How Are Atheist To Realize God Exists?

[HeatherAnn]

Frank,

I realize there's good & bad in everyone. I too, have friends of different religious beliefs or lack of.

That article was not about Atheists being better or worse, but that some, like this Athiest, Al Stefanelli, American Atheists’ Georgia State Director, is taking it to the extreme.

A=against/anti... You don't make progress by going against anything, but by offering something better.

Personally, I respect others beliefs or lack of beliefs... yet I also expect them to respect mine & others.

[Franktalk]

Frank,

I realize there's good & bad in everyone. I too, have friends of different religious beliefs or lack of.

That article was not about Atheists being better or worse, but that some, like this Athiest, Al Stefanelli, American Atheists’ Georgia State Director, is taking it to the extreme.

A=against/anti... You don't make progress by going against anything, but by offering something better.

Personally, I respect others beliefs or lack of beliefs... yet I also expect them to respect mine & others.

If we only lived in that world. But we don't. Sadly the world is controlled by a very few very passionate people. Most sit back and let others tell them what to think and do. When someone is focused and driven they can accomplish a lot. Sometime for good and sometime for evil. Stay strong and pray for those who hate you. Pray that their eyes can be opened so they too can see the truth from God. I will tell you that being an atheist does not mean that you want to kill all others. These kind of articles on the Beck site can be giving too much publicity to people who do not deserve it.

[elguanteloko]

That's because you trust your senses without thought (this isn't all too unreasonable though, keep in mind).

My senses don't seem reliable because I trust them. I trust them because they seem reliable. This is merely an example of the backward ideas of religion.

As I said, consider the brain in the vat. You cannot prove any of your senses.

Because senses aren't the type of things that can be "proven". Some propositions can, not senses.

And yet, you trust them. Thus, I think it is reasonable to conclude that feelings could very well be under the same circumstance.

Feelings can be trusted when there is no reason to distrust them. I have no reason to doubt that I am loving people when I feel certain things towards them. However, there are extremely good reasons to distrust the idea that your feelings are being produced by a super-human being you can only perceive through very vague means. From the fact that we trust something that seems reasonable to trust does NOT follow that any super-natural theory you pick is also reasonable to trust. Very bad reasoning indeed.

Consider a blind person. Do they have any reason to think a sense of sight exists? Only because other people tell them so. But they will never be able to sense it. Under your logic, they would be justified in assuming seeing does not exist, because they are not able to solidly observe it with their senses.

Once again, you need to study Epistemology before making these type of ridiculous claims, TAO. A blind person has no reason to mistrust the fact that sight exists just as I have no reason to mistrust the fact that experiments on relativity have shown the theory of relativity accurate.

But since our senses come to us in the form of feelings,

they don't, I'm sorry. Impressions, maybe, but not feelings.

it thus classifies that anything that are brain produces is of an equal value.

I don't know what you mean by saying "everything that the brain produces is of equal value".

However, due to our habit of relying on the senses, we tend to trust and use less the other areas of the brain; we haven't been trained to use them.

?

Be it noted, however, that I am still waiting for you to address the question of the OP. You have been pretty off-topic since the beginning.

Edited September 18, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

Elguanteloko,

I apologize for offending you... or "poisoning" the thread, as you mentioned. That wasn't my intention.

If we only lived in that world. But we don't. Sadly the world is controlled by a very few very passionate people. Most sit back and let others tell them what to think and do. When someone is focused and driven they can accomplish a lot. Sometime for good and sometime for evil. Stay strong and pray for those who hate you. Pray that their eyes can be opened so they too can see the truth from God. I will tell you that being an atheist does not mean that you want to kill all others. These kind of articles on the Beck site can be giving too much publicity to people who do not deserve it.

Of course, Atheism does not always involve wanting to kill others... this guy was taking it to the extreme & if you read some comments in his blog, you realize others are following his mentality.

I don't believe in sitting back & letting other tell me what to think & do.

Yet, I also don't believe in rebelling just to rebel.

I believe in using the brain I've been blessed with, along with intuition to be happy & to make this world a little better.

You're right - when one is focused & driven, a lot can be accomplished... And I think the way the "best" of all posssibilities can be discovered, pursued & accomplished is through using not only intellect but also intuition (subconscious/spirit). That's how people have acheived extraordinary accomplishments.

They may not call it God... it doesn't matter what you call it. There is a higher awareness that we are all capable of tapping into.

[elguanteloko]

Elguanteloko,

I apologize for offending you... or "poisoning" the thread, as you mentioned. That wasn't my intention.

"Poisoning the well" is a rhetorical device, a dirty one. Showing something bad some Mormons did and then saying bad things about Mormons isn't very honest.

Of course, Atheism does not always involve wanting to kill others...

What do you mean "not always"? What would you think if I said "Well, Mormonism doesn't always involve raping children"... not very good, is it? Just quit it.

this guy was taking it to the extreme & if you read some comments in his blog, you realize others are following his mentality.

More than one Mormon rapes children... is that a Mormon thing?

Seriously, knock it off.

I don't believe in sitting back & letting other tell me what to think & do.

Well, I'm going to tell you what NOT to do: don't post in this thread again.

[HeatherAnn]

Let me apologize again & rephrase that.

Most Atheists don't want to kill others.

I have a right as much as you do to post on this forum, Elguanteloko.

[elguanteloko]

Let me apologize again & rephrase that.

Most Atheists don't want to kill others.

I have a right as much as you do to post on this forum, Elguanteloko.

You do, but I'm not welcoming you. Post whatever you like.

[TAO]

My senses don't seem reliable because I trust them. I trust them because they seem reliable. This is merely an example of the backward ideas of religion.

No, you misread what I said. I said that you trust them without being able to 'prove' their reliability. Whether they seem reliable or not doesn't have to do with proof. It can mean that you have used it alot, and thus, you trust using it, or something along those lines.

Because senses aren't the type of things that can be "proven". Some propositions can, not senses.

And neither can feelings. I think you understand where I am going now.

Feelings can be trusted when there is no reason to distrust them. I have no reason to doubt that I am loving people when I feel certain things towards them. However, there are extremely good reasons to distrust the idea that your feelings are being produced by a super-human being you can only perceive through very vague means. From the fact that we trust something that seems reasonable to trust does NOT follow that any super-natural theory you pick is also reasonable to trust. Very bad reasoning indeed.

Ah, my friend, but I disagree. There is no reason to trust your sense over your feelings, because they are the same thing - that is, your brain communicates your senses to you in the form of feelings. Thus, your senses run into the same vulnerabilities that feelings do - that is, the capability to contradict.

Once again, you need to study Epistemology before making these type of ridiculous claims, TAO. A blind person has no reason to mistrust the fact that sight exists just as I have no reason to mistrust the fact that experiments on relativity have shown the theory of relativity accurate.

And you need to demonstrate why they have no need to trust it. I can say they have no need to trust it on the same reasoning that you base not trusting your feelings - they haven't tried and tested it's accuracy. Thus, if we take that reasoning, it becomes logical for anybody who is 'missing' a sense to doubt it's existence.

they don't, I'm sorry. Impressions, maybe, but not feelings.

They are one in the same. Your brain doesn't differ between feelings and thoughts. Actually, what it kind of 'sees' is a giant web of interconnected nodes. When you activate a node, it generates all the other categories based on the links and their value of 'relevance'. Then it puts that in something similar to a priority queue, that way you can recall the most relevant information, followed by less, and less. Following the reaction to the stimuli, the brain then tries to modify all those links and changes their values a little bit so that way it is more accurate in the future.

In other word, the feelings I am talking about are instincts, and they effect you just as strongly as the senses do. To your brain, it is simply another node, another connection in the web it has developed. Your brain might not classify it as a strong 'relevance' link, but mine does. Perhaps it depends on whose brain it is. It wouldn't surprise me if it was not universal.

I don't know what you mean by saying "everything that the brain produces is of equal value".

Your conscious brain places different values on everything. It forms what we call a 'lens'. Different lenses can be exchanged depending on your mood and your bias towards the subject (bias is not positive or negative in this case, it just is simply a measuring value). However, your unconscious brain doesn't do this, it simply stores data. To your unconscious brain, information is information, and it stores it all, regardless. The thing is, depending on what lens your conscious brain is using, your concisous brain can sometimes interfere, and block the unconscious brain by recognizing what it is doing.

?

The senses are trained to work accurately, I think. I heard once (I don't know the source) that there was a blind man who got his sight restored via surgery. However, his sight was blurry. However, whenever he heard something, or felt something, his sight became much clearer. It was as if the other senses were much keener then his sight... because he wasn't used to using it. However, when his keener senses came on... it effected his sight.

We don't know quite all about the senses yet... but I think training does play a part in them getting to be what they are to us as we get older. I think our senses get 'trained' only to a certain aspect though... part of it, is based on instinct... which is stuff our brain 'knows' without any proof of reason. Instinct, in my opinion, is the basis of all of our logic. =)

Be it noted, however, that I am still waiting for you to address the question of the OP. You have been pretty off-topic since the beginning.

Yes, I have been off topic, and I will do my best to fix that.

But let me illustrate what this post has to do with the topic... by answering your question. The way I believe that atheists can come to the same conclusions we do, is simply, by learning to trust the same instincts that we do. That is, by going beyond the senses, which they are used to, and trusting some other instincts. I am not saying all instincts are to be trusted (some wouldn't be very healthy), but if they are truly keen on it, they can try trusting a few other instincts we have, which will lead to a viewpoint more like ours, some of the time.

Of course, I am not sure that many would want to do that. But it would be possible, if they wanted to. It is sort of like... a sixth sense, almost?

I hope I sort of connected all the dots I was making there, in any case =). If I didn't, I'm sorry.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

P.S. How bout to stop the off-topic-ness of my posts, we shall just agree to disagree on the fine details of the issue. Does that sound okay? Thanks =D.

Edited September 18, 2011 by TAO

[HeatherAnn]

You do, but I'm not welcoming you. Post whatever you like.

Thank you, Elguanteloko.

I will.

(God is LOVE)

Edited September 18, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[elguanteloko]

No, you misread what I said. I said that you trust them without being able to 'prove' their reliability.

I probably did. However, I can show my senses to be reliable to the extent that I don't bump into objects I see, I hear things that are potentially dangerous, etc. People who don't have these things are less likely to survive or have a bunch of problems. If my senses weren't reliable I would expect to bump into things I'm not able to see, etc. Since I don't suffer these consequences more than I do, then I think I can say they are pretty reliable. Not infallible, but reliable.

And neither can feelings. I think you understand where I am going now.

I don't know where you are going as far as an idea is concerned but I do know what you are trying to do. Senses can be reliable for certain purposes and so can feelings. We have feelings for a reason, after all, not just for fun.

Ah, my friend, but I disagree. There is no reason to trust your sense over your feelings,

Really? So, if I feel like my girlfriend loves me, but then I accidentally hear a conversation between her and someone else she calls "baby" telling him how much she loves him and how much she wishes I was dead... I think it would be reasonable to doubt what my feeling was telling me was the case, don't you think? Crazy idea, I know.

because they are the same thing - that is, your brain communicates your senses to you in the form of feelings. Thus, your senses run into the same vulnerabilities that feelings do - that is, the capability to contradict.

I'm not going to repeat over and over again that feelings aren't the same as sense experience. You may find similarities but if not everything that is true of one is true of the other, then they are not the same thing.

And you need to demonstrate why they have no need to trust it.

To mistrust it, you meant there. I actually don't and the reason why I don't have to justify this is because it seems pretty clear that there is no good reason to mistrust the fact that scientists have tested relativity (or people have seen with their sight). It is this simple, TAO.

I can say they have no need to trust it on the same reasoning that you base not trusting your feelings - they haven't tried and tested it's accuracy.

Oh, but you are wrong here! Scientists and psychologists have done a lot of studies on the reliability of feelings and what people conclude from them. I'll give you a hint on the results: we do generally terrible. We can do a lot of tests to see if the conclusion you based on feelings are accurate or not. Why wouldn't we?

Instinct, in my opinion, is the basis of all of our logic. =)

Even if I grant this (and I don't and I suggest you read on the Philosophy of Logic and the Philosophy of Mathematics), this doesn't put all inferences on equal epistemic value any more than saying 2+2=234234234 is as reasonable as 2+2=4.

Yes, I have been off topic, and I will do my best to fix that.

Ok, then start!

But let me illustrate what this post has to do with the topic. The way I believe that atheists can come to the same conclusions we do, is simply, by learning to trust the same instincts that we do. That is, by going beyond the senses, which they are used to, and trusting some other instincts.

You could have said this stuff from the beginning.

OK, so atheists should just, in a way, let themselves go with their instincts. Got ya! The only problem is that I don't think most atheist have a "God instinct". I know I definitely don't. This also isn't any more helpful than saying "You can believe gnomes are at the end of rainbows, too, just trust your instincts".

[TAO]

I probably did. However, I can show my senses to be reliable to the extent that I don't bump into objects I see, I hear things that are potentially dangerous, etc. People who don't have these things are less likely to survive or have a bunch of problems. If my senses weren't reliable I would expect to bump into things I'm not able to see, etc. Since I don't suffer these consequences more than I do, then I think I can say they are pretty reliable. Not infallible, but reliable.

Alas, the point then goes, so it is with the spiritual sense. It doesn't often contradict the physical one, at least for me.

Really? So, if I feel like my girlfriend loves me, but then I accidentally hear a conversation between her and someone else she calls "baby" telling him how much she loves him and how much she wishes I was dead... I think it would be reasonable to doubt what my feeling was telling me was the case, don't you think? Crazy idea, I know.

Is that a feeling, or is that a paradigm ;-). I think that is a paradigm, based on multiple feelings put together. In other words, your conclusions were wrong, and your conclusion was wrong. But so can our conclusions about senses be wrong as well, until we learn better; it happens whenever people where stripes vertically or horizontally - they look more stretched or less stretched then they actually are.

I'm not going to repeat over and over again that feelings aren't the same as sense experience. You may find similarities but if not everything that is true of one is true of the other, then they are not the same thing.

This is one of the points we will just agree to disagree on then =P.

To mistrust it, you meant there. I actually don't and the reason why I don't have to justify this is because it seems pretty clear that there is no good reason to mistrust the fact that scientists have tested relativity (or people have seen with their sight). It is this simple, TAO.

The reason they would be justified in not trusting them is because they have not experienced something themselves. I think, this too, will be an area which we both will agree to disagree on XD.

Oh, but you are wrong here! Scientists and psychologists have done a lot of studies on the reliability of feelings and what people conclude from them. I'll give you a hint on the results: we do generally terrible. We can do a lot of tests to see if the conclusion you based on feelings are accurate or not. Why wouldn't we?

Reliability of what? Reliability of what is considered 'reality' to normal people? That is an assumed state of mind, my friend, and what is normal is not always right, nor is it always wrong. And again, training comes in. Do those who have been trained to think on feelings do any better than those who have not been trained. There are many questions which haven't been answered; nor have tests been perfectly executed. Part of the problem is people are stuck in the paradigm that 'reality' is what you see and feel. It isn't that easy. In order to show that something is not part of reality, you have to show that there is no reality besides that which you have. And it is very hard to do that.

Even if I grant this (and I don't and I suggest you read on the Philosophy of Logic and the Philosophy of Mathematics), this doesn't put all inferences on equal epistemic value any more than saying 2+2=234234234 is as reasonable as 2+2=4.

I have already read on philosophy, logic, and mathematics. What you don't realize though, is that those statements could be correct in independent 'universes'. I believe discrete mathematics goes into that a bit. No, the reason why the first statement isn't correct in our universe, is because we have assigned a value to 234234234 in relative to 4. But in another 'universe', those numbers might have no connection, and so the statement could be completely valid.

In other words... it is all relative! 2+2 = 4, and 2+2 = 234234234 are only contradictory when you assign a comparative difference between 4 and 234234234. Similarly, the values in our head aren't any different until we look at them through a lens, and assign them comparative differences. 4 and 234234234 are different because we say they are, and for no other reason. They mean 'nothing' until we give them value.

You could have said this stuff from the beginning.

OK, so atheists should just, in a way, let themselves go with their instincts. Got ya! The only problem is that I don't think most atheist have a "God instinct". I know I definitely don't. This also isn't any more helpful than saying "You can believe gnomes are at the end of rainbows, too, just trust your instincts".

Mmm... nah... this is not about atheists having a 'god instinct'. This is about people listening to what God has given them and doing accordingly =P. For me, that is through instinct. I think, for many, it will also be through instinct, and for some different instincts. And for some other methods. But it is the best method I know.

And you see, you discovered the same thing I do; there isn't really a reason for an atheist to trust me that such a thing exists =). That be the big problem XD. And the only way I can see of dealing with that is on a person to person basis =).

So it's not hopeless. But it isn't quite an easy answer, which I think you concluded already. I am thinking we can agree there, in any case.

Best Wishes,

-TAO

[elguanteloko]

Is that a feeling, or is that a paradigm ;-). I think that is a paradigm, based on multiple feelings put together. In other words, your conclusions were wrong, and your conclusion was wrong. But so can our conclusions about senses be wrong as well, until we learn better; it happens whenever people where stripes vertically or horizontally - they look more stretched or less stretched then they actually are.

We could be wrong and I never denied that. However, religion is a long ways from being as "probably less wrong" as science and rational skepticism are.

The reason they would be justified in not trusting them is because they have not experienced something themselves. I think, this too, will be an area which we both will agree to disagree on XD.

I told you why this doesn't work and all you do is repeat yourself. Go ahead.

Reliability of what? Reliability of what is considered 'reality' to normal people?

amm... correct.

That is an assumed state of mind, my friend, and what is normal is not always right, nor is it always wrong.

LOL This must be a joke, TAO. Yes, I could be wrong and so could you. The point is to go with what seems by all best reliable accounts to be the best explanation. Religion is FAR from being a satisfiable explanation to those that start neutral toward it.

I have already read on philosophy, logic, and mathematics. What you don't realize though, is that those statements could be correct in independent 'universes'. I believe discrete mathematics goes into that a bit. No, the reason why the first statement isn't correct in our universe, is because we have assigned a value to 234234234 in relative to 4. But in another 'universe', those numbers might have no connection, and so the statement could be completely valid.

In other words... it is all relative! 2+2 = 4, and 2+2 = 234234234 are only contradictory when you assign a comparative difference between 4 and 234234234. Similarly, the values in our head aren't any different until we look at them through a lens, and assign them comparative differences. 4 and 234234234 are different because we say they are, and for no other reason. They mean 'nothing' until we give them value.

I'm assuming things like "2" and "4" and "=", etc, mean what we normally mean by them. Really, TAO? Do I have to explain to you that when I write "2" I mean the natural number understood commonly in every math class instead of dogs and cats or the number 453 or computers?

You are a perfect illustration of the new techniques I've seen used by religious folks not only in this forum. First it was to grab on to science and when people saw that it wasn't doing them much of a favor they turned to what you are doing and to what mfbukowski does, too: try to make reality seem more ethereal and uncertain that it really is throwing out the window understanding and putting in place "irrationality" to make a field fit for religion. A telling technique but less impressionable minds won't get convinced by this, TAO. The convincing powers of science have now greatly surpassed that of religion; it is now a matter of being informed, not about producing ideas. Wait for numbers of religious people to drop significantly thanks to people who discuss like you are doing now.

Edited September 18, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

Belief, including religious belief, may not be based on "scientific" evidence, yet the positive or negative influence of believing is real.

http://realdoctorstu.com/2011/03/29/new-study-asks-can-religion-help-you-fight-serious-illness/

This is why it's imperative that God be defined in mentally healthy terms.

Edited September 18, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[CV75]

... Please start your journey into the 21st century here:

http://en.wikipedia....The_Blank_Slate

This is not relevant--my use of the term "blank slate" was not a reference to human nature, but with a person not having a formulation one way or the other as to whether God exists.

[Storm Rider]

Here's another question for Mormons. How are Atheists supposed to investigate whether or not God exists? I ask this because it seems that the standard answer of revelation won't work since atheist, by definition, do not believe in a God and, therefore, do not trust in one, either, making "pray with faith" useless in this case.

What do you folks think?

For a true atheist there is no need for God; if there is no knocking at the door there will be no answer. At some point an athiest, just as with all others, will come to question theri own thoughts and beliefs about life and life after death. At this point, as with any honest question there will be a seeking for answers. Only in seeking will an answer be found. Hopefully, these individuals will find a belief system that will work for them. Hopefully, they will join with the disciples of Christ and seek for truth in all they find and cling to it. At that point, their own spirit begins to be more alive in them and they will hunger for even more truth. The path has just begun to return to God.

A cup that overflows will certainly not be capable of taking in more water. Once the cup is in a position to hunger after Living Water will they find an answer. Until they, they are left to overflow with the finite thoughts of men.

[tesuji]

The answer for the atheists, just like anyone else, is to feel the Holy Spirit communicating to their hearts and minds that the gospel is true.

The best way to do this is to invite the Mormon missionaries into their home and listen with an open mind. If they do this, they would likely feel the spirit of God confirm to their heart and mind that knowledge of God's plan of happiness has been restored to the earth. In other words, that God exists and the gospel is true.

Feeling the Spirit is real evidence. Millions of people daily feel this same Spirit as evidence that God exists.

Learning the facts is important and good. But it's ultimately the Spirit that converts. Then you continue on by both faith and reason (faith being always primary).

I find Mormonism to be pretty logical, if you accept a few essential premises, such as that God does exist, we have an immortal spirit in our bodies that is the offspring of God, etc.

However, I am a natural skeptic and I can't say I have a natural gift of belief. To an educated, thinking person, questions will still arise. So often I just have to remember times when I felt the Spirit in the past, and just decide to keep believing. That's the "leap of faith" - you just decide to keep believing. Then further evidence of God comes along later, in bits and pieces. That's a big part of the plan - to learn to live by faith, as you learn and grow.

[This is my first real post on this site. Apologies if I'm off base. I haven't lurked on this site very long to find out what kind of replies are usual here.]