Perchance

Hi Beyelzu,

I don't think HI is necessarily advertising a cult. But I must admit that I don't really understand what it is he's talking about. I would like to hear some of the evidence he considers proof of god (or the "divine eternal essence"). I can't really tell if he thinks he's the only one who can perceive it, which some of his posts about personally needing myth and fantasy would seem to indicate, or if he thinks it's accessible to other people, without which this thread would have no point in the first place.

And I think he certainly does have a right to ask atheists a question. But if he challenges us, then he should have some reason for doing so (i.e., he thinks there is a reason not to be atheist, and he doesn't understand some aspect of atheism). So far, I haven't really seen any of this "evidence." He makes analogies to dark matter, but also says he isn't saying "god" is dark matter (along with a large number of other things it turns out he isn't saying). I would like to know his reason for asking the question.

-Perchance.

Asha'man

I am suggesting that I am able to make observations, gather evidence, and make conclusions. I am also able to recognize this ability in others. I make no claims to supernatural powers.

Fashions? Are you kidding? Reality just is, nobody fashions it. The only thing in question is our ability to recognize it.

Delusion is also defined as having a belief strongly held despite a complete lack of validating evidence.

You yourself have admitted that there is no confirming evidence for your beliefs. That was where this whole conversation started, asking about things that were completely undetectable. Remember that?

Again, I have said nothing of the sort, and you know it. In fact, I have already stated quite clearly that I do not claim to have omnipotent abilities. You are either unable to understand plain English or are simply lying.

In fact, I give up. You have discovered that a rational atheist won’t accept your nonsense, so you have begun making personal attacks. I feel no need to stay here and accept that type of abuse, so I won’t.

Rousseau_CHN

...even the name of the creator of this post is highly provocative.

Someone in this post wants me to believe that should I visit a Christian forum, I would be welcome.

I don't know, but I think I wouldn't last long with name like DamnGod or the likes.

And yet High Idee over here is running away with murder, and I'm just being touchy.

seebs

If you were polite, sure.

Well, keep in mind, he's not blaspheming anything you believe in, he's just being a jerk.

Anyway, I'm not objecting to you objecting to the thread; it struck me as rude too. However, the title strikes me as inoffensive.

High Ideologue

Do you understand how I could be an agnostic theist? Gnostic theist means to know evidence to support a belief in God and to have a belief in God. Agnostic theists means to not know evidence to support a belief in God and to have a belief in God for other reasons. I am an agnostic theist. I have already layed out the other reasons why I have a belief in a divine eternal essence of self and world. The reason I believe in a divine eternal essence of self and world is because I want to experience the powerful emotive forces of joy, faith and love that follow from this belief. Ideas that I devote my energy, space and time to produce emotive forces and emotive forces produce physiological responses that can either lead me to a stress or health. The idea of the impending disease and death of my seed body produces in my mind powerful emotional responses of sad sorrow, mad fear and bad anger. The idea of the divine immunity and eternal life of my soul spirit produces in my mind powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love. Sad sorrow, mad fear, and bad anger produce stress. I must acknowledge discovery of impending disease and death of my seed body and therefore I must experience some sad sorrow, mad fear and bad anger and stress in my life. However I can balance these emotive forces with emotive forces of joy, faith and love and in my mind from balance produce glad happiness and the most powerful physiological responses of health possible. As long as I can, I am going to believe in divine eternal essence of self and world because I want to enjoy the emotional and physiological benefits of doing so during my life. So far no one here is shown me based on scientifically reproducible discovery that I can't.

Now you can ask for evidence all you want. I will tell you as I told others who have responded to this thread that the universe could be interpreted as evidence for the existence of an infinite divine eternal one. However, I also recognize that this is only one of an infinite number, diversity, and variety of possible interpretations. I acknowledge that my abilities to interpret universe as evidence are insufficient at this time to make any conclusions about what the correct interpretation of the universe as evidence might be. The valid logical inference made is inductive. Therefore the conclusion I reach about our universe as evidence of the existence of an infinite divine eternal one and a divine eternal essence of self and world could be either accepted with some degree of confidence, completely reject, or judgment could be withheld.

Are you telling me that metaphysical naturalism is the correct interpretation of our universe as evidence? If so, then I would to read your proof of your conclusion made using valid logical deductive inferences from evidence you have gathered by use of your senses and perceptions. Are you confusing a scientific convention known as Occam's Razor with spiritual leadership? If so, then in your writing you are leading others like me to devote their energy, space and time to a model of self and world that as loss of health and life approaches will lead them to experience powerful emotional responses of sad sorrow, mad fear, and bad anger.

This comment suffers from itosis: the disease caused when writer's fail to specify clearly what 'it' is. Presuming for the moment that it is myth and fantasy, I will proceed.

I visited dictionary.com and found two definitions for the word perceive:

The first definition that I found for the word perceive was to become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.

With respect to myth and fantasy I never made any claim as to being able to see or hear it in any way that would constitute scientifically reproducible discovery. If I could see or hear it in a way that would constitute scientifically reproducible discovery than it would be truth and knowledge not myth and fantasy.

The second definition that I found for the word perceive was to achieve understanding of; apprehend.

An individual must be able and willing to perceive. Some are not able, and some are not willing.

You are helping me write the House of Ideology Manifesto. Your feedback about my ideas and your points of view are invaluable to me in my efforts to converge upon a document that best expresses a model of self and world that best produces health and happiness for me and others who agree with me. Thanks!

In the heady rush of intoxicating science some have proclaimed God dead. I say the only thing dead is our previously erroneous ideas about God. We live in a new age of ideology with new truths and new knowledge that our ancestors were not previliged to have. Any ideologue that loves to take healthy, agnostic, positivistic, nationalistic, spiritization of their model of self and world to its' logical extreme will accommodate new truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery as it becomes available into a model of self and world that best satisfies their need and aspiration to achieve and maintain health and happiness. If this new truth and knowledge contradicts a previously taught framework of myth and fantasy then the framework of myth and fantasy must yield to truth and knowledge. To proceed in this manner is to be assured that foundation of discovery and framework of mystery combine to create a model of self and world that is credible and effective.

Some proponents of metaphysical naturalism act as if their scientific models of the workings of our universe are so air tight that belief in God or a divine eternal essence of self and world is ridiculous. I wanted to see how atheists would react to my pointing out an as yet poorly understood gapping hole in their models of self and world. That is so called dark matter/energy. From there I have helped to direct this thread towards finding out other information such as the following.

1. Given that agnostic atheism is prone in minds of least some to producing powerful emotional responses of sad sorrow, mad fear and bad anger upon the discovery of the impending disease and death of the seed body of self and given that agnostic theism has the potential to balance these emotive forces with powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love that produce glad happiness. Why would agnostics choose agnostic atheism over agnostic theism?

2. What evidence can gnostic atheists produce to support their belief that there is no God or divine eternal essence of self and world?

So far I have not received any satisfactory evidence from gnostic atheists that leads by valid logical deductive inference to their conclusion. Agnostic atheists seem to me to be using the statement that they can interpret universe as evidence in support of metaphysical naturalism in a way similar to mantras chanted by other communities of faithful believers. Just because I can interpret our universe as evidence in support of metaphysical naturalism does not mean that I will. I will interpret our universe as evidence of a divine eternal essence of self and world because I can and because doing so produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable.

HelenM

Those seem like odd reasons for a theist. I thought your number 1 reason for interpreting the universe that way would have been because it's true that such a divine eternal essence exists...

So...you're just doing what makes you happyiest? In effect? You don't care whether what you believe is true or not?

Helen

High Ideologue

In the House of Ideology Manifesto, I discuss how I do not know yet I think, believe and expect that my myths and fantasy about a divine eternal essence of self and world are true. I wrote that it is necessary to think, believe and expect that my myth and fantasy is true order to produce the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable. However, for me to claim that I know based on scientifically reproducible discovery that a divine eternal essence of self and world exists when I do not know would be lie and ignorance based on denial. As I wrote in an earlier thread, I eliminate lies and ignorance based on denial from my model of self and world so that my model of self and world is made up of truth and knowledge based on discovery that best produces health and myth and fantasy based on mystery that best produces happiness.

HelenM

Ok, thanks for the answer.

I looked at your site. I'm sorry to hear you're HIV positive .

If people give you money through your site, what do you use it for?

Helen

High Ideologue

You welcome. Here is excerpt from Chapter 53 of the House of Ideology Manifesto that I was thinking of when I gave you my answer:

We may think, believe and expect that our myth and fantasy based on the mystery of existence is true without knowing that our myth and fantasy based on mystery of existence is true. Because we do not know that our myth and fantasy based on mystery of existence is not true, and because to think, believe and expect that our myth and fantasy based on mystery is true produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable. Another way to say the same is. We may imagine our fashion reality is true, yet not realize our fashion reality is true, because we do not realize our fashion reality is not true and to imagine that our fashion reality is true produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable.

Yes I accept responsibility for bad choices I made in the past.

My purpose is to educate, entertain and lead self and others to build models of self and world made of up truth and myth that best produce health and happiness. For information visit my site at Http://www.4iam.org . Across the top every page you should find a set of links including one that reads Give. Click on this Give link and read from the web page that appears to learn more.

Perchance

Good morning, High Idelogue.

Of course. I think it's a valid position to take. However, arguing that it is the only valid position to take requires more evidence than you have so far presented me with.

Or to not know why you believe, you just do. Doesn't knowing your reasons imply a sort of knowledge?

So this is yourself, right? You do realize that other people don't necessarily feel this way when contemplating a world and a universe empty of the divine?

This last statement sounds almost as though you're atheist.

Because it's either impossible or pretty damn hard to prove a negative. If you ask someone, "Show me evidence that DEE (divine eternal essence) does not exist," of course he probably won't be able to do so. But neither have you proven capable of producing evidence that convinces other people.

Here's where the line blurs. As far as I can see, no one is arguing against your right to hold this conclusion; they're simply asking for evidence or attacking the statements you made. And yet you make it seem as though this idea is the only right one to hold.

I'm an agnostic atheist/weak atheist for lack of evidence, and because the stated properties of the gods I've looked at closely contradict with each other or simply aren't true. If I could directly experience the divine, I might convert.

That said:

1) What is it exactly that you think metaphyiscal naturalism has to prove?

2) If I answered that I found it correct for emotional reasons, as you find your theism correct for emotional reasons, would you accept that answer?

3) What do you mean by "spiritual leadership?" I lack belief in a spiritual plane. Therefore, whether or not anything has a spiritual dimension doesn't matter to me; it would have to be proven first.

Wait a minute.

No one is "leading" you to believe anything. II is not a site that has launched a deconversion movement. People have deconverted here, but they were not dragged here and made to "confess the truth of atheism" or anything silly like that. They came of their own initiative and deconverted of their own initiative.

If you think you need to believe in the divine to maintain some kind of ephemeral happiness, then that's fine. But why are you coming here and challenging people who don't believe it? If you want holes poked in your argument, then you shouldn't cry if someone makes you doubt it. And if your beliefs are so essential to your own health and happiness, don't seek out those who might offer a contradictory viewpoint.

Is this the heart of the matter? You've met an evangelical atheist, or you think all atheists are evangelical, and you've come here to scold us?

What gall.

I meant 'myth and fantasy,' yes.

And your comments are confusing enough in themselves that I thought you would understand.

Yet you question atheism on the basis of a scientific discovery (dark matter).

Here we go again with the old double standard. Theism supposedly has nothing to prove, but atheism does?

Give me a break.

Shall I tell you where I've heard this argument before?

"You must pray to Jesus!"
"I did and nothing happened."
"You weren't sincere, then."

"The Bible has not a contradiction."
"I read it and found plenty of contradictions."
"Well, then the Holy Spirit hasn't infused you. If the Holy Spirit had infused you, you would understand."

This is that same argument all over again. And, High Ideologue, if you can offer nothing better than this- that people can't understand until they're "willing to perceive," the time of perception to be determined by understanding- I don't know why you're trying to convince people.

So far that impression hasn't registered greatly with me, especially in your last few posts. Do you really value the opinions you cultivate here, or are they threatening to you? If threatening to you, why not stop debating people?

Of course. And one of those ideas is the one you proclaim. And another is that we don't need the divine to do everything.

If an agnostic theist has primarily emotional reasons for believing in theism, then it sounds as though rational arguments would shatter against it. Can you tell me why you think this is not so?

Some, not all. And others simply ask for evidence.

People have pointed out problems with this model, and you have effectively ignored them. How did they help you at all?

You want an answer from someone who considers herself an agnostic atheist? It's probably simpler than you think.

I don't have any evidence of the existence of the divine, and I don't need it for either intellectual or emotional reasons.

There.

Though you use the words "at least some" in your definition, you seem to be proceeding off the assumption that, in reality, everyone feels this way and is just fending it off- much the same way that some fundy theists I know feel that everyone really knows God and is just denying him.

Not everyone is the same. It's fine if you want to believe for emotional reasons. Saying that others should also believe for emotional reasons will need a better argument than this.

You're asking here of strong atheists. There are articles in the II Library that will help you there. Or you could set up a thread specfiically titled 'A question for strong atheists' and see what happens.

So far, this thread doesn't seem to have much to do with that.

Or as lack of evidence. Why must your interpretation of this be the only correct one?

And I find metaphysical naturalism satisfying. It invokes a wonder in nature that I don't think some people can understand if they're mourning over the non-existence of gods and unicorns (or, alternatively, if they think that gods and unicorns exist somewhere).

For that matter, I mourn that unicorns don't exist, but I read about them in books instead. They are not necessary to my everyday existence.

-Perchance.