Why do the God-haters persist?

[hangover]

So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.

Everything that exists is REAL evidence. Just because you refuse to see it, is your problem. Fanaticism also prevents evangelicals from seeing the "evidence" of the world being more that 6,000 years old.

Sorry, but just having a lot of people agree that we descend from aliens is not proof, just wishful thinking.

You need to work on your math skills.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings".

No, they aren't. You keep wishing otherwise and saying it, but you never back it up. And you keep neglecting to explain why everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict each other. Your universal truth isn't universal at all.

Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature.

They don't have to, since I've experienced spiritual nature, and found it to be an interesting mental phenomenon. The fact that you haven't matured enough to understand the nature of spirituality isn't not my problem.

By the way, one hit of LSD can give you a "spiritual experience" that will blow away anything you can get from religion. That's another nail in your coffin, the way that spirituality can so easily come from chemicals.

Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God.

The "No true scotsman" fallacy. The endless parade of logical fallacies that you rely on confirms you're a substandard thinker.

 

[BreezeWood]

Boss:

Well first of all, I never claimed that things don't have 'awareness' because most every living thing is 'aware' of it's environment and reacts accordingly. My argument was "spiritual awareness" and I don't see where you have demonstrated that here. Secondly, I never said that you are wrong, I just said you haven't shown me evidence to prove you're right.

"Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it, and I will agree that Flora has spiritual awareness. Until then, I can't say I see evidence of this, it's an interesting proposition and maybe you are correct, but you need more than an opinion to validate your argument."

I see nothing to indicate the orchid had "spiritual awareness" of any kind. Again... not claiming that it didn't... I just am not seeing the evidence of it, nor do I believe the orchid is making moral decisions of right and wrong in any way.

My argument was "spiritual awareness" ... Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it.

Boss: Why are you quoting scriptures from the Bible and applying them to me, a person who has repeatedly stated he is not a Christian? What part of the conversation we were having had anything to do with religious scriptures or interpretations of them? Where in the hell did I claim I wanted to destroy the Earth because I didn't like something? You're becoming as fucking delusional as MrMax, I hope his retardation isn't contagious.

dodge -

I would never quote scriptures, I have not read the book, you have was my point - I simply copied two paragraphs from their writing's as the basis to explain how someone could claim to be a spiritualist and then demand of someone else to prove any other life form on Earth conceptually understands right from wrong - than yourself. You are mimicking their book, only mankind is the likeness of God.


Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it.

that is an absurd proposition - as prove to us you have the same facility or why it is not synonymous to all life ... your request is proof of "your" misunderstanding of spiritual awareness and is associated with other religious dogmas - nothing new there.

.

 

[Montrovant]

Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?

To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth. There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real? Of course not.

I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa. The analogy still works, IMO. That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.

And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.
"What is that?"
"A pink unicorn"
"There's no such thing"
"Yes there is"
"Really? OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
"No. Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"

 

[thebrucebeat]

What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.

Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.

Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.

Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings" and if that were all there was to spirituality, domestication of cats would have done it in centuries ago.

Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature. You refuse to accept that it exists. Expecting me to "prove" God to you when you don't believe in spiritual nature, is kind of a waste of time. Anything I say is going to immediately be met with rejection because you've decided you don't believe and no one is going to make you believe. So what is the point of me continuing to show you what you refuse to accept, and what is the point in you continuing to demand proof or evidence of something you choose to disbelieve?

Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God. If you had, you couldn't be arguing that God doesn't exist. So you either know that God does exist, or you never had a personal relationship with Him.... he couldn't have stopped existing when you decided to abandon Him. Of course, this makes perfect sense if you're a lying God-hater hiding behind Atheism because you're too much of a coward to admit you believe in God but hate Him.

You love to assert you aren't a Christian. What is this god you claim to love? Why are the Christians so misguided in their "spirituality"? They are mistaken, according to you, in their worship of Jesus, so what good is their spirituality if it leads to false conclusions?
I once had what you would consider a "personal relationship with God". I was a pastor and the whole thing was my everything.
I got better (thanks Monty Python).
It has nothing to do with god ceasing to exist. Leprechauns are not extinct. They didn't exist in the first place. They are a human creation.
I retain a belief that something exists beyond my apprehension, but any time one presumes to know anything about the nature of it you can be pretty sure, as you have even stated, that it is for their own personal benefit. No one constructs a spiritual realm with a god that would send THEM to hell!
LOL!

 

[Boss]

You've never proven ANYTHING about spiritual nature. I'm not saying that it might not exist, or that there might not be a single or more creators, universes... (I'm agnostic), but you sure haven't proven squat. Then you ask us for hard, scientific evidence to disprove what you have not yet proven. Kinda comical, but it's fun.

My arguments have always been centered on providing evidence of possibility. If proof beyond any reasonable doubt could be achieved, do you think we'd be having this conversation?

What exactly IS proof? I am betting you don't have a clue, so let me educate you. Proof is the subjective evaluation of what one is willing to accept as conclusive evidence. This means, what "proves" something to you, may not "prove" something to me. And visa versa.

In a purely philosophical sense, nothing is ever proven. Not even reality itself. Can you prove this reality we experience isn't all a persistent illusion? You can't even prove the laws of nature, science and physics always work in this universe which we've barely explored, much less other theorized universes that may exist. Proof is tough nut.

I've never asked you for proof. I've asked you for evidence to support your arguments, and you've repeatedly failed to deliver. I guess you expect people to accept your arguments on faith in your word. I have presented evidence for my arguments, both from the world around us and the history of it, and from spiritual nature which you reject. I can't "prove" anything, and I've never claimed I could.

Do you think Scrooge wrote that?
That explains much about your posts.
LOL!
Swear at me some more. That always makes for compelling argument.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, so the god-hater tripe lands on deaf ears.
I made a conclusion that spirituality, in and of itself, leads to no credible conclusions because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
How do you reconcile that?

No, I think that Scrooge SAID that, in Charles Dickens 'A Christmas Carol'. Interesting story... you see ol' Scrooge was like you, skeptical of spiritual nature. So he had this smarmy "undigested beef" retort when he first encountered a spiritual entity. By the end of the story he was very much a believer and it changed his cold heart. That's why I found it ironic you would pick that quote.

Oh, you're not an 'Atheist' God-hater, you're an 'agnostic' one? Well that's actually worse, you are MORE of a coward. At least the 'Atheist' God-hater has the balls to completely denounce the God they believe in. You choose to hedge your bets. I guess you think God may show you some mercy because you didn't completely disavow Him? You've made the conclusion that you don't believe in spiritual nature, so you can't believe in God.

because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
How do you reconcile that?

Because we are fallible human beings.

We have this profound spiritual connection to something we can't wrap our minds around, but are aware of it and know it exists. Through this realization, we attempt to create "religions" to try and develop an organized understanding of what we can't comprehend. But since we are not perfect, we often create false incarnations of God. Those incarnations become ingrained and rooted in our culture and society.

The wise men of ancient tribes realized if they didn't construct some formal pattern of spiritual practice through ceremony and ritual, their people risked spiritual entropy and eventual disassociation, which would lead to a collapse of their civil society. It's logical that people who practice anything as a unified group are stronger than those who don't, therefore, religions were born.

I am actually non-religious. My sister, a devout Baptist, calls me an Atheist. I don't consider myself to be, because I do believe in a Spiritual God. Now, my God isn't a man, but I'll often refer to God as He or Him in conversation. My God doesn't judge or condemn, it is a spiritual force and energy without humanistic attributes. This is why I can swear at you and not feel guilty about it, even when you believe you can make me feel guilt.

That said, I can understand the benefit of religion which is conducive with promotion of positive spiritual energy and have respect for it. I condemn religion when it doesn't promote positive spiritual energy. Most religions are positive and serve to maintain human spiritual fidelity. They may very well be incompatible with each other but they share one important aspect, spiritual fidelity.

 

[Boss]

Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?

To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth. There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real? Of course not.

I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa. The analogy still works, IMO. That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.

And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.
"What is that?"
"A pink unicorn"
"There's no such thing"
"Yes there is"
"Really? OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
"No. Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"

There is no benefit in Santa Claus belief. It is purely a novelty. Kids 'benefit' by gaining toys, but the parents buy the toys, so the benefit is offset by sacrifice. Yes, you could say the parents 'benefit' by watching the joy on their children's faces, but this could be achieved in any number of ways without Santa Claus.

You are correct, the human belief in something greater than self (spirituality) has gone on since the inception of man. It is through our spiritual connection that man gained inspiration. Inspiration led to everything that makes man what he is today. Without spirituality, we'd still be living in the jungles competing with the great apes for survival of our species.

And I frankly do not care that you think it is hilarious that you must first believe something can exist to be able to accept evidence of it. The fact that you can't show me any example of something you accept evidence for but don't believe in, speaks volumes. If you don't believe pink unicorns can exist, it doesn't matter what evidence you're shown, you will reject the evidence because you don't believe unicorns can exist.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You've never proven ANYTHING about spiritual nature. I'm not saying that it might not exist, or that there might not be a single or more creators, universes... (I'm agnostic), but you sure haven't proven squat. Then you ask us for hard, scientific evidence to disprove what you have not yet proven. Kinda comical, but it's fun.

My arguments have always been centered on providing evidence of possibility. If proof beyond any reasonable doubt could be achieved, do you think we'd be having this conversation?

What exactly IS proof? I am betting you don't have a clue, so let me educate you. Proof is the subjective evaluation of what one is willing to accept as conclusive evidence. This means, what "proves" something to you, may not "prove" something to me. And visa versa.

In a purely philosophical sense, nothing is ever proven. Not even reality itself. Can you prove this reality we experience isn't all a persistent illusion? You can't even prove the laws of nature, science and physics always work in this universe which we've barely explored, much less other theorized universes that may exist. Proof is tough nut.

I've never asked you for proof. I've asked you for evidence to support your arguments, and you've repeatedly failed to deliver. I guess you expect people to accept your arguments on faith in your word. I have presented evidence for my arguments, both from the world around us and the history of it, and from spiritual nature which you reject. I can't "prove" anything, and I've never claimed I could.

Do you think Scrooge wrote that?
That explains much about your posts.
LOL!
Swear at me some more. That always makes for compelling argument.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, so the god-hater tripe lands on deaf ears.
I made a conclusion that spirituality, in and of itself, leads to no credible conclusions because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
How do you reconcile that?

No, I think that Scrooge SAID that, in Charles Dickens 'A Christmas Carol'. Interesting story... you see ol' Scrooge was like you, skeptical of spiritual nature. So he had this smarmy "undigested beef" retort when he first encountered a spiritual entity. By the end of the story he was very much a believer and it changed his cold heart. That's why I found it ironic you would pick that quote.

Oh, you're not an 'Atheist' God-hater, you're an 'agnostic' one? Well that's actually worse, you are MORE of a coward. At least the 'Atheist' God-hater has the balls to completely denounce the God they believe in. You choose to hedge your bets. I guess you think God may show you some mercy because you didn't completely disavow Him? You've made the conclusion that you don't believe in spiritual nature, so you can't believe in God.

because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
How do you reconcile that?

Because we are fallible human beings.

We have this profound spiritual connection to something we can't wrap our minds around, but are aware of it and know it exists. Through this realization, we attempt to create "religions" to try and develop an organized understanding of what we can't comprehend. But since we are not perfect, we often create false incarnations of God. Those incarnations become ingrained and rooted in our culture and society.

The wise men of ancient tribes realized if they didn't construct some formal pattern of spiritual practice through ceremony and ritual, their people risked spiritual entropy and eventual disassociation, which would lead to a collapse of their civil society. It's logical that people who practice anything as a unified group are stronger than those who don't, therefore, religions were born.

I am actually non-religious. My sister, a devout Baptist, calls me an Atheist. I don't consider myself to be, because I do believe in a Spiritual God. Now, my God isn't a man, but I'll often refer to God as He or Him in conversation. My God doesn't judge or condemn, it is a spiritual force and energy without humanistic attributes. This is why I can swear at you and not feel guilty about it, even when you believe you can make me feel guilt.

That said, I can understand the benefit of religion which is conducive with promotion of positive spiritual energy and have respect for it. I condemn religion when it doesn't promote positive spiritual energy. Most religions are positive and serve to maintain human spiritual fidelity. They may very well be incompatible with each other but they share one important aspect, spiritual fidelity.

Spiritual fidelity to what?
Thousands of completely incompatible ideas.
You are actually an agnostic as well, but want to use it as a pejorative toward me.
This post of yours is a bit hilarious, actually. You have made a great case for spirituality being the invention of people with a great need to have answers and be included. Read through it. Tribal leaders invented religion to create cohesion and tribal identity, so you say. I suggest it was a power grab, and can recommend a great book on the subject if you like.
By the way, atheists don't renounce the "god they believe in". They don't believe in one. I contend that everyone is agnostic, since if the god that is believed in can be known, what need faith? That is all agnosticism really is. The humility to admit that the nature or existence of a god can not be "known". Nothing more. People like to get heated with the use of "atheist" and "agnostic" and twist the terms to mean things that support their own "spiritual" assumptions, but it paints them as agenda driven egoists.
You think people are driven to their spiritual revelations because they sense there is something there. It is more the fear of the unknown and the need to believe that there is more. I don't suggest there isn't something more, I simply have no idea, and no way of discovering if it is true.
Understand, I have convinced myself of the opposite in the past. I was a pastor and quite dedicated to it, but I realized I had done a massive brain wash on myself to achieve that level of belief, and as I studied more deeply I realized I had duped myself. Hard stuff to face, but I couldn't deny it either.
Most people value the "spiritual" comfort more than the honest recognition of what they actually "know". Whether it is beneficial or not is not relevant to whether or not it is true. It comforts people to know there is a purpose, and they either invent that or imagine that their higher power is real but not yet fully revealed.
The latter would describe you.
And me, to a far lesser extent.

 

[daws101]

boosy's bullshit is really reeking this fine saturday!

 

[thebrucebeat]

boosy's bullshit is really reeking this fine saturday!

New here.
Who's boosy?

 

[Montrovant]

Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?

To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth. There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real? Of course not.

I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa. The analogy still works, IMO. That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.

And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.
"What is that?"
"A pink unicorn"
"There's no such thing"
"Yes there is"
"Really? OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
"No. Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"

There is no benefit in Santa Claus belief. It is purely a novelty. Kids 'benefit' by gaining toys, but the parents buy the toys, so the benefit is offset by sacrifice. Yes, you could say the parents 'benefit' by watching the joy on their children's faces, but this could be achieved in any number of ways without Santa Claus.

You are correct, the human belief in something greater than self (spirituality) has gone on since the inception of man. It is through our spiritual connection that man gained inspiration. Inspiration led to everything that makes man what he is today. Without spirituality, we'd still be living in the jungles competing with the great apes for survival of our species.

And I frankly do not care that you think it is hilarious that you must first believe something can exist to be able to accept evidence of it. The fact that you can't show me any example of something you accept evidence for but don't believe in, speaks volumes. If you don't believe pink unicorns can exist, it doesn't matter what evidence you're shown, you will reject the evidence because you don't believe unicorns can exist.

You are missing the point.

It's not a question of whether pink unicorns can exist but whether there is any evidence they do. If someone showed me evidence of a pink unicorn (or put one in front of me) my views would change. Why would I change my views, why would I believe, without any evidence?

Even for those who believe in something spiritual, they think they have evidence. It's almost always subjective, but there is some kind of evidence first. If a person didn't require any evidence first, they'd believe everything anyone ever told them.

And how's this for an example? Germs. Before someone was able to discover them, I doubt many people believed that microscopic organisms were responsible for sickness. Yet, once evidence became available, people changed their minds. No one needed to believe in germs before evidence was provided, the evidence is what brought about the belief.

People don't need to believe before they will accept evidence. They merely need evidence they find convincing, reliable, confirmed, etc. Of course, there are times a person may simply refuse to accept something. I think you assume it happens far more frequently than it does when it comes to atheists.

 

[Montrovant]

Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?

To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth. There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real? Of course not.

I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa. The analogy still works, IMO. That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.

And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.
"What is that?"
"A pink unicorn"
"There's no such thing"
"Yes there is"
"Really? OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
"No. Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"

There is no benefit in Santa Claus belief. It is purely a novelty. Kids 'benefit' by gaining toys, but the parents buy the toys, so the benefit is offset by sacrifice. Yes, you could say the parents 'benefit' by watching the joy on their children's faces, but this could be achieved in any number of ways without Santa Claus.

You are correct, the human belief in something greater than self (spirituality) has gone on since the inception of man. It is through our spiritual connection that man gained inspiration. Inspiration led to everything that makes man what he is today. Without spirituality, we'd still be living in the jungles competing with the great apes for survival of our species.

And I frankly do not care that you think it is hilarious that you must first believe something can exist to be able to accept evidence of it. The fact that you can't show me any example of something you accept evidence for but don't believe in, speaks volumes. If you don't believe pink unicorns can exist, it doesn't matter what evidence you're shown, you will reject the evidence because you don't believe unicorns can exist.

If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased? Why does it persist?

You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now. Why does Santa not follow that same guideline? Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?

 

[daws101]

boosy's bullshit is really reeking this fine saturday!

New here.
Who's boosy?

no but you must be, boss aka boosy.....you've read his shit hence the nick name.
alcohol plays a big part in his ramblings..

 

[Boss]

Spiritual fidelity to what?
Thousands of completely incompatible ideas.

The spiritual nature we are connected to as humans. The incompatibility is not the fault of spiritual nature, it is the fault of imperfect man. Vain arrogance, the belief that you are right and others are wrong.

You are actually an agnostic as well, but want to use it as a pejorative toward me.

Ah, no... not an agnonstic. In fact, I am more atheistic than agnostic. An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God or not, I know there is a God, a Spiritual God. I have a problem with theistic incarnations of God. I don't call myself an "Atheist" because most of them don't believe in God, and I do. I am a Spiritualist. I totally believe in God as a spiritual force of energy without humanistic characteristics of love, hate, caring, forgiveness, envy, anger, etc.

This post of yours is a bit hilarious, actually. You have made a great case for spirituality being the invention of people with a great need to have answers and be included. Read through it. Tribal leaders invented religion to create cohesion and tribal identity, so you say. I suggest it was a power grab, and can recommend a great book on the subject if you like.

Now you are confusing religion with spiritual connection and spirituality. We did not invent human spiritual connection. We did invent religions, they are a byproduct of our human spiritual connections. I explained how religions came to be, and it wasn't about a power grab at all. That's not to say that some religions weren't a power grab, Islamic religion comes to mind.

Thanks for your reading recommendation but I probably already have the book or have read it.

By the way, atheists don't renounce the "god they believe in". They don't believe in one.

I know, but God-haters do... there is a difference. You seem to be under the delusion that because someone claims they are an Atheist they must honestly not believe in God. People do lie about things all the time, didn't you know this? I know some so-called 'Atheists' who believe in God more than some so-called 'Christians'. They LIE about their Atheism in order to give themselves cover while they renounce the God they believe in and hate. That's the point of the OP, or did you miss that?

I contend that everyone is agnostic, since if the god that is believed in can be known, what need faith?

Faith is yet another tricky word. Anything you believe is truth requires faith. This applies to science, religion and philosophy. I have often said, I don't have 'faith' in spiritual nature because I 'know' it exists. Still, faith is required for me to know this is true.

That is all agnosticism really is. The humility to admit that the nature or existence of a god can not be "known". Nothing more. People like to get heated with the use of "atheist" and "agnostic" and twist the terms to mean things that support their own "spiritual" assumptions, but it paints them as agenda driven egoists.

Again, agnosticism is essentially saying you don't know or have faith in anything as truth. I don't 'twist' anything with regard to the terms, I just find it interesting how some God-haters claim atheism while others aren't so bold and claim agnosticism instead. It's almost like saying, "I don't believe in God, but just in case...." BTW... there are also some 'Christians' who are very much agnostic. (Remember, people DO lie!)

You think people are driven to their spiritual revelations because they sense there is something there. It is more the fear of the unknown and the need to believe that there is more. I don't suggest there isn't something more, I simply have no idea, and no way of discovering if it is true.

But it's not fear of the unknown, and I have demonstrated this with evidence. No other living creature in nature experiences such a prolific "fear of the unknown" that it must create placebos of imaginary things to console it. Nothing! Not found in nature at all! Man, through his inspiration from spiritual connection, invented Science to explain the unknown. It's not a "need" to believe there is more, it's an intrinsic awareness there is something greater than ourselves. The difference between me and you is, I DO know it's true. I've discovered it, I've tapped into it, I've realized the magnificence of it. You will never be able to convince me it's not true, not in my lifetime.

Understand, I have convinced myself of the opposite in the past. I was a pastor and quite dedicated to it, but I realized I had done a massive brain wash on myself to achieve that level of belief, and as I studied more deeply I realized I had duped myself. Hard stuff to face, but I couldn't deny it either.

Then you never actually had a true connection with spiritual nature. Sounds like what you had was a faith in religious philosophy, and you discovered that dogma was flawed and fallible. Therefore, you've rejected spirituality on that basis alone. Big mistake. Error in judgement on your part.

Most people value the "spiritual" comfort more than the honest recognition of what they actually "know". Whether it is beneficial or not is not relevant to whether or not it is true. It comforts people to know there is a purpose, and they either invent that or imagine that their higher power is real but not yet fully revealed.
The latter would describe you.
And me, to a far lesser extent.

What you are saying is often true for religious people, I can't deny that. However, our human spiritual connection can't be denied, we have it and it's real, not imaginary. I'm sorry, but you've not described me at all. I realize personal benefits from having and maintaining a strong spiritual connection to my God. I can't deny this any more than I could deny my mother exists. I didn't invent it or make it up, and there are often times I wish I weren't guided by my Spiritual God and could do whatever I pleased. I guess this is where my "faith" comes into play, I believe that doing whatever I please and forsaking my Spiritual conscience would destroy who I am as a person. You may have noticed, I kinda like who I am a little... don't want to lose that.

 

[Boss]

If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased? Why does it persist?

You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now. Why does Santa not follow that same guideline? Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?

Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?

Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Spiritual fidelity to what?
Thousands of completely incompatible ideas.

The spiritual nature we are connected to as humans. The incompatibility is not the fault of spiritual nature, it is the fault of imperfect man. Vain arrogance, the belief that you are right and others are wrong.

You are actually an agnostic as well, but want to use it as a pejorative toward me.

Ah, no... not an agnonstic. In fact, I am more atheistic than agnostic. An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God or not, I know there is a God, a Spiritual God. I have a problem with theistic incarnations of God. I don't call myself an "Atheist" because most of them don't believe in God, and I do. I am a Spiritualist. I totally believe in God as a spiritual force of energy without humanistic characteristics of love, hate, caring, forgiveness, envy, anger, etc.



Now you are confusing religion with spiritual connection and spirituality. We did not invent human spiritual connection. We did invent religions, they are a byproduct of our human spiritual connections. I explained how religions came to be, and it wasn't about a power grab at all. That's not to say that some religions weren't a power grab, Islamic religion comes to mind.

Thanks for your reading recommendation but I probably already have the book or have read it.



I know, but God-haters do... there is a difference. You seem to be under the delusion that because someone claims they are an Atheist they must honestly not believe in God. People do lie about things all the time, didn't you know this? I know some so-called 'Atheists' who believe in God more than some so-called 'Christians'. They LIE about their Atheism in order to give themselves cover while they renounce the God they believe in and hate. That's the point of the OP, or did you miss that?



Faith is yet another tricky word. Anything you believe is truth requires faith. This applies to science, religion and philosophy. I have often said, I don't have 'faith' in spiritual nature because I 'know' it exists. Still, faith is required for me to know this is true.



Again, agnosticism is essentially saying you don't know or have faith in anything as truth. I don't 'twist' anything with regard to the terms, I just find it interesting how some God-haters claim atheism while others aren't so bold and claim agnosticism instead. It's almost like saying, "I don't believe in God, but just in case...." BTW... there are also some 'Christians' who are very much agnostic. (Remember, people DO lie!)



But it's not fear of the unknown, and I have demonstrated this with evidence. No other living creature in nature experiences such a prolific "fear of the unknown" that it must create placebos of imaginary things to console it. Nothing! Not found in nature at all! Man, through his inspiration from spiritual connection, invented Science to explain the unknown. It's not a "need" to believe there is more, it's an intrinsic awareness there is something greater than ourselves. The difference between me and you is, I DO know it's true. I've discovered it, I've tapped into it, I've realized the magnificence of it. You will never be able to convince me it's not true, not in my lifetime.

Understand, I have convinced myself of the opposite in the past. I was a pastor and quite dedicated to it, but I realized I had done a massive brain wash on myself to achieve that level of belief, and as I studied more deeply I realized I had duped myself. Hard stuff to face, but I couldn't deny it either.

Then you never actually had a true connection with spiritual nature. Sounds like what you had was a faith in religious philosophy, and you discovered that dogma was flawed and fallible. Therefore, you've rejected spirituality on that basis alone. Big mistake. Error in judgement on your part.

Most people value the "spiritual" comfort more than the honest recognition of what they actually "know". Whether it is beneficial or not is not relevant to whether or not it is true. It comforts people to know there is a purpose, and they either invent that or imagine that their higher power is real but not yet fully revealed.
The latter would describe you.
And me, to a far lesser extent.

What you are saying is often true for religious people, I can't deny that. However, our human spiritual connection can't be denied, we have it and it's real, not imaginary. I'm sorry, but you've not described me at all. I realize personal benefits from having and maintaining a strong spiritual connection to my God. I can't deny this any more than I could deny my mother exists. I didn't invent it or make it up, and there are often times I wish I weren't guided by my Spiritual God and could do whatever I pleased. I guess this is where my "faith" comes into play, I believe that doing whatever I please and forsaking my Spiritual conscience would destroy who I am as a person. You may have noticed, I kinda like who I am a little... don't want to lose that.

I thought you were the one that gets hysterical about you being right and everyone else wrong?
Ah well.
How does your description of yourself make you an atheist? I didn't see that in your commentary at all. I saw not only a believer, but a self-professed "knower". Hardly an atheist. Once again, though, you assure us you are right and most of those other believers are wrong. The one true scotsman canard.
Witch doctors made a power grab, knowing if they were perceived as having a direct link with the beyond, their power amongst the tribesmen increased exponentially. All the rest is an extension of that power lust. Not only are religions invented, the fears of ancient man invented the gods themselves. You are their "spiritual" successor, terrified and in need of a reason.
Your fantasy of atheists being closeted believers is without support. Just barking at the moon without an argument. What data do you base that on? Not your "spiritual" discernment on the issue.
Data.
Agnostics can most certainly believe in god. They have the humility to understand there is no way to know whether their belief is true. Most believers fall in this category. Your understanding of the term is deeply flawed, but commonly so.
What I learned as a pastor is how easily people like yourself can convince themselves that they "know" all kinds of things, myself included. How frightened and helpless people can latch on to the most desperate and unsupportable concepts imaginable. I lived through it.
Through it. I didn't stay there.
You have created a spiritual essence that allows you to maintain your inflated sense of self worth. You like yourself greatly, and god forbid you should lose that. Don't worry. The spirit you serve is the one you created, and it will support any need to self-aggrandize your need to strut your stuff.
It will never fail you. I guarantee it.
Who has ever created a spiritual creation that would condemn themselves?
No one. Even Christians have created a formula where they are the bad guy and get a get out of jail card free.
No one discovers a god that isn't what they need them to be.
You will be no exception.

 

[Boss]

You are missing the point.

It's not a question of whether pink unicorns can exist but whether there is any evidence they do. If someone showed me evidence of a pink unicorn (or put one in front of me) my views would change. Why would I change my views, why would I believe, without any evidence?

I predict your views would NOT change because you know there is no such thing as unicorns, pink or otherwise. You would reject any evidence of such because of that. You would say, "Oh that's just a horse someone painted pink and stuck a horn on!" or maybe you'd argue that it was some kind of freak anomoly. You would not accept evidence for something you did not believe could exist. Now... IF you believed that it was actually a possibility that unicorns MAY exist... different story! But you first have to believe it is possible before you can accept anything as evidence.

Even for those who believe in something spiritual, they think they have evidence. It's almost always subjective, but there is some kind of evidence first. If a person didn't require any evidence first, they'd believe everything anyone ever told them.

The part you're not getting is, ALL evidence is subjective! It doesn't matter what it's for or what it pertains to, anything that is "evidence" is subject to the personal perception of it as such. I never said that people don't require evidence before something is proven to them. You are distorting my words and meaning. Before anything can be proven or any evidence can be presented to prove, a person has to first be willing to accept the possibility exists.

And how's this for an example? Germs. Before someone was able to discover them, I doubt many people believed that microscopic organisms were responsible for sickness. Yet, once evidence became available, people changed their minds. No one needed to believe in germs before evidence was provided, the evidence is what brought about the belief.

Well, yes... actually they DID have to believe it was possible before they could accept the evidence. Louis Pasteur presented his evidence to people and they rejected it on that very basis. Before anyone could change their minds and accept the evidence, they had to rationalize that maybe he is right, maybe there can be these microscopic organisms. Once they accepted that possibility, the evidence convinced them.

It's no different with human spirituality. You have to first accept the possibility it exists before ANY evience evaluation happens. You cannot evaluate evidence of something you don't accept the possibility of. This is why you continue to come up empty with any example.

People don't need to believe before they will accept evidence. They merely need evidence they find convincing, reliable, confirmed, etc. Of course, there are times a person may simply refuse to accept something. I think you assume it happens far more frequently than it does when it comes to atheists.

Again, read what you are saying. You can't convince someone until they are willing to accept the possibility of what you are trying to convince them of. It's not possible. You have not presented a single example to support this, and you can't. Just come up with ONE thing! Just ONE! Give me an example of something you believe in not possible or does not exist, that you accept the evidence of as valid and legitimate?

 

[Boss]

How does your description of yourself make you an atheist?

It doesn't, and I don't call myself an Atheist. I explained it, but apparently you are having reading comprehension problems again. Atheist means A-Theist... or NOT-Theist. Since I do not subscribe to any organized theological doctrine, I am more "atheistic" than "agnostic." That's what I said.

 

[Boss]

Your fantasy of atheists being closeted believers is without support.

I also didn't say this. Closeted believers often claim to be Atheists. Just as closeted agnostics sometimes claim to be Christians. People often lie about who they are and what they believe for a variety of reasons.

 

[Boss]

I thought you were the one that gets hysterical about you being right and everyone else wrong?

I've not argued that I am right and everyone else is wrong. That said, I am certainly not going to abandon what I believe is right on the basis that it's your opinion I am wrong. Oh sorry... what was I thinking, I must obviously be wrong because you say I am!