-->
@Plisken
Psychobabble ignored. I'll answer you:
Truth is another word for fact. Facts are based on reality. So, in a word, one could say truth IS reality(the only real point Mopac ever got right).
Delusion In Most Atheists?
Posts
Total:
506
-->
@BrutalTruth
Can you say,
"The Ultimate Reality exists"?
-->
@ethang5
If you start cursing, swearing, insulting people they will start thinking your thang
-->
@Mopac
Yes of course I do. I live in it. You live in it. Blah blah we all know what you believe. "Hey look! This dictionary says God is the ultimate reality! Well, reality exists, right? That must mean God exists!"
It's the most pathetic excuse for an argument for the existence of God that I've ever encountered, and that's saying a lot, because I've heard some pretty stupid arguments from theists. Just give it up.
-->
@BrutalTruth
So you admit The Ultimate Reality exists, good.
Now, when you talk about apples, are you refering to a 4 legged furry creature that barks?
-->
@Mopac
I'm gunna humor you.
Why no Mopac, I don't think I AM referring to a four legged furry creature that barks when I talk about apples! How ever did you know?!
-->
@BrutalTruth
Then why do you use the word "God" in place of something that isn't God?
-->
@BrutalTruth
That's a good analogy but only applies at a certain point, so it doesn't directly make sense. The evidence of "experiences" is suggestive at a certain point, but what happens to get you to that point is a head scratcher. For instance, if someone sees an apparition that communicates to them that they will be in a car accident next week... that is not something you have to wonder about what you saw. You saw something, but which spiritual platform can answer what you saw would be the suggestive part.A hole in a tree could be "suggestive evidence" of a giant(such as Sasquatch) sodomizing a tree. Or, it could be evidence that someone shot the tree with a cannon. Or it could be evidence that a laser was misfired and hit the tree.
There are many spiritual experiences of this nature. Hearing a voice say you can heal someone and touching them and healing them, hearing a voice say don't go your usual route bc you'll get in trouble and you do when you don't heed the warning, asking questions and getting corresponding sounds to your questions from something that's not there, asking something that's not there to spin a necklace to the right and then to the left and it does it, etc. All of which above are spiritual experiences i've had. But lets not even count mine. I've heard a guy tell me that a random person in another state came up to him and told him to tell his mom not to go on a trip she had been planning. She said she was overwhelmed with a bad feeling so she had to say something; admitting it was weird for her too bc she's never felt this. The person was an atheist and didn't think anything of it. His mom went on a trip a week later that she had planned and was hit head on by a drunk driver. Etc. I can find a lot of these types of examples, experiences that are like mine and others.
Now, it suggestive in that we have no clue which spiritual platform can be responsible. We don't know if it's angels, demons, jins, gods, etc. That part isn't clear. But, the experiences people have are pretty clear in that they are pointing towards something of the spiritual nature. We can rule out, some times, natural explanations. And really, there is only a few natural explanations all of which is a cop out in my opinion. Bc all you can say is that the person is deluded or suffered from some kind of delusion. But that still doesn't answer the frequency in which they happen and to how many, most of the time, non-deluded people. I suffer from no mental illnesses' that would create delusion. Even if i did, it's curious how i only get episodes that are very specific and spiritual in nature.
So, you can say it's suggestive... but, it's not completely suggestive, only at a point it is. And what i'm saying is that it's enough to suspect spiritual platforms but not enough to believe. I think i am being as fair as i can be. Especially since i have personally had profound experiences, i still say suspect. I should be saying i 100% believe... but, you're right at that point in that the suggestive element to these experiences aren't enough for proof or iron clad belief.
-->
@Mopac
I don't.
-->
@BrutalTruth
You say, The Ultimate Reality exists.
That is what God means.
-->
@Outplayz
A lack of an explanation does not serve as an explanation, which is essentially what your entire argument relies on.
"I can't come up with a better explanation, so god musta done it."
Have you ever heard of schizophrenia? My ex girlfriend's daughter(who's schizophrenic) would be laughing her ass off as what you're saying right now, telling you how every bit of that could be explained by schizophrenia. The coincidence that what was predicted actually happened can't be explained by it, but it doesn't need to be. You can't logically connect the event with the prediction. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your entire argument relies on one gigantic fallacy brother. Your argument fails.
Good try though. If nothing else, what you've said is at least interesting to think about.
-->
@Mopac
That's what a dictionary says is the definition of "God." This dictionary doesn't prove that reality is god, therefore, as has been said to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over by theists and atheists alike, your argument is INVALID. You've proven NOTHING. Get it through your head and move on.
-->
@BrutalTruth
Apples are sweet.
-No you are insane
Yes they are, especially honey crisp.
-Dude, there's no such thing as a honey crisp apple
This is what people who run apple orchards call apples. See, look. This is what I mean by Apple as well. Here, have an apple.
-Your dictionary proves nothing. Apples taste like wet fur.
Something to think about
-->
@BrutalTruth
A lack of an explanation does not serve as an explanation, which is essentially what your entire argument relies on."I can't come up with a better explanation, so god musta done it."
If you read carefully, i specifically said that isn't what i'm doing. I said i don't know what "platform" can be responsible for these events. I illustrated it isn't entirely like your analogy however. Bc with experiences you witness what happens, you just don't know how it happens.
Your entire argument relies on one gigantic fallacy brother. Your argument fails.
Of course there are fallacies. When you are talking about something that's unknown or has no proof... you are likely going to engage in some forms of fallacies when trying to explain this unknown. Plus, i have never said i am 100% sure what any of this is. I am consciously trying not to engage in a fallacy by saying my experience 100% means x. I have no clue what "x" is. Could be natural, could be something else. The experiences themselves however are pointing to a more uncomfortable answer. It can't simply be ignored.
Have you ever heard of schizophrenia?
I'm not a dumbass... of course i have considered this in being the cause. It ultimately doesn't make sense however. Like i said, if it is a delusion... it is really curious why these delusions only happen in selective and very specific experiences. Plus, two of my experiences had other people there. Without these too i would much more greatly think of a mental illness. But since i have had other people witness it too... that only adds to what happened happened. Of course you can say it is mass delusion... but like i said. To say the vast amount of experiences that people witness are simply delusion or mental illness is not an honest answer in my opinion, it's a cop out. You can think whatever you want to... you can be in the camp that every single one of these vast amounts of experiences are delusion/mental illness... i simply just think you're wrong and illogically too confident there is nothing there. This evidence, bc that is what it is, is enough for me to suspect there is something more to spirituality than just god / gods. I personally have ruled out god... bc you can rule out what doesn't logically follow. But at that point it's all speculation. Which is why i'm agnostic atheist on top of being spiritual. I have no other choice but to. It's easy for you to say it's "schizophrenia" ... but since i am the one that have witnessed these events... i'm a more than certain simple mental illness doesn't supply a sufficient answer.
-->
@BrutalTruth
I know this is what the Orthodox church teaches as well.
You arbitrarily rejecting a definition you don't like(because it makes you wrong) is not an argument. It is the fallacy of invincible ignorance. Then, you, after rejecting the proper definition of God, argue against a god neither I or Orthodox theology accepts as being valid. That makes you guilty of the straw man fallacy.
Besides that, this is what I accept as God. Are you really going to be so haughty as to tell me what I believe?
My argument is not invalid, it is actually your argument that is invalid.
-->
@Plisken
I'm not going to pretend like that made any sense at all.
-->
@Mopac
You arbitrarily rejecting a definition you don't like(because it makes you wrong) is not an argument.
You apparently don't know how to read. I have never once rejected your dictionary's definition of "God." In fact, in our formal debate, I specifically said that you have PROVEN that that is the definition of the god you speak of. What you are failing to comprehend is that dictionaries don't dictate what is and isn't. The word "God" may be defined as the ultimate reality by a dictionary, but that does not PROVE that the reality we live in is God. You want to talk about fallacies I've supposedly made, but you ignore your own. You are literally trying to define your god into existence. Your entire argument commits argumentum ad dictionarium, but you don't care at all. You don't care to be logical, or to even make sense. No amount of proving you wrong can change your mind, because you're not interested in being right. You believe you already are, and that's why debate with you is a useless waste of time. Someone who isn't willing to consider the possibility that they're wrong is someone who believes what they believe to be infallible, and people who believe their beliefs to be infallible are almost always wrong. You are a waste of my time, sir. From this point forward, I will not be responding to you.
-->
@Outplayz
It's really quite simple dude: Only fools believe something is true when they don't KNOW it's true. End of story.
-->
@BrutalTruth
Well, that's certainly an appropriate response, because it's not supposed to make sense.
-->
@BrutalTruth
You are simply not accepting what a definition is.
Why?
Because it makes you wrong.
If God exists, your entire worldview collapses, and that would mean you might have to reevaluate your life.
Well, God gives grace to the humble, but resists the proud.
-->
@Mopac
A word definition is something that tells what a word means. A word is a human construct. Words are tools that are used to describe thoughts humans have to other humans. You, for whatever insane a reason, believe that our reality must be what a dictionary says it is, as if a dictionary's word is some kind of divine, infallible law of reality, and not a human, man made construct, not bound by any law of reality. It seems that your tiny little brain is incapable of conceiving the fact that a dictionary does not hold the secrets of the universe. It's a book that defines words.
-->
@BrutalTruth
The word "God" with a capital "G" means The Ultimate Reality.
That means when I say, "God exists", I am saying "The Ultimate Reality exists."
-->
@BrutalTruth
What the hell does this even mean? Only fools? So a person that thought the world is round when everyone was saying flat was a fool? A person that believed we could fly was a fool? At every point in human history... people that suspected things "could be" true are the ones that have progressed humanity. It's this strong belief that something can be true that is an awesome implication of our minds. If you are referring to believing it's 100% true without any sort of evidence at all to suspect it... i would agree. But there is more than enough evidence to suspect spirituality. To believe 100% the platform you have is the truth is foolish. But to suspect, which is the extent of what i am talking about, is not foolish at all. Your one sentence to me makes no sense considering that is what i'm talking about. It seems like a C&P you arbitrarily sent that likely is meant for religious people... i am in no way religious nor do i hold 100% belief in any one platform. I have certain platforms i believe to be the most likely ... but this isn't about that. I personally need a reason to even start trying to imagine a platform that would make sense... my reason to even going there is bc i would say there is sufficient evidence to give me a go on that leap. To suspect there is some sort of spirituality is not illogical nor is it foolish.It's really quite simple dude: Only fools believe something is true when they don't KNOW it's true. End of story.
-->
@Outplayz
What the hell does this even mean? Only fools?
He labels himself some sort of "agnostic" and open to consideration and then makes statements like this... "It's really quite simple dude: Only fools believe something is true when they don't KNOW it's true. End of story." relating to Theistic beliefs.. assuming they "don't know" what is true which actually is in direct contrast to spirituality which is derived from observation.
But here is his true views and why he is trapped within that mindset and ideology.....
"I've been an atheist most of my life. And until just recently, I thought the majority of us were very sane, logical and intelligent, as opposed to theists whom are obviously delusional"
"How could atheists stoop to the considerably low intellectual level of theists?"
"then I refuse to call myself one, as I will not be seen as a delusional hypocrite by theists"
So no there is very little room for agnosticism or even a moderately neutral view. He's as hardcore atheist as it gets. Easy to see in his replies.
-->
@Outplayz
Spiritual doesn't mean god. By spiritual i could mean two things. 1) a reality / phenomena we aren't aware of; 2) Same thing as 1 with addition to this reality / phenomena having intelligent / sentient entities in it. Aliens would be spiritual by my definition just as much as a god would be spiritual. If i say there is a spiritual reality that interacts with this reality and is why we have spiritual experiences i am referring to case 2. But in no way am i saying it is only a god that can interact with this reality in an unseen way. It could be god, gods or just aliens. It's unknown. I think it's arrogant to say nothing of either case 1 or 2 for sure doesn't exist. I would say there is enough evidence to at the very least suspect that there is a spiritual reality.Plus, just bc spirit entities, more on the lines of what you are saying, are man made doesn't mean they don't exist. We've thought of many things that have later turned out to be reality. Humans are capable of this foresight. But to be clear that's why i say agnostic atheist would be logical too. The atheist in that would mean, to me at least, that one could also be confident none of the man made religions have it right and/or there isn't one religion that has it all right.
Very good post BTW...
-->
@EtrnlVw
So no there is very little room for agnosticism or even a moderately neutral view. He's as hardcore atheist as it gets. Easy to see in his replies.
Yeah, that's why i'm challenging him, bc he is describing a person more like me. From his replies and thoughts so far i can tell he's a hardcore atheist too. Not noticing much of the agnostic side. One thing agnostics are very attracted to are logical spiritual platforms that really could be true. It doesn't seem like to me he's considered such platforms. Maybe he has, who knows... but, i can tell he's an anti-theist or anti-religious gods. He keeps assuming that is the god i'm talking about which i've made clear i'm not. He's probably use to or most of the time argues religious people.
-->
@Outplayz
That may be true, but your examples are real things that can be tested and measured, and they don't violate any laws of nature.So a person that thought the world is round when everyone was saying flat was a fool? A person that believed we could fly was a fool? At every point in human history... people that suspected things "could be" true are the ones that have progressed humanity.
Spirituality has never been shown to exist, cannot be tested or measured and most certainly violates a number of physical laws, so there's no reason whatsoever to pursue such foolish notions.
-->
@Outplayz
Most likely, the opposite is true, that he has considered them and that it is actually YOU who has not given them any thought or consideration beyond your cognitive bias.One thing agnostics are very attracted to are logical spiritual platforms that really could be true. It doesn't seem like to me he's considered such platforms.
-->
@Goldtop
That may be true, but your examples are real things that can be tested and measured, and they don't violate any laws of nature.Spirituality has never been shown to exist, cannot be tested or measured and most certainly violates a number of physical laws, so there's no reason whatsoever to pursue such foolish notions.
I know you guys like to stick to the "never been shown" but that just isn't true to me. Some people have experienced it. Now, has it every been shown to a large group of people under scientific scrutiny, no. But i don't think that's how it should work to begin with. By what it is, it would be elusive. Now, you have a point in that real things can be tested, but we have no clue one day spiritual concepts aren't real, and can't be tested. They very well can in the future. It's the same as dark energy and matter... well, not exactly if we take your point that we can observe something going on, but both don't have ways for us to test them. It's a big i don't know. I would say there is just as much evidence to suspect spirituality as there is to suspect dark energy. Maybe not dark matter... since most of the universe is suppose to be made out of that. But dark energy is just as elusive so it's sorta like it. But of course not really if i consider what you said. Yes, these forces have an effect we can "all" see, well at least all scientists studying it. Spirituality doesn't, it's more individual accounts very rarely group accounts. All i know is just bc we can't prove it now doesn't mean we never will. I don't think there is a good enough argument for me to not suspect some type of spirituality exists.
Now, has it every been shown to a large group of people under scientific scrutiny, no. But i don't think that's how it should work to begin with. Yes, these forces have an effect we can "all" see, well at least all scientists studying it. Spirituality doesn't, it's more individual accounts very rarely group accounts.
All you do is show your bias here, you don't want your beliefs to be under scrutiny as that would tend to show they're false. As well, you shoot yourself in the foot by saying spirituality is a more individual thing. Clearly, you can't possibly know that as there is no evidence to support such a claim. Of course, any phenomenon shouldn't just be something individual, it should happen at any time to any number of people. Your bias is screaming here.
I know you guys like to stick to the "never been shown" but that just isn't true to me. . I don't think there is a good enough argument for me to not suspect some type of spirituality exists.
Then, that would again show your bias and the fact you have no intention of actually looking into whether or not your beliefs have an credibility, you would much rather believe they do without hearing anything to the contrary. That is very foolish.