Atheist Faith Beliefs

[eyeshaveit]

Eyes, the fact you believe the holy spirit is as real as other things that can be demonstrated to be real but you cannot demonstrate this holy spirit should be alarming to you. 

It very well might if I were an outlier, but there's hundreds of thousands of us, and we all share the same experiences; the same story.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Eyes, the fact you believe the holy spirit is as real as other things that can be demonstrated to be real but you cannot demonstrate this holy spirit should be alarming to you. 

It very well might if I were an outlier, but there's hundreds of thousands of us, and we all share the same experiences; the same story.

Agreed.  Stories are constructs of human minds, human minds are fallible.  How do you test these stores to see if they represent reality or faulty reasoning?

Argument from ignorance is not a good start.
Argumentum ad populum is equally invalid.

Why is the holy spirit powerless to gather and arrange your words like you claim it does?

The Holy Spirit indwells in all Christians, so, if needed to defend the truth, a portion of what I speak or write of the truth is my knowledge and my words pulled out of my memory bank, but gathered and arranged by the Holy Spirit.

Truth is in need of defending but it appears you have come unarmed.

[kevin]

The Holy Spirit is as real to me as this room I'm in, and this desk I'm sitting at, and this laptop keyboard I'm typing on.

Then you should be able to prove the existence of the Holy Spirit was using empirical evidence.

Yes!  But don't hold your breath.

no.

teaspoon, your philosophy is that everything that is "real" must be subject to empirical demonstration. this may be true, but it is nonetheless an assumption of your world view that you have not proven, and is not accepted by eyeshaveit.

most atheists simply dismiss ^^^this criticism by a fallacious argument from incredulity, and therefore do not understand why their reasoning is incomplete.

first, their is no requirement that everything that is real is subject to empirical proof. this is a positive assertion, and therefore if you disagree, you should be able to provide the proof.

second, there are many things that we can now demonstrate to be empirically true that in the past we could not. yet in the past they were as real as they are now.

instead of becoming frustrated that eyes does not share your opinion of what is real, try explaining why your opinion must be the true one.

my two cents.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

The Holy Spirit is as real to me as this room I'm in, and this desk I'm sitting at, and this laptop keyboard I'm typing on.

Then you should be able to prove the existence of the Holy Spirit was using empirical evidence.

Yes!  But don't hold your breath.

no.

teaspoon, your philosophy is that everything that is "real" must be subject to empirical demonstration.

You are mistaken.  Eyes made the comparison of the holy spirit to rooms, desks and laptops.  The last 3 are demonstrable. This claimed holy spirit is not.  I am asking how he identifies the unidentifiable.

first, their is no requirement that everything that is real is subject to empirical proof. this is a positive assertion, and therefore if you disagree, you should be able to provide the proof.

second, there are many things that we can now demonstrate to be empirically true that in the past we could not. yet in the past they were as real as they are now.

Great example Kevin.  We are touching on justified true beliefs.  If I play Lotto and I tell all of my friends that I know I am going to win it this week and I do, did I have a justified true belief when I made the claim? 

We can speculate or hypothesis all we like but the time to move from the default position is when it is demonstrated to be true, not just asserted.   The same way you, Eyes and myself operate every day when we are being rational.   

If you disagree I would be interested in pursuing this topic elsewhere but it will take some time. I have another 2 weeks teaching and then on to marking week which will be stressing in my current role.  Can't wait to go back to my old role but I suspect I may be stuck in this position for an extended period.

[kevin]

i missed this, perhaps because i am hopelessly inattentive.

what are you teaching?

[kevin]

You are mistaken.  Eyes made the comparison of the holy spirit to rooms, desks and laptops.  The last 3 are demonstrable. This claimed holy spirit is not.  I am asking how he identifies the unidentifiable.

if eyes is using rooms, desks, and laptops as parallels, then th eholy spirit should be demonstrable in the same way.

however, quakers who i know that have had personal encounters with the holy spirit absolutely do NOT experience those encounters in the same way that they experience rooms, desks, and laptops. so your objection would seem to be valid in one case, but not necessarily in the other. for example, the visions that my wife has had of angels in a meetinghouse in pittsburgh were completely external to any form of empirical investigation that i know about, yet they were very real to her, and she will defend them without understanding how they came about. go figure.

. . .  The same way you, Eyes and myself operate every day when we are being rational.   

except that "rational" is not yet proven to exclude supernatural experiences.

If you disagree I would be interested in pursuing this topic elsewhere but it will take some time. I have another 2 weeks teaching and then on to marking week which will be stressing in my current role.  Can't wait to go back to my old role but I suspect I may be stuck in this position for an extended period.

lol

well, of course i disagree. the older i get, the less i know, and the more willing i am to assert my ignorance.

any time.

[TallRed]

teaspoon, your philosophy is that everything that is "real" must be subject to empirical demonstration. this may be true, but it is nonetheless an assumption of your world view that you have not proven, and is not accepted by eyeshaveit.

most atheists simply dismiss ^^^this criticism by a fallacious argument from incredulity, and therefore do not understand why their reasoning is incomplete.

first, their [sic] is no requirement that everything that is real is subject to empirical proof. this is a positive assertion, and therefore if you disagree, you should be able to provide the proof.

Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence which actually corresponds to reality as we know it. Other types of evidence cited, such as anecdotal or experiential, are worthless in that they can't be independently examined, measured, or tested. Empirical evidence in this context means the exhibition of some phenomenon, which is repeatedly observable by any independent observer and which indicates the truth or falsity of any thesis using that evidence to support it.

In the case of supernatural phenomena, it must be noted that there has never been any documented, independent empirical evidence for any, at any time. There is only unconfirmed anecdotal evidence, which is indistinguishable from fantasy. Putting it another way, unless there is a method for confirming a phenomenon empirically, there is nothing separating it from "stuff someone made up."

Furthermore, there is also an utter lack of empirical evidence supporting the supposed existence of any god at any time, directly or indirectly. In other words, no god has ever shown its face in any way that could be accurately documented. Again, many anecdotes, but no evidence.

In fact, I hold that the repeatability of the universe is an argument against the existence of a god. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, no one can identify any phenomenon which requires a god or anything supernatural. A bit of a digression here: many aspects of nature were long attributed to a god before science enabled humans to better understand their environment. As the universe is better understood, there are fewer gaps in our knowledge in which a god could fit. Which brings us back to the lack of any observable phenomenon which would require a god. The second point is a bit more elusive. Positing for a moment the existence of a god which might have created the universe and everything in it and could interact with that creation, it follows that this hypothetical god, assuming it had free will to interact in any way it saw fit, could interact on a whim contrary to the observable laws of nature. We don't see this at all. While there is much about the universe we don't yet understand, there aren't any instances of erratic phenomena. The conclusion is that this hypothetical god doesn't choose to interact with its creation, contrary to most religious teaching, or that the god doesn't exist, which is the simpler explanation of the two.

Returning to the question of supernatural phenomena for a moment, such a phenomenon would have to be explainable only by the actions of a god and could not have occurred by any natural means, i.e., means corresponding to the physical laws of the universe as we understand them. Naturally, in order to prevent circular reasoning, the existence of the god would have to be demonstrated as well as its ability to perform the supernatural action. So far in recorded history, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this notion.

my two cents.

And worth every penny.

[bad actor]

How do you discern the 'still small voice' that you call the "holy spirit' from your normal inner dialogue?

It's easy to understand your confusion: it is not a "still small voice',

It very well might if I were an outlier, but there's hundreds of thousands of us, and we all share the same experiences; the same story.

My Bold

Well, I've read and listened to plenty of stories from believers about their experiences and they most definitely aren't all the same.

The majority of the stories have been described as a "still small voice" that guides them.

Isn't there a scripture about that?

https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/still-small-voice-holy-spirit/

  I was reminded of a story from a minister friend, told to me many years ago. It is appropriate for today and every day:

I was in my car pulling out of a tight alleyway in a downtown area. Cars were parked on either side of the ally exit and I could not see the oncoming traffic very well. Once I thought I was clear I started to pull out. But, deep inside, I heard a soft inner voice telling me to, ?Stop, don?t pull out.? It was faint and easy to miss. I did notice and I stopped.

Immediately, a delivery truck rushed by directly in front of the alley, exactly where I would have been. If I had pulled out, I would have been hit and instantly killed. It shook me. I could have just died.

I thought about that soft voice that saved my life. I thought about how soft it was and how easily I could have missed it. It started to make me angry ? ?That is not loud enough! Why couldn?t God speak louder than that?? I even said so to God.

Then, I felt God?s awesome presence fill my car and the Holy Spirit spoke very forcefully to me. He said, ?Yes, it is a soft voice, and yes it is possible to miss it if you don?t pay attention, but THAT IS ALL YOU ARE EVER GOING TO GET.? Wow, now I was really shaken. I cried out in heartfelt repentance, ?Lord, I am so sorry. I thank you for your still small voice, I appreciate it and I am thankful for it just the way it is.? 

My bold again

^^^ Is this fellow Christian mistaken?

Believers around the world are most definitely NOT on the same page when it comes to what the voices in your heads are telling you.

Remember, Mormons and Catholics, and Muslims, etc... think that THEY have the holy spirit too.

I know, I know... They are all hearing DEMONS. 

[eyeshaveit]

How do you discern the 'still small voice' that you call the "holy spirit' from your normal inner dialogue?

It's easy to understand your confusion: it is not a "still small voice',

It very well might if I were an outlier, but there's hundreds of thousands of us, and we all share the same experiences; the same story.

My Bold

Well, I've read and listened to plenty of stories from believers about their experiences and they most definitely aren't all the same.

The majority of the stories have been described as a "still small voice" that guides them.

In all the personal testimonies that I have heard, there has not been one "still small voice" in the bunch.

Isn't there a scripture about that?

https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/still-small-voice-holy-spirit/

That verse does not describe a conversion experience. And none of this is to put the Holy Spirit in a box, as the Bible relates all manner of manifestations of the Spirit: loud, soft, in dreams, in clouds, in fire, etc., etc., etc.

[none]

having inner voice is normal, believing it is someone else is schizophrenia

[eyeshaveit]

having inner voice is normal, believing it is someone else is schizophrenia

Christians have an inner voice and they have the Holy Spirit - these are two entirely different things.

[kevin]

teaspoon, your philosophy is that everything that is "real" must be subject to empirical demonstration. this may be true, but it is nonetheless an assumption of your world view that you have not proven, and is not accepted by eyeshaveit.

most atheists simply dismiss ^^^this criticism by a fallacious argument from incredulity, and therefore do not understand why their reasoning is incomplete.

first, their [sic] is no requirement that everything that is real is subject to empirical proof. this is a positive assertion, and therefore if you disagree, you should be able to provide the proof.

Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence which actually corresponds to reality as we know it. Other types of evidence cited, such as anecdotal or experiential, are worthless in that they can't be independently examined, measured, or tested. Empirical evidence in this context means the exhibition of some phenomenon, which is repeatedly observable by any independent observer and which indicates the truth or falsity of any thesis using that evidence to support it.

In the case of supernatural phenomena, it must be noted that there has never been any documented, independent empirical evidence for any, at any time. There is only unconfirmed anecdotal evidence, which is indistinguishable from fantasy. Putting it another way, unless there is a method for confirming a phenomenon empirically, there is nothing separating it from "stuff someone made up."

Furthermore, there is also an utter lack of empirical evidence supporting the supposed existence of any god at any time, directly or indirectly. In other words, no god has ever shown its face in any way that could be accurately documented. Again, many anecdotes, but no evidence.

In fact, I hold that the repeatability of the universe is an argument against the existence of a god. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, no one can identify any phenomenon which requires a god or anything supernatural. A bit of a digression here: many aspects of nature were long attributed to a god before science enabled humans to better understand their environment. As the universe is better understood, there are fewer gaps in our knowledge in which a god could fit. Which brings us back to the lack of any observable phenomenon which would require a god. The second point is a bit more elusive. Positing for a moment the existence of a god which might have created the universe and everything in it and could interact with that creation, it follows that this hypothetical god, assuming it had free will to interact in any way it saw fit, could interact on a whim contrary to the observable laws of nature. We don't see this at all. While there is much about the universe we don't yet understand, there aren't any instances of erratic phenomena. The conclusion is that this hypothetical god doesn't choose to interact with its creation, contrary to most religious teaching, or that the god doesn't exist, which is the simpler explanation of the two.

Returning to the question of supernatural phenomena for a moment, such a phenomenon would have to be explainable only by the actions of a god and could not have occurred by any natural means, i.e., means corresponding to the physical laws of the universe as we understand them. Naturally, in order to prevent circular reasoning, the existence of the god would have to be demonstrated as well as its ability to perform the supernatural action. So far in recorded history, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this notion.

my two cents.

And worth every penny.

tldr

[TallRed]

tldr

Your loss. In the future, unless you?re willing to read the answer, don?t ask the question.

[kevin]

sorry, tallred.

you're stuff is so shallow and mean-spirited i generally don't read it.

if you can't make your points in a sentence or two it's not worth my time.

i suppose you could change my mind, but i'm not holding my breath.

[TallRed]

sorry, tallred.

you're stuff is so shallow and mean-spirited i generally don't read it.

if you can't make your points in a sentence or two it's not worth my time.

i suppose you could change my mind, but i'm not holding my breath.

There was nothing about my post which was shallow or mean-spirited. I was explaining why empiricism is successful and that there are no alternatives to it. The question you raised was a legitimate one, but which cannot be boiled down to a sentence or two for those with short attention spans. Again, if you ask a question, it?s only polite to read the answer.

[kevin]

sorry, tallred.

you're stuff is so shallow and mean-spirited i generally don't read it.

if you can't make your points in a sentence or two it's not worth my time.

i suppose you could change my mind, but i'm not holding my breath.

There was nothing about my post which was shallow or mean-spirited. I was explaining why empiricism is successful and that there is no alternatives to it. The question you raised was a legitimate one, but which cannot be boiled down to a sentence or two for those with short attention spans. Again, if you ask a question, it?s only polite to read the answer.

allright, tallred.

you've invoked courtesy and manners. so i'll play. i'll agree to talk to you so long as you're polite, so long as you don't insult me, call me names, or resort to rhetorical ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the topic.

i don't have time to respond to your post tonight, but i'll see what i can do tomorrow.

[TallRed]

sorry, tallred.

you're stuff is so shallow and mean-spirited i generally don't read it.

if you can't make your points in a sentence or two it's not worth my time.

i suppose you could change my mind, but i'm not holding my breath.

There was nothing about my post which was shallow or mean-spirited. I was explaining why empiricism is successful and that there is no alternatives to it. The question you raised was a legitimate one, but which cannot be boiled down to a sentence or two for those with short attention spans. Again, if you ask a question, it?s only polite to read the answer.

allright, tallred.

you've invoked courtesy and manners. so i'll play. i'll agree to talk to you so long as you're polite, so long as you don't insult me, call me names, or resort to rhetorical ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the topic.

i don't have time to respond to your post tonight, but i'll see what i can do tomorrow.

Courtesy is a two way street, sir. Take note of which of us has been polite and which used the ad hominem fallacy.

[none]

having inner voice is normal, believing it is someone else is schizophrenia

Christians have an inner voice and they have the Holy Spirit - these are two entirely different things.

ok, auditory hallucination
schizophrenia

[Mr. Blackwell]

having inner voice is normal, believing it is someone else is schizophrenia

Christians have an inner voice and they have the Holy Spirit - these are two entirely different things.

ok, auditory hallucination
the only debate is the source......do you understand what that means?

I sure do.


It's a spiritual battle between good and evil. That's what it is. It's easy to tell the difference though. God would never ever tell you to kill someone. That's an historic and Biblical fact. So, if your "inner" voice is telling you to kill someone you can bet your last dollar that it's really Satan. Because God is a god of mercy and love. Turn the other cheek and all that jazz.

[none]

having inner voice is normal, believing it is someone else is schizophrenia

Christians have an inner voice and they have the Holy Spirit - these are two entirely different things.

ok, schizophrenia

[none]

having inner voice is normal, believing it is someone else is schizophrenia

Christians have an inner voice and they have the Holy Spirit - these are two entirely different things.

ok, auditory hallucination
the only debate is the source......do you understand what that means?

I sure do.


It's a spiritual battle between good and evil. That's what it is. It's easy to tell the difference though. God would never ever tell you to kill someone. That's an historic and Biblical fact. So, if your "inner" voice is telling you to kill someone you can bet your last dollar that it's really Satan. Because God is a god of mercy and love. Turn the other cheek and all that jazz.

yeah schizophrenia

[Mr. Blackwell]

To me, "The Indwelling" of the holy spirit sounds exactly the same as demon possession.

I mean, I know that I have heard some old time preachers talk about being possessed by the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God and all that jazz. You know?

Speaking in tongues, handling snakes, laying hands upon the sick to heal them of their earthly afflictions. The power of their source? Faith. You gotta have faith that the voices in your head are real. You also gotta have faith that the voices in your head are not demons.

You know, because Satan is the father of all lies. I'm pretty sure he could whisper into a monk's ear while the monk transcribes the Holy Word of God into a different language. We just gotta have faith that the monks ignored the inner voices in their heads or could tell the difference between God and Satan.

Ya know?

[Airyaman]

* Atheists believe

"Faith" != belief

Even amongst theists (aka, believers in gods), there can be belief without "faith".

So this thread begins with a very false premise and thus fails from the very start.

Try again?

[eyeshaveit]

Stories are constructs of human minds

So they are and they stem from experiences: either real history or imaginative fantasy.

human minds are fallible.

So they are: yours and mine both. 

How do you test these stores to see if they represent reality or faulty reasoning?
Argument from ignorance is not a good start.
Argumentum ad populum is equally invalid.

I don't have to test my own history, but I can share it and others can believe it or not.

Why is the holy spirit powerless to gather and arrange your words like you claim it does?

The Holy Spirit isn't powerless. The Holy Spirit is God, the creator of the cosmos and the diversity of life therein.

The Holy Spirit indwells in all Christians, so, if needed to defend the truth, a portion of what I speak or write of the truth is my knowledge and my words pulled out of my memory bank, but gathered and arranged by the Holy Spirit.

Truth is in need of defending but it appears you have come unarmed.

Right or wrong, there is a reason for everything that you post here.

[none]

non theism board, All comment on this board must assume the axiom "no gods exist".

[eyeshaveit]

Duplicate post

[eyeshaveit]

^^^

Atheists, if have any more questions for me,
Start a new thread - we don't want to upset the lad.

[none]

isn't it just a little arrogant to accommodate you because you can't follow the rules?

[eyeshaveit]

isn't it just a little arrogant to accommodate you because you can't follow the rules?

I was asked questions and succumbed to temptation -
It is my thread - but I broke the rules and upset you - so sorry - won't happen again.

[none]

isn't it just a little arrogant to accommodate you because you can't follow the rules?

I was asked questions and succumbed to temptation -
It is my thread - but I broke the rules and upset you - so sorry - won't happen again.

the answer is "yes, it is arrogant."
this isn't the first time you've done this