reason of that "they" say God is Unlimited and so in anyway that you make a definition about God, limits the unlimited undefinable to a relative and limited definition.

Mystics of the past ?? Who were they then ? sources please.

What exactly is a mystic ? Is that like a priest or a prophet ?

Whoever these people are/were why do you point to them as a source of authority ? Do/did they have access to some revealed knowledge ?
If so, can you prove it ?

Who/what revealed it ?

How do you know that if the revealer was real, that what it/he/she was revealing was true and not a lie ?

Now you say that "Some mystics claim --" but what about the rest ? What did the rest have to say ?

How do you know that what the rest had to say was not truth revealed to them and that the some you speak of were not lying or deluded ?

Clearly this undefinable god of the mystics is not as popular as the self defined god of the christians, what was his name did he/she/it have a name or title ?

Looks like another thread that just at the end looks like a "YOU CANT DISPROVE GOD" thread.
Boy oh boy.
Atheists that claim adamantly that there is no God may be wrong.
But Atheists that simply do not believe in a God due to lack of evidence are just thinking rationally.
There was a quote that said, I contend that we're all atheists, but I just believe in one less God than you.
Though I'm sure you'll have a fit at that and say it's the idea or some junk.

reply to post by dominicus

as I am asking you guys for your explanation of your systematic thought structures, logic, and reason based on being an Atheist.

Our logic and reason is not based on being an atheist , we happen to not believe something which has been labeled atheism no structure to it.

You seem to be intent Unless I'm mistaken) on making this something other than what it is. We go through life and some people make claims, we look at the claims ask for evidence and proof, they are not forthcoming so we reject the claims on an individual basis so there really is no we.

reply to post by The Djin

Mystics of the past ?? Who were they then ? sources please.

mystics even though the first source is wikipedia, its fairly accurate and gives enough names and sources that can then be googled and referenced against appropriate sources of your own choosing. Were I to list them all here, it would be better to post a whole new thread.

What exactly is a mystic ? Is that like a priest or a prophet ?

See link above

Whoever these people are/were why do you point to them as a source of authority ?

I'm simply saying for the purpose of socratic method and debate that these mystics took upon themselves to be Spiritual scientists, that is to see if a set of spiritual principles (i.e. meditation, exercises, thought, debate) would bring them to an observable experience of the Divine. One which would be repeatable in the case of the next investigator taking on the same principles. Its a point of contention, this is what they claim.

I use this group as an example because just like math studies numbers, psychology studies behavior, science studies materialism by observable scientific method, mysticism studies the direct experience of God. It is merely an opposite spectrum to an Atheist to be used in debate.

Do/did they have access to some revealed knowledge ?

I have already posted about the Mystic named Kanada who in 200 B.C. was the first to theorize atoms and particles due to insights. There are thousands of accounts of individuals putting in to words their own experiences with this "God" (their words) state.

If so, can you prove it ?

Study the link and the rest can be googled.

Who/what revealed it ? How do you know that if the revealer was real, that what it/he/she was revealing was true and not a lie ?

How do we know that what we are being revealed outside of the experience of God is not all a lie, a dream, a conceptual fabrication? These experiencers of God (from my readings and studies) say that this state of this experience is Objective, is a beingness that is Omnipresent and non-relative. Whereas everything we are here debating is either subjective, relative, or both. (their words, not mine. I'm simply paraphrasing and I'm not taking any sides in this thread)

Now you say that "Some mystics claim --" but what about the rest ? What did the rest have to say ?

Well it is said by them that there are various stages on the road to Absolute Truth. Some never made it all the way and what we have is their accounts of what they saw up to the stages that they went up to. But those that reached absolute truth, all of them are for the most part agreeable in their conclusions i.e. beyond words, no words can justifiable describe, omni-present, omniscient, objective, non-relative, timeless, and infinite amongst other things.

How do you know that what the rest had to say was not truth revealed to them and that the some you speak of were not lying or deluded ?

I mean we could say that a Mystic can have an experience, start a religion around it, and eventually through lack of the knowledge of that experience by the followers it gets watered down and misunderstood. We can also say that someone who leaves behind society to meditate for 10 hours a day for 20 years is going to have much more insight about the inner being of Mankind, reality, God and so on more so than someone who never meditated a day in their lives.

Then again perhaps there are some who mediated 40 years, found nothing, and never realized they were meditating wrong. There is just too much dynamics behind all of this to postulate here, but the bottom line is that we have groups of people who claim to have experienced God with all these attributes I have set forth thus far. That definitely can't just be thrown away especially when science has very limited understanding about the nature of consciousness.

Clearly this undefinable god of the mystics is not as popular as the self defined god of the christians, what was his name did he/she/it have a name or title ?

Names are many, God, the source of all things, the list can go on for years but the name is just a label and does not define or constitute what it represents. I mean what the Christians say would take up a whole thread and to certain degrees they to can be systematically approached with the Socratic Method.

At the end of the day if there is most definitely no God for you than what do Christians matter. But if there is room for such a being for you then certainly it would be important to investigate what the most popular and biggest religions of the day are saying on the matter.

But none of this is neither here nor there. The Mystics are the most logical approach to the antithesis of the Atheist for the sake of a debate and thats the bottom line. When I used them for discussion its a paraphrased condense version of the literal hundreds of hours one can spend learning about what is it they say.

reply to post by The Djin

Our logic and reason is not based on being an atheist , we happen to not believe something which has been labeled atheism no structure to it.

Well in this situation no matter how I put it, it does not sit right for you. So let us come to a compromise where finally you are happy. What if I say "a systematic approach of the Socratic method to question an Atheist." Simple as that!

But surely we can say the being an atheist can have an effect on One's logic and reason could it not?

You seem to be intent Unless I'm mistaken) on making this something other than what it is.

The only intentions here are to question everything about being an Atheist. What lack of evidence means. The semantics behind words, motivations, culture, philosophy and everything that has to do with the stance of Atheism.

If I am making this something other than it is than feel free to correct me as I am completely open to being pointed out any faults in any of these words and will humbly oblige. If you are an Atheist, then this thread is designed to question your atheism based on Socratic methods.

We go through life and some people make claims, we look at the claims ask for evidence and proof, they are not forthcoming so we reject the claims on an individual basis so there really is no we.

Everyone goes through life and everyone makes some sort of claims is this not so? Do you not make claims to see evidence? Do you not ask for proof?

Perhaps to you there is no we, but you do agree there meetings and events where Atheists congregate for discussion and over all just to meet like minded individuals? I have seen man Atheist clubs, meetings, groups on college campuses, internet groups, etc. Sure there are dynamics in what each Atheist holds to be truth, but thats the case for everyone is it not so?

If a man began to say and write books that the only way to know for yourself if God exists is to meditate for 20 years 10 hours a day. Now can you imagine what would happen around such a character? We have groups for him, against him, but ultimately we would have to see if its true that if a person follows his instructions, what the outcome will be. Still this is all relative and dynamic itself.

Basically this is the Socratic method takes on Atheism and its as simple as that. You guys look at claims, evidence, and proof and the socratic method asks what are these things called claims, evidence, proof, are they the same for everyone, are they relative, why, can we find an objectivity and so forth.

Is there anything else you would like to say?

1. Why are you an Atheist?
** I’m a reformed Christian. I began to see it all as irrelevant to my life.
People pray and nothing happened. So where was this God?
I see no benefit in having a religion or a belief in an super being.
It has been so obvious that I create my own reality.

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?
**No, it simply is not important.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
**No

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?
**That’ their interpretation of the experience.

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?
**Their claim is just that, their claim, their interpretation. They are naive and uneducated as to the workings of their own Mind.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?
**I can’t even imagine that one.

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?
**Yes, the mind in its higher workings doesn’t use logic or reason. It just “Knows”.

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?
**Just looking at the works of science in the last 500 years, I would say that science is incapable of such.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.
**Electric lights and telephones were consider the work of the devil. I don’t think I
Would call this “superstition, I would call it ignorance. Superstition is more like
Believing that if a black cat crossed your path it meant bad luck.

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?
**I base it partly on the ridiculous tales in that book they call the Bible. It is
Incomprehensible to me how intelligent people cannot see right thru them and
Know that they are not true. This “god” that demands blood sacrifices is a huge
Turn-off.

reply to post by dominicus




I was born like it, the label was added at a later date by other people .

So you were born an Atheist? Can you explain this as I am having a difficult time understanding the gist of this comment

What's there to explain ? I was born with no beliefs in any of these gods and was not indoctrinated into believing in them then i was called an atheist. Don't have to be Greek to work that one out.

Did you mean "no more or less than believing in something does? Because I already asked the first part.

I know you did




I

personally never hold myself to such a thing as evidence of absence itself because we don't know yet everything there is to know

.

Unless we do.

So are you saying that these claims of experiences of God from different people are of different Gods? What if it is many different ones and what if it is a Monotheistic one?

No they are saying it i merely repeat what they say but don't believe it. What if it is what if it's not ? Makes no difference to me does it ?

What then would define satisfactory beyond a doubt proof for the existence of a God?

Depends which god your talking about.


If a god (of the type that has been alleged to me) did exist then surely I would not need assume its' nature, there again that would entirely depend upon its' nature.

But what if this alleged being left freedom to assume its nature or not?

Which being ?



If Aphrodite did really exist and decided to make herself known to me I would hope she was smoldering hot with real breasts. There again she might be a right dog so i wouldn't be interested.

Ok so we agree there has been ideas of multiple deities, however it seems Aphrodite has died out while the idea of a Monotheistic omnipresent God seems to still be flourishing and popular as ever. Does this have an effect of what your version would be?

I don't know whether the idea of Aphrodite has died out just because I haven't met anyone lately who'd had contact with it/her/him. Which monotheistic omnipresent god are you speaking of here ?
Why should I have a version of a god when I've yet to see proof that there is one?

If you admit that you dont know whether or not logic and reason are limited does that mean this question cannot be answered or it is impossible to know the answer? If you admit your mind has limitations, why is that.

I may not know now but I may know later , so my mind is only limited till later.

So if science proved the existence of a monotheistic omnipresent all encompassing (let's say) God then you would still be against it?

Do you have a particular one in mind ?

yes some consider demons and angels superstitious these days. However a thousand years ago the idea of electricity in every household was considered on the same plane as demons and angels. Therefor do you agree the word "superstition" itself is relative to the times and knowledge base of humanity?

I wasn't around a thousand years ago but i find it highly unlikely anyone sat around considering the idea of electricity in every household considering it had yet to be harnessed. there again anomalous like the Anythicara clock would suggest otherwise although I would doubt its' creator would have considered it superstition but the religious may have considered it wizardry and burned him alive.

For the sake of questioning, some Mystics have said that God is all of existence. In this case would existence itself be a piss poor communicator?

In relation to mystics I refer you to me previous question. If god (which ever one your talking about) is existence why would it need to communicate when it is communication how could it not know itself ?


using logic and reason I opt for the latter and base my lack of belief (atheism) upon that. In conclusion I think it's all bollocks for lack of proof .

Did you say earlier "I don't know so obviously my mind at least so far, has its' limitations." in regards to the question of whether or not logic and reason are limited?

I can't remember I'm tired and off to bed but probably.

What if the current level of logic and reason is insufficient to realize God? What if God can be known or experienced through intuition and not logic and reason?

Which god ? What does intuition mean to you ? Why would whatever god you speak of choose to run the possibility of not being known if it wants to be known. if this being happens to be omnipotent how could it not be known if that is it's choice ?

What if intuition was originally a superior faculty than logic and reason and we programmed ourselves away from that?

You have evidence of the existence of reason and logic what evidence do you have of intuition ? Are you separating intuition from the mind ?

reply to post by dominicus

I'm off to bed and try and catch up tomorrow. Your arrogance has all but disappeared in the last few posts and your ego is calming down too.

This is good, you see you did have something to learn after all

Adios 4 now dude

reply to post by Smack

First define God.

IF there is one and I had to define I would say undefinable, all of infinity perhaps.

No. Really. Is God definable? What is God?

I don't know thats why I ask you guys. But there are groups of folks out there that say they have experienced this God and say he/she/is is an Undefinable Oneness of all things, omnipresent, infinite, eternal, omniscient amongst other things. Groups of folks I'm referring to here is mystics through out antiquity.

For me to discuss something of this complexity, I need definitions, concepts in order to analyze your archetypal image of God in relation to my own model.

So if this God does exist does it need to have definitions or is it something that you personally need and why? WHat you are saying is that we both would need to create or conceptualize an image of God for the sake of discussing such an enterprise?

Your concept of what God means is almost certainly different than my own.

What is yours then? Would the differences of everyone's concept of God have any effect on the hypothetical existence of the reality of God? Can we say that these differences would result in many different religions? Can we say these differences also influence Atheism?

Do I believe in your God?

Can anyone own God if there really is one or can we just own our ideas of God? If thats the case are you saying that we are owners and non owners of ideas and concepts?

Are we as human beings capable of describing something completely outside of our own conceptions of reality?

Well, we have quantum theory which can't be measured (for the most part Higgs Bosons for example) and seems to be completely outside our discernible reality and with mathematical formulas and theories it is still being discussed is it not? And couldn't we say that this hypothetical God can also be part of our own reality?
How are we to supposed to know God exists?
How do we know that anything exists? What is existence for that matter and what does it mean to know? Some claim to know God.

Let's define terms.

Ok for the sake of hypothetical conversation based on a few of the original questions, lets just say the One God that represents Monotheism based on both Mystics and 10 of the most popular Monotheistic religions. Also add that this God is what it is of itself and any concepts whether yours mine or his are concepts with differences of our own creation that we project onto something that already is what it is.

In example just like water is what it is yet when I say water one conceptualizes a lake, another a glass full, another a house, and yet another rain. But before we were here, water was just what it was without concepts.

reply to post by dominicus

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.
It's as simple as that. " - Joseph Campbell

1. Why are you an Atheist?

I'm not an atheist but I will answer on behalf of my atheism. I will challenge myself schizophrenically. You might say I'm both at once, and make manifest whichever I find convenient at the moment.

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?

Non-sequitur. Mu.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

No. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence and perfectly consistent with absence. However, absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?

Have they? I suppose my atheist does not care. My theist knows that one has to experience such a thing personally anyway.

My atheist knows people can delude themselves because they want very badly for it to be true. They may be searching to relieve the pain of their personal feelings of emptiness. If they can tell enough people they experienced God, they may be able to convince themselves it really happened. Repetition, repetition, repetition!

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?

No, because the claim is that God must be experienced on a personal level. The weight is wholly subjective. All the weight is theists experience and what my theist chooses to make of it. I don't expect my athiest to experience that which does not exist.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?

Neither my theist nor my atheist is an idolater so therefore, nothing, and whole awful lot of it.

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?

Yes, in that a system can prove all its axioms from within the system. So, logically, more logic is beyond it.

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?

I'd, as a theistic/atheistic chimera would perhaps answer question #1 more definitively.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.

Clearly there is some truth to that.

I recall that heavier-than-air powered flight was considered an impossibility at one time, thus I suppose airplanes by extension.
The internet? Cannot comment on that sentiment since do not recall hearing such a claim.

Needless to say, both were achieved. Both my theist and atheist are devout believers in airplanes and the interwebz.

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?

My atheist bases it on lack of finding any empirical and independently verifiable evidence whatsoever. The existence of deity in a manifest reality should certainly not contradict what is well established as law or through testing of theories. The contradiction of what is established is not necessarily invalidation of said but can be a sign of incomplete knowledge. What is scientifically known is incomplete. What can be tested changes with our ability to measure.