Atheists

Do they claim to have actually, directly experienced the non-existence of an alleged nonentity? I doubt that there's a single atheist, with the possible exception of yourself, who claims that. I think you're literally trying to make something out of nothing. But assuming, for purposes of argument, that it's true millions people are making that claim. it wouldn't be "proof" of anything, any more than hundreds of millions of believers claiming to have experienced God woud prove that (S)he exists. It would only be evidence. There's a difference. The previous discussion was concerned with the bold claims that there is "proof" that there is no God, and that evidence for God is "utterly lacking".
.

 

The discussion about experiences of non-existence on alleged non-entities reminds me of an adapted version of a poem by Ogden Nash (with apologies):
As I was going up the stair,
I met a God who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish that God would go away.

 

That would probably actually be in the billions of people, due the inclusion of Buddhists that do not generally accept a creator god for philosophical and direct experiential reasons. God was deemed an obsolete concept several millenium ago by them.

 

What are your sources for those figures? Estimates of numbers of religious adherents are imprecise, but figures I've seen indicate that there are some 1.7 billion to 2.1 billion Christians (one-quarter to two fifths of the world population), compared to as many as 1.5 billion Muslims and 376 million (Yes, million) Buddhists (Adherents.com; Jewish Virtual Library). Buddhism seems more like a philopsophy than a science, and does not deny a creator god--so I consider myself both Christian and Buddhist.

Here is a paragraph I posted earlier on the "Buddhism and Islam: A Christian's Persptective" thread on the Christian Sanctuary site:
"I think Buddhism is compatible with both Christianity and Islam. Buddha makes no claims about God, and says little that would specifically conflict with the Qur'an or the Bible. His emphasis on the avoidance of attachments, the transitory nature of our world, and the inevitability of suffering in this world seems to go along with Christianity and Islam. I've always thought of Buddhism as more philosophy than religion,and I find that it reinforces my own Christian beliefs. Of course, some of the beliefs about the afterlife are different, but Buddhism is so vague about Nirvana it can be reconciled with Heaven. Reincarnation and the transmigration of souls are more challenging, but if the Catholics can get by with purgatory and remain Christian, I see no barrier there as well."

 

If you combine the totals of Buddhist and all the other non-god types of religion and systems of thought including Confucianism and atheism, its around 2 billion.

Buddhism is a religion. The Dali Lama addressed the issue and to paraphrase said that at lower levels it could be practiced together with other religions like christianity, but at higher levels it was incompatible. This page, in part, describes why god is imcompatible http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/buddha_on_god.asp

 

And if you combine Chriistainity, Judaism, Islam and other god-type religions, that's nearly 5 billion. As for the Dali Lama, is he now infallible?

"Religion: A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns."​

—Penguin Dictionary of Religions (1997).

According to you and the Dali Lama, Buddhism wouldn't make it under the first part of this definition, but could certainly get by if we include "transcendental ultimate concerns." ​

 

But I agree completely with the Dali Lama on the following:
"Buddhism is not an enemy of religion as atheism is believed to be. Buddhism, indeed, is the enemy of none. A Buddhist will recognize and appreciate whatever ethical, spiritual and cultural values have been created by God-belief in its long and checkered history. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for man's will to power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, thus adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be an all-loving God's creation. For centuries free thought, free research and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. And alas, these and other negative consequences are not yet entirely things of the past".

 

I referenced the Dali Lama, because he is the most famous person in terms of talking about Buddhism and very knowledgeable about the subject. You left out the other meanings of religion. I don't know of anyone that would say Buddhism isn't a religion, if a person wants a book on it they go to the religion section in the book store or library, or to take a class at a university it is in the religious studies department.

 

Yes, religion has many definitions, some of which include secular humanism (by the broad definition given by the Supreme Court). Buddhism goes beyond that in having definite metaphysical views concerning karma, reincarnation, and at least in some forms,multiple hells and devas. As you've said, however, it does not include a belief in God. But Buddhism comes in many forms. The Mahayana sutras and Tantras recognize an Ultimate Ground of Being, or primal and eternal essence "omnipresent and all penetrating", embracing and pervading "all things", beyond change', "indestructable and beyond time". Sound familiar? This concept is close to Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich's concept of God. I still say Buddhism is compatible with Christianity,especially more liberal versions of Christianity.

What I'm having trouble understanding is, what's your point? How does this relate to proof that a creative intelligence behind the universe is false? The Dali Lama is what he is because of a belief that he is the reincarnation of the 13th Dali Lama and ultimately the great bodhisattva Avalokitesvara. Do you believe that? Buddhists believe in several hells, some cold, some hot, and devils. But no God. If you believe that, it seems to me like saying "There is no God, but as for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy..."

 

My point was that many people have religious/mystical experiences that don't lead them to believe in the judeo-christian god or any god for that matter. A persons interpretation of such an experience is mostly based on their psychological and culture perspective.

 

I think you're probably right. I emphasize the "think" and "probably". It's a more qualified statement than: I know you ARE CERTAINLY, positively right and anybody who disagrees is surely wrong and an idiot, utterly lacking supporting evidence.

 

Yeah most likely or they wouldn't be atheists. I momently don't experience a near infinite number of imaginary beings. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Ask any atheist if they continually don't experience god(s). By definition, they have to say yes, or they're not an atheist.

The irony is literally dripping from my monitor. I must go get a towel.

What is the distinction between when I used the word proof, and when you did beyond your convenience?

 

Right. You DON'T experience them. My remarks were directed at the claim that atheists DO have an experience of God's non-existence, and therefore this was comparable to the testimony of direct experience of God by some believers.

Right again. You worded it correctly. Believing or not believing in something is not the same thing as experiencing it--an act of direct perception. In ordinary parlance, not perceiving something isn't an experience.

It may be that everybody reporting experiences with a deity is lying or hallucinating. In fact, I suspect that many of them are. You could reasonably conclude that such "evidence" has little probative value. In other posts, I've expressed my own skepticism about similar reports. However, I do take issue with the idea that you expressed earlier that you can take as "proof" of God's non-existence the utter lack of evidence for it in situations where you'd expect it to be found. In addition to claims of direct contact, which you and I might doubt but weren't in a position to observe first hand, I mentioned some phenomena respectable scientists have taken seriously that lead some to think a creative intelligence might provide an explanation. Many bright, sensible people are convinced that the evidence is there. Of course, they could be wrong. Could it be you're simply looking for God in all the wrong places? Or could it be like the tone deaf person questioning the beauty of Mozart or the color blind person saying that Monet was a lousy painter? The fact that you don't allow for even the possibility that this could be the case strikes me as a bit fanatical.

 

I don't recall using the word "proof". Evidence, yes. Proof, no. In the courtroom and the laboratory, evidnce has to reach a certain level before it can be considered proof. I make decisions based on evidence that falls far short of proof. For example, I'm betting my life on a belief you think has been proven false. But I'd never say I have "proof" that you're wrong, because I'm well aware of the arguments and evidence supporting atheism and agnosticism, and think that atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, etc., make a good case and need to be taken seriously. I'm just not convinced.

 

Its not a matter of someone experiencing it and someone not experiencing it, but rather experiencing the same thing and interpreting it differently.

 

Wayfaring stranger, when you mention a creative intelligence explaining certain phenomena, what do you mean?

 

i think it is extremely silly to immagine nothing could possibly exist unless we already know about it. is an infant born knowing everything there is to? does anybody ever?

by the same token of course, and it really is the same token when you think about it, is this compulsion to imagine that we know the names, addressess and what shirt they like to wear, of every unknown awairness there might be, out there somewhere, in all the infinite diversity of the unknown there likely is.

=^^=
.../\...

 

It is extremely silly to imagine that this describes the atheists position.

 

You have to agree on what this thing called 'God' is before you can assess evidence to see if it exists or not (scientifically speaking). If a person was to say something like, God is a man, god is our father, god created the world, god has a long white beard or eight arms or whatever and he exists, then anyone, seeing no evidence of the 'eight arms or whatever', would seem to be within their rights to disbelieve it. I would say that all these characteristics which are attributed to god, and indeed, the word 'god' itself, are metaphors, rather than literal truths and cannot be subject to empirical testing.

These metaphors are used to describe characteristics of the ultimate nature of reality in symbols that have cultural meaning. I believe that 'God' is simply a metaphor for the universe. Not many people would argue that the universe exists, because it seems self evident to most of us. The question 'Does god exist?' is stupid. It's like saying 'Does the hare and the tortoise exist?'. (if you know the old story about that). Obviously hares and tortoises exist, but of course, the actual hare and the actual tortoise mentioned in the story do not exist.

The story is metaphorical, to teach us something about life. So, to say that god either does or doesn't exist, in reality, in the way god is portrayed in human terms by metaphors, eg. man, beard, loving etc. is to miss the point and understanding of the meaning of God. However, what the metaphor of God represents is real, that is the entire interconnected universal system, of which we are created and part. Is that so hard to believe?

The whole picture of the ultimate nature of reality etc. cannot be fully comprehended or verified by logic and science, as these are only based on limited sense data. However, the truth can reveal aspects of itself to us through involuntary inspiration and intuition, rather than through human endeavour, but when the mind is at rest, not distracted by the confusing chatter of reason and logic, for example, when we are dreaming, meditating or daydreaming etc.

We are receptive to this inspiration because we are of the same essence and being as the universe. The truth of our relationship with the universe is encoded within us. These inspirations are beyond the capacity of our flawed reason to understand, so they are interpretted as symbols that do have cultural significance to us. The symbolism of this inspiration may seem confusing, but can be decoded through comparitive study of different belief systems.

My point is, the metaphor of god does exist and it exists to teach us something about the nature of our lives that might not be obvious to everybody. We are one with the universe and each other. If we don't start acting like it then we are all in the shit.

Actually, it's already too late. We're all going to die, at least in human form. Because we are, in truth, the whole universe, we all live forever and our energy will just be changed into different forms. Our rational conscious mind and ego will properly die for good though. That's for sure. I can't wait.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think that the Bible, which some Christians think is "inerrant", is better viewed as a book of metaphors, myths, ideals, and a history of human efforts to make sense of reality. Jesus typically spoke in parabels, and stories about Jesus can be likewise interpreted as inspiring myths. But to say they're "just" fairytales misses the point. I think that really important truths, the ones that inspire us, are often best communicated in that form. Democracy, freedom, justice, equality are "just" abstractions and it is easy to show they're hard to find in the real world. But they're things people rightly live and die for. I think it was John Dewey who defined God as the summation of all human idealism. I think God may be more than that, but I'm not sure the " intelligence" that created or is the universe can improve on that as a deity worthy of veneration.

Good point. One of the big problems with this thread is that everybody is assuming that analytical thought, logic, empirical evidence,science and left-brain thinking in general are the only legitimate path to knowledge, and that conclusions based on intuition are fantasy. But atheist Sam Harris shows a rare respect for intuition as the foundation for our trust in logic, evidence and science. Santayana calls it "animal faith". I admit it's often unreliable, which is why I don't follow it when it seems to be in clear conflict with logic and empirical evidence, and why I also admit to resorting to betting or taking a chance as the ultimate decider. Of course I could bet on the wrong horse; risk-taking can get me to hell as easily as to heaven. But I don't see an alternative to this qualified existentialism; at least I'm aware of the risk of being wrong, and honest about it.