Why so necessary to do that ?

[Polymath257]

The question is why it was thought to be a Winner... Was it really a Winner or just an attempt of one atheist to close ranks with another atheist against a believer?

I don't know the specific post to which you refer. But I generally award a 'winner' to those who eloquently state a point that I have had difficulty expressing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

After determining atheistic point of view, I determined that non believers can go to any extent to prove non existence of God. Why it is so necessary to do that ?

And further why it also so necessary to press like, funny, winner, love, useful, optimistic, creative and most importantly informative button when somebody reply in favor of atheism ?

Nobody, anywhere, ever, can "prove the non existence of God." And I personally don't know of any atheists who make such a claim.

On the other hand, I have never seen anybody, theist, deist, pantheist, atheist, historian, mathematician, biologist, polymath or ignoramus, ever produce a single piece of verifiable evidence for the existence of God. None. Not ever.

Now, if you happen to know of such evidence, I think it would be wonderful of you to produce it here, where we could all review it, and if true, express our awe and wonder -- and maybe even convert.

But so far, all we've ever seen is people telling us what they believe, and expect us to accept that because THEY believe it, everybody ought to accept it as fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know the specific post to which you refer. But I generally award a 'winner' to those who eloquently state a point that I have had difficulty expressing.

I have never seen you close ranks. Only certain atheists do that, the ones that rank on believers, and you are not one of those types. Imo, you are a sophisticated atheist who just sees no evidence for God, nothing wrong with that. Just because I see evidence for God that does not mean I expect everyone else to see what I see. That would be arrogant.

I also often give a Winner to someone who eloquently answers a post I was unable to answer very well but I also give Winners for other reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it is NOT blind bias. It is well substantiated and justified bias. We know of way too many situations where subjective impressions are simply wrong. Take any optical illusion, for example. We *know* that our senses are geared to 'pickup' certain types of things, even if they don't exist. That is quite good reason to be cautious about subjective experiences as opposed to independently verified objective experiences.

I agree, and that is why I do not believe that spiritual experiences such as experiences mystics have are good evidence for God.

Because God is not verifiable, there can never be independently verified objective evidence for God, so all we can do is look for the best evidence we can find, if we are looking for evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree that people probably give good ratings to posts they genuinely agree with, but under some circumstances I think they are also closing ranks. Why can't both be the case, sometimes but not always?

I told you that I do not assume that, I only suspect it under certain circumstances, and there would be no way for me to know that for a fact unless they told me.

Who determines what is a valid point?
I think you mean is a point that is valid to you, a point you think I refuse to see because I do not agree that it is valid.

Well, apparently you think you determine what's valid, because you're the one who suspects that under certain circumstances people are agreeing with points they actually don't think are valid, just to try and undermine you in some way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, apparently you think you determine what's valid, because you're the one who suspects that under certain circumstances people are agreeing with points they actually don't think are valid, just to try and undermine you in some way.

As far as beliefs or opinions go, I only determine what is valid for myself.

I did not say that people are agreeing with points they do not consider valid.

I said: I agree that people probably give good ratings to posts they genuinely agree with, but under some circumstances I think they are also closing ranks. Why can't both be the case, sometimes but not always?

I suspect it under certain circumstances, and there would be no way for me to know that for a fact unless they told me.

I do not necessarily think they are trying to undermine me, but rather I think they are having fun playing games, and they will play as long as I am willing to play with them. It is noteworthy that I am the only Baha'i who will play with them, because I am the only one who is foolish enough to do so. But what the heck, I do not have any other sources of entertainment right now with the corona-virus still running about.

 

[osgart]

This seems to lead one to be objective about one's own subjective experience.

However there are things that subjective experience tells of that goes beyond independent objective analysis. Things I would not rationalize away as mere illusion.

I myself do not always need to explain the subjective with physical causes.

The subjective realm is not subject to probing for physical causation by way of subjective experience, nor independent objective analysis.

Iow, you can't pin down subjective experience in purely physical terms. Two different languages and realms.

You could make the claim that self subjective experience is illusion, or that it is ultimate reality. But you will never have final physical explanation of it either way.

Thus the whole argument goes in circles and is at an eternal impasse.

The subjective experiences anyone has can not be probed intimately from the inside of the experience with independent objective analysis.

For me it seems rather pointless to insist that I the self is a persistent illusion. It happens to be the most real thing I know of instead.

The physical world is not subjectively experienced with ideal perfection. Yet we subjectively experience the physical world enough to know that a physical reality indeed exists. We are bound by it.

The subjective experience of understanding a concept has a very real quality. Being the experiencer to all one's experiences has a very real quality also.

Different people have different starting points in conceiving of their subjectivity.

It may be that individuals have very unique accounts of their own subjectivity from person to person. I don't know.

Subjective experience isn't totally erroneous. There is someone having the experience. Therefore subjective experiences can be valid accounts of reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Subjective experience isn't totally erroneous. There is someone having the experience. Therefore subjective experiences can be valid accounts of reality.

Yes, it would depend upon the person who had the experience, and how much evidence they have to support their claim.

 

[osgart]

Yes, it would depend upon the person who had the experience, and how much evidence they have to support their claim.

There are things evident to me that I gather solely through subjective means. I may never objectively verify those things to other people.

But humans must have common experiences from one person to another or we would never able relate.

Like trying to understand a concept. How can anyone explain how that process takes place? How can anyone pin down what exactly is occuring physically when we do that?

How can we determine cause, and not just correlation?

What's Baha'u'llah say?

 

[Howard Is]

That is my question. You answer first.

I think you don’t answer questions so you never have to be wrong.
I think you consider all religions identical so that none of them are wrong.

I think your style is all about controlling who questions and answers so you don’t have to say anything specific which could be refuted - but you can point your finger and laugh at other people’s ‘mistakes’.

I think that is passive aggression.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are things evident to me that I gather solely through subjective means. I may never objectively verify those things to other people.

But humans must have common experiences from one person to another or we would never able relate.

Indeed, we are all unique in how we experience reality. Were others to experience it exactly as we do there would be total empathy for other people's suffering. For example, nobody really understands how I feel about my cats and how I feel when I lose one of them. Only God knows the depth of my suffering, the torment to my soul. All other people can do is try to empathize. They might have some understanding, but never a complete understanding.

Like trying to understand a concept. How can anyone explain how that process takes place? How can anyone pin down what exactly is occurring physically when we do that?

How can we determine cause, and not just correlation?

What's Baha'u'llah say?

He would say that it is the rational soul working through the brain and mind that allows the reasoning process to take place. We know how the brain works but the workings of the mind are still a mystery to those who study it, and perhaps that is because the soul is a mystery.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

 

[QuestioningMind]

As far as beliefs or opinions go, I only determine what is valid for myself.

I did not say that people are agreeing with points they do not consider valid.

I said: I agree that people probably give good ratings to posts they genuinely agree with, but under some circumstances I think they are also closing ranks. Why can't both be the case, sometimes but not always?

I suspect it under certain circumstances, and there would be no way for me to know that for a fact unless they told me.

I do not necessarily think they are trying to undermine me, but rather I think they are having fun playing games, and they will play as long as I am willing to play with them. It is noteworthy that I am the only Baha'i who will play with them, because I am the only one who is foolish enough to do so. But what the heck, I do not have any other sources of entertainment right now with the corona-virus still running about.

I said: I agree that people probably give good ratings to posts they genuinely agree with, but under some circumstances I think they are also closing ranks. Why can't both be the case, sometimes but not always?

This is what I find confusing. You say you think that they genuinely agree with the post being made, but they are ALSO 'closing ranks'. What exactly does 'closing ranks' mean? Is that like, they are ganging up on you? If so, how do you determine if someone marked a post a winner because they just happen to agree and or if they marked a post a winner because they just happen to agree and ALSO wanted to 'close ranks' to somehow 'play games' with you?

 

[Howard Is]

For example, nobody really understands how I feel about my cats and how I feel when I lose one of them. Only God knows the depth of my suffering, the torment to my soul.

I understand.

 

[Trailblazer]

I said: I agree that people probably give good ratings to posts they genuinely agree with, but under some circumstances I think they are also closing ranks. Why can't both be the case, sometimes but not always?

This is what I find confusing. You say you think that they genuinely agree with the post being made, but they are ALSO 'closing ranks'. What exactly does 'closing ranks' mean?

Unite, work together, as in The members decided to close ranks and confront the president. This expression, dating from the late 1700s, comes from the military, where it denotes bringing troops into close order so there are no gaps in the fighting line.

Close ranks | Definition of Close ranks at Dictionary.com

Is that like, they are ganging up on you?

Yes, I was going to say in my last post that I consider them to be bullies.

If so, how do you determine if someone marked a post a winner because they just happen to agree and or if they marked a post a winner because they just happen to agree and ALSO wanted to 'close ranks' to somehow 'play games' with you?

Like I said before, there is no way I can know if they gave me a Winner because they were closing ranks, I only suspect it.

The games I can see because that is a recognizable behavior; what I do not know are the motives for the behavior.

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand.

Thanks, now multiply that by 30 or more....
Ever heard of PTSD?

 

[Howard Is]

Thanks, now multiply that by 30 or more....
Ever heard of PTSD?

More than just heard of it. Ever heard of a dude called Job ? I have a lot in common with that guy.
Maybe one day we’ll meet and talk about it over some chamomile tea with honey.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ever heard of a dude called Job ? I have a lot in common with that guy.

Me too.

 

[Howard Is]

Me too.

I can sense that. It is of course impossible to summarise a life like that.
Apart from events and situations themselves, there is the mind-bending question ‘why is this happening to me ?’
How we answer that can have a lot of influence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Apart from events and situations themselves, there is the mind-bending question ‘why is this happening to me ?’
How we answer that can have a lot of influence.

That's certainly true. During the storm and after the dust settles there is the question - why me? Then I start to compare myself with those around me who are happy and the why me is asked again. Of course others can never understand why I ask unless they have walked a mile in my moccasins.

I have come up with different answers to that question at different times in my life and recently there was a shift. Years ago I believed that God was out to punish me because I was bad and/or because I needed to learn a lesson, courtesy of a Baha’i in my family who held that sordid belief. As a result, for about 10 years I hated God and I could not understand why a loving God would punish me; what had I done to deserve it? Then about seven years ago I came to a forum and met other Baha’is who did not hold that view and I started to change my views, but I still blamed God for my suffering, because after all, God created the world that is a storehouse of suffering.

Then a shift in my attitude took place when I started to realize that some of my suffering was the result of free will decisions I had made, but how free were they really? Could I have chosen a different path in life, and if had, would it have lessened my suffering? There is no way that I can ever know the answer to these questions.

Meanwhile, in the back of my mind I believed God was sending me tests to make me stronger, and I was supposed to be grateful for the tests, a commonly held Baha’i belief. But I could never be grateful, although I always faced the tests head-on and got through them, I never ran away.

Only very recently, within the last few weeks, was I able to shed this belief that God was deliberately sending me tests, for which I should be grateful. I am just not buying it anymore; I do not care what others Baha’is believe. Believers are entitled to interpret religious writings in their own way and there is more than one interpretation. Now I believe that there are enough tests in this sordid life without God sending me more. Maybe that is not true for others but it has been true for me.

So ever since I divested myself of that belief I have felt a sense of relief because hating God for sending me tests only caused more suffering to add to what I already had from the event that caused the suffering. One reason it caused more suffering is because of the guilt I felt for hating God and the worry about what could be my fate in the afterlife if I continued to hate God. I could only hope that God would forgive me but that did not completely allay my fear.

I have to admit that I feel guiltier now that I no longer blame God for what happens, so I have to sort out what I am responsible for and not, whether I was guilty or not. That is no fun but I cannot avoid it because I cannot blame anyone else for what happened since I know it was not anyone else’s fault. In the distant past, before God was part of the picture, I blamed other people and I now realize that was so I would not have to feel guilty. Maybe sometimes they were to blame, but that is a separate issue altogether.

 

[Howard Is]

Only very recently, within the last few weeks was I able to shed this belief that God was deliberately sending me tests,

That’s a big shift in perspective. Well done.