Are people who claim to know God liars?

[Enoch07]

If at any time evidence to the contrary can be provided, then science and the logical individual can change one's stance on the situation. So long as no evidence is at all available, the most logical stance is to claim it does not exist.

I won't argue with that too much. Like the Sasquatch, I am ok with saying you know what there is been no convincing evidence, so its probably not real. But am reluctant to state a negative in absolute. Thats just my opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think you are making it more than what I said...

As an atheist, your litmus test is scientific.

I'm sure there are many and a varied amount of litmus tests, each according to their faith.

Could you please try to see how "litmus test" (which is actually scientific, based on material extracted from lichens which react to materials according to their "potential of Hydrogen" or pH). There are no "litmus tests" for faith, since there is not pH in faith.

What you really mean is, "how or why do I think I'm right and somebody else is wrong." And if there were an actual test for that (let's call it, instead of litmus test, the "belief test"), then there would be no more need for belief -- knowledge, after all, is always better than mere belief, which has far too often been demonstrated wrong. And sometimes, even, destructive.

 

[Milton Platt]

I, really, don't doubt their sincerity, what I doubt is their authority. Doesn't seem a bit audacious on it's face, to feel they could claim anything about God? Yet dozens of folks feel from an unverifiable personal experience, they can claim to the rest, what God wants.

Yes, It's kind of like UFO's, isn't it. People say they saw an unidentified flying object and then arbitrarily identify it as an alien spacecraft without a shred of evidence other than they saw something in the sky.

 

[Mister Silver]

I won't argue with that too much. Like the Sasquatch, I am ok with saying you know what there is been no convincing evidence, so its probably not real. But am reluctant to state a negative in absolute. Thats just my opinion.

That is perfectly understandable. Absolutes can be tricky little buggers. In the end, any logical stance involving anything that has no evidence to provide for its existence should be considered through an agnostic perspective. However, the world in which we live has confused personal experience and belief with absolute knowledge, which is false. It is especially false in reference to a religious person claiming that god is real, but I do admit that it could also be considered false in my claiming that god is not real. The main difference is that I at least have the benefit of the doubt, since there is no evidence for the theist to provide that god is real. I also have the benefit of being capable of changing my mind when proper evidence is provided. One's personal belief, after all, is no reason for everyone else to believe the same thing.

 

[Kenny]

What you really mean is, "how or why do I think I'm right and somebody else is wrong."

Please don't try to put words in my mouth... you are better than that.

And if there were an actual test for that (let's call it, instead of litmus test, the "belief test"), then there would be no more need for belief -- knowledge, after all, is always better than mere belief, which has far too often been demonstrated wrong. And sometimes, even, destructive.

That may be your understanding...

Like I said before... I'm not God to judge. I have my faith and we have a litmus test. You may not agree with my litmus test and that would be natural... it isn't your faith.

You have your litmus test and I wouldn't agree with you... that would be natural, your faith is not mine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please don't try to put words in my mouth... you are better than that.
That may be your understanding...

Like I said before... I'm not God to judge. I have my faith and we have a litmus test. You may not agree with my litmus test and that would be natural... it isn't your faith.

You have your litmus test and I wouldn't agree with you... that would be natural, your faith is not mine.

Sorry, Ken, but you completely mis-understood what I was trying to communicate. Let's just leave it there...

 

[Nakosis]

That's poetic, and all too open to interpretation. An atheist can claim it means impossible things become possible in the mind of the religious while the religious can claim faith ensures all things are possible.

The difference is very psychological in nature despite the similarity in meaning and interpretation.

A more proper atheistic slogan would be: religious faith makes all things possible through the imagination.

What I feel some folks don't understand is how incredibly powerful the imagination is. Most folks feel that of course they can tell the difference between a real experience and something they imagined.

The subconscious works behind the scenes to create the illusion of reality for our conscious awareness. I seen it happen to myself so often, it's no longer hard to trigger.

The purpose of many religious rituals are to trigger religious experiences.

 

[David T]

My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.

My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?

People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?

I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?

You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.

Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.

I think they confuse experience and knowledge a lot but i think thats normal. I could say i have knowledge of the taste of an orange but would disagree. We have experiences of eating oranges we convey that exoerience to others. But the conveyance does not equate as knowledge only conveyance of tbe experience. Further more, we have writings and we have sub conscious assumptions that normal peoe generally are un aware of. Those sub consciuos assumptions, projected through reading and percieved underztanding gives the illusion of knowing when in fact often times its all just a befuddling confusing story shared in church but not others outside. Sience has exactly the same issues as well. Lots of sub Conscious bias individually and colectively. You cant point to science as truth to disprove religion without falling into that illusion.. is religion silly? Yes thats just "normal.".

 

[Mister Silver]

The purpose of many religious rituals are to trigger religious experiences.

Indeed, modern church rituals of singing for the lord and solitary prayer are no different than ancient shaman dancing around a fire and Buddhist meditation. It's just mind/body trickery.

 

[Kenny]

Indeed, modern church rituals of singing for the lord and solitary prayer are no different than ancient shaman dancing around a fire and Buddhist meditation. It's just mind/body trickery.

For the one who is sharing in the moment, we find it as connectivity. Like dancing with your mate, it would hardly be trickery but rather and intimate moment of communion.

 

[Mister Silver]

For the one who is sharing in the moment, we find it as connectivity. Like dancing with your mate.

The difference being your mate can reciprocate by being there physically there with you, while the reciprocation through faith is merely a byproduct of one's imagination.

 

[Kenny]

The difference being your mate can reciprocate by being there physically there with you, while the reciprocation through faith is merely a byproduct of one's imagination.

That would be the question... is it imagination or is it real. For those involved in their faith, it is quite real. For those whose faith is different (such as yours) it doesn't match your litmus test but you wouldn't be the judge of their faith as they wouldn't be the judge of yours.

 

[Mister Silver]

That would be the question... is it imagination or is it real. For those involved in their faith, it is quite real. For those whose faith is different (such as yours) it doesn't match your litmus test but you wouldn't be the judge of their faith as they wouldn't be the judge of yours.

Those who have careers in dealing with the mentally ill, they judge what is real and what is not. Religious ideas based on no evidence to support the reality of something based merely on faith is no different than a mentally ill psyche ward patient. The only difference is the overall perception society has placed on religion as normal due to majority acceptance when it is no more normal than being mentally ill. Imagine if a mentally ill patient who thought his delusions were real was able to create a religion revolving around those delusions, if a good majority of the population accepted those delusions it would be a religion instead of having those religious beliefs properly identified as delusions.

 

[sayak83]

Does that include or not include a God.

I followed a Hindu Guru for a few years. I could actually see/hear the God I was taught to meditate on.

When I was a Christian, I had a personal relationship with Jesus. When a Druid, I saw the nature spirits dancing.

Which was my real experience of God?

All of them to a certain extent. Any spiritual experience is a mix of the transcendent element along with one's own ego and cultural/religious biases. To the extent one has been able to dissolve their ego and cultural habits and bias through spiritual praxis, to that extent these experiences more authentically reflect the transcendent element.

 

[Kenny]

Those who have careers in dealing with the mentally ill, they judge what is real and what is not. Religious ideas based on no evidence to support the reality of something based merely on faith is no different than a mentally ill psyche ward patient.

Then we have 6 billion people who are mentally ill and you are one of the few who are sane.

However, to say that it is based merely on faith hardly encompasses the experience. I can assume that since you haven't experience it, you are judging someone else's experience by yours... not a good measurement.

Unless, that is, you are all knowing... which I doubt

 

[Mister Silver]

I'm afraid my propensity for debate at this point is low on energy.

 

[sayak83]

I've gotten to the point that I can create any experience of God. God can be whatever I create God to be and I can have the experiences to support that creation.

As an atheist, I create no God, and that's what I experience. I find God to be dependent on what I choose God to be. If I can create whatever experience I what, how can I trust that to be the truth.

My experience of God or no God depends entirely on me. That's the truth I find. So rely on that or rely on what someone else tells me, assuming they are not simply floating in a boat of their own making. I know I made my boat.

But that shows that these experiences are simply creations of your ego does it not? The fact that a significant fraction of folks who claim to speak to God are speaking to creations of their own ego is indisputable.

PNAS | Mobile

 

[soulsurvivor]

My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.

My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?

People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?

I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?

You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.

Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.

Jesus said he had actually met and talked to God and billions of people believe Jesus.

Just because you don't believe Jesus does not make him or the people who believe him, liars.

According to Jesus, God is loving and merciful and all knowing. You can choose to believe him or not.

 

[Grandliseur]

My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.

My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?

People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?

I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?

You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.

Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.

The blind cannot see.
Those who cannot see even from creation, from the glory of the heavens and from the glory of the earth, the ecosystems, the individual animals - some of the obvious things revealed about God - are blind.

Those who think that a God who creates man with an unquenchable thirst for God in the fact that there never has been a nation, a tribe - on earth without some form of worship, and yet denies this need as originating with the creator - are blind. That atheism stands there lonely and screams there is no god while there is undeniable evidence for the universe not being materialistic - just goes to show that some are blind.

I will not deny some are blind; this cannot be fixed. So, let the blind lead the blind into oblivion.

 

[RedDragon94]

My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.

My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?

People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?

I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?

You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.

Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.

It depend upon the definition of God, he/she cannot be a perfect being. If he/she was there would be no problems in this world which would make life more enjoyable for everyone. A perfect God must yield to a perfect world.

I'm going to vote that we do have knowledge of God. This is because we do have knowledge, period. All knowledge intersects with science (the subject), science (or scientia in latin) is knowledge, therefore science is the best theology. Theology that goes against science ought to be rejected, it makes no difference to me whether someone else lives in delusion.

We have heard that theology is the science of God when maybe it's actually that science is the theology of truth.

I don't know whether Paganism/Neopaganism is accurate now.

Bottom line: Science reveals God.

Actually, I'll say other.