some home truths from Alice Cooper

[Stranger]

Just an observation that this forum shows abundant examples of non believers "cherry picking" the meagre evidence available to support what they proclaim yet choose to ignore the mountains of evidence which confirms the existence of a Creator and their own spiritual nature.

Is it against your religion to ever learn anything, Alan? For what feels like the 10,000th time: people do not need evidence for a lack of belief. If they have seen nothing that convinces them of some proposition, then that's quite sufficient. If you knew anything about logic, you'd understand this anyway (Burden of Proof).

Would you care to give an example of this "cherry picking" of evidence that we don't need anyway?

As for these "mountains of evidence" of which you speak, where are they? Where is even the first hint of the tiniest morsel of any such evidence? Please do post even the smallest example.

[Stranger]

...a god shaped hole...

...the atheists experience of the ''abyss''.

Meaningless white noise as far as I'm concerned. Trying to generalise one's personal, subjective experience is pointless if you're interested in the actual truth of the matter.

...existential experience...

What experience would that be?

What that leads to is everything having equal value which gives everything ultimately Zero value.

Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.

To not include existential experience as valid leaves you well and truly stuck in philosophical empiricism.....

More drivel. Not including some experience (whatever it is) does not lead one to a philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Meaningless white noise as far as I'm concerned. Trying to generalise one's personal, subjective experience is pointless if you're interested in the actual truth of the matter.

What experience would that be?

Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.

More drivel. Not including some experience (whatever it is) does not lead one to a philosophy.

Look, if atheists are finding ''the abyss'' as well then the personal experience aspect lessens. How do they arrive at the abyss? They make the appropriate introspection by taking the so called big questions to the limit and not merely out of mere intellectual interest.

Does value being subjective amount to zero value? I'm not sure it does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Meaningless white noise as far as I'm concerned.

And that's not subjective or philosophical empiricism. Pull the other one

Trying to generalise one's personal, subjective experience is pointless if you're interested in the actual truth of the matter.

What experience would that be?

Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.

More drivel. Not including some experience (whatever it is) does not lead one to a philosophy.

If one is having an experience which is common or other people can attest to why ignore it. In fact the only motivation for ignoring it is philosophical empiricism which itself has no evidence for it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Drivel. 'Value' is entirely subjective.

Absolutely but somehow Vlad is trying to objectify value - effectively to assert that experience that is ascribed by some people to 'god' is objectively more important and more valuable that experiences that are nor ascribed to god. That is unreasonable and unreasoned and also trivialising and patronising to people whose incredibly important-to-them experiences aren't about god.

No, to me, singing has incredible importance in my life and it therefore valuable. But that is entirely subjective and I fully accept that for the next person in the bus queue singing may be irrelevant or even negative, in that were I to force that person to sing it might induce huge embarrassment and anxiety.

And the same it the case for religion - I fully accept that it has incredible importance and value to some people, but that importance and value is subjective, not objective, and for others religion is irrelevant or negative.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolutely but somehow Vlad is trying to objectify value - effectively to assert that experience that is ascribed by some people to 'god' is objectively more important and more valuable that experiences that are nor ascribed to god. That is unreasonable and unreasoned and also trivialising and patronising to people whose incredibly important-to-them experiences aren't about god.

No, to me, singing has incredible importance in my life and it therefore valuable. But that is entirely subjective and I fully accept that for the next person in the bus queue singing may be irrelevant or even negative, in that were I to force that person to sing it might induce huge embarrassment and anxiety.

And the same it the case for religion - I fully accept that it has incredible importance and value to some people, but that importance and value is subjective, not objective, and for others religion is irrelevant or negative.

But you are studiously avoiding existential experience altogether. What about the atheist existential experience of the God shaped hole they refer to as ''the abyss''? So far i've seen nothing that addresses this. In other words the experience of a gap at the existential level is common to atheism and religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it against your religion to ever learn anything, Alan? For what feels like the 10,000th time: people do not need evidence for a lack of belief.

But they do need evidence for philosophical empiricism.

[ProfessorDavey]

But you are studiously avoiding existential experience altogether.

Well until you actually define it discussion is pointless. If you mean 'god' then until or unless you provide evidence for the existence of god or gods the notion of god as an existential experience can be discounted in just the same manner as the flying spaghetti monster as as an existential experience can be discounted.

What about the atheist existential experience of the God shaped hole they refer to as ''the abyss''?

The is no generalised atheist view of a god shaped hole, let alone a God shaped hole. There is no generalised atheist view that people who do not believe in god or gods refer to this at all, let alone as ''the abyss''. If some individual atheist somewhere has made that comment I suggest you take it up this him or her. I am an atheist and there are so many aspect of that sentence make absolutely no sense as far as I am concerned and I would never make a statement of that kind.

[Stranger]

Look, if atheists are finding ''the abyss'' as well...

The phrase is all but meaningless. Some atheists may have an experience they might call "the abyss" but it's just an experience and it isn't universal.

How do they arrive at the abyss? They make the appropriate introspection by taking the so called big questions to the limit and not merely out of mere intellectual interest.

Meaningless. We can answer some questions, we can't answer others. Get over it.

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."

-- Richard Feynman

Does value being subjective amount to zero value? I'm not sure it does.

I'm sure it doesn't. It's you who were making assertions about zero value.

And that's not subjective or philosophical empiricism. Pull the other one

Philosophical empiricism is an intellectual belief. The fact that I find something you've said to be meaningless has bugger all to do with it.

If one is having an experience which is common or other people can attest to why ignore it.

Firstly, I'm stating that the experience of a "god shaped hole" or "the abyss" isn't common to everybody. Secondly, there are far more options with regard to some common experience besides ignoring it and making it the basis for some objective claims about reality (beyond the fact that humans seem to share it).

In fact the only motivation for ignoring it is philosophical empiricism which itself has no evidence for it.

Drivel.

[Stranger]

But they do need evidence for philosophical empiricism.

Not if they are not proposing it.

[ProfessorDavey]

If one is having an experience which is common or other people can attest to why ignore it.

I don't - indeed I am interested in, and have mentioned, studies that actually look at the physiological effects of experiences, such as collective worship and singing. But that doesn't make those experiences, or the value individuals find from those experiences objective. They remain subjective even if you can bring together a bunch of people who collectively feel the same importance and value from those subjective experiences. For them to be objective the experience and value would have to be 'true for all' - but it isn't as there are plenty of people who will experience nothing or negative feelings towards the same experiences. And to be objectively true it would need to remain true completely outwit human experience - and this makes no sense. It is nonsense to say that before any life had appeared in the universe that singing is important and of value, just as it is nonsense to say that before any life had appeared in the universe that religious worship is important and of value. These are human-centric subjective values and experiences.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well there must be something that made them convert ...

In many cases looking down the barrel of a gun or at the blade of a sword. And in others a combination of that and the threat of eternal damnation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The phrase is all but meaningless. Some atheists may have an experience they might call "the abyss" but it's just an experience and it isn't universal.

But it's an existential experience which presumably is operating on a level that demands asking or having in mind a particular suite of questions

Meaningless

Oh OH, A phrase used often by philosophical empiricists.

We can answer some questions, we can't answer others.

But that depends on what questions we are asking

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."

-- Richard Feynman

'' I don't feel frightened by not knowing things '' I don't believe it from a guy involved in the pursuit of science his whole life. Pious unbelieveable bollocks.

Firstly, I'm stating that the experience of a "god shaped hole" or "the abyss" isn't common to everybody.

It is uncommon in those ''not going there.'' But it is still common to both religion and atheism. In fact I would say many atheists have been freeloading off the experience of the French existentialists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In many cases looking down the barrel of a gun or at the blade of a sword. And in others a combination of that and the threat of eternal damnation.

A caricature of the early church. In any case other religions threaten awful things for apostacy from them vis the persecution of christians in the Roman empire, The stoning of Stephen, the anhillation of many of the apostles. You don't make converts by violence just nominal one's who secrete their real allegiance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not if they are not proposing it.

They do..... whenever they talk about ''evidence''
I think you answer the question of holding a belief and not realising it since there are many on this board who don't seem to realise that is their Weltbild.

[ProfessorDavey]

A caricature of the early church. In any case other religions threaten awful things for apostacy from them vis the persecution of christians in the Roman empire, The stoning of Stephen, the anhillation of many of the apostles.

Doesn't really advance your argument by pointing out that other religions also ensured adherence and/or conversion via actual or promised threat.

You don't make converts by violence just nominal one's who secrete their real allegiance.

Sure you do, provided you implant methods to inculcate the next generation into your religion at the earliest possible age. Christians caught on to this pretty early.

[Stranger]

But it's an existential experience which presumably is operating on a level that demands asking or having in mind a particular suite of questions

Haven't a clue - I'm not somebody who has this experience.

Oh OH, A phrase used often by philosophical empiricists.

This obsession of yours just makes you look silly.

But that depends on what questions we are asking

Duh!

'' I don't feel frightened by not knowing things '' I don't believe it from a guy involved in the pursuit of science his whole life. Pious unbelieveable bollocks.

I identify with it perfectly. It's telling that you insist that the experiences you think help you must be universal, whereas as soon as anybody expresses a different experience, it's "unbelievable". That's the thing with many subjective experiences, they aren't universal and people see things differently.

It is uncommon in those ''not going there.'' But it is still common to both religion and atheism.

As I said, it's perhaps the case that some atheists have some sort of experience they might describe in those terms, but claiming it as universal would be just as silly as me claiming Feynman's experience was universal because I share it with him.

Our experiences are not really a matter of choice, so "not going there" is meaningless because it implies that everybody experiences it but some of us are ignoring or avoiding it. This simply isn't the case.

[Stranger]

They do..... whenever they talk about ''evidence''

Unmitigated drivel. Evidence is one way to provide a good reason to believe something, logic based on sound premises is another. If you think there is some other way to distinguish the probably true from fantasy and blind guessing, then feel free to bring it forward.

Nobody (that I'm aware of) is taking a fixed philosophical view on the matter.

I think you answer the question of holding a belief and not realising it since there are many on this board who don't seem to realise that is their Weltbild.

Maybe your little fantasies about other people's beliefs are a comfort to you...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said, it's perhaps the case that some atheists have some sort of experience they might describe in those terms, but claiming it as universal

I don't think I am claiming it is universal since i've said there are many atheists who won't go to where the French existentialists went to.
I would say though that culturally, the french existentialists are part of the stock of the belief or act that there is no God. And part of your belief in a Godless universe comes vicariously from their experience.

What I do think is that it is an experience common to atheism and religion.

I see no evidence that your arguments derive from anything other than a committed belief in philosophical empiricism.

[Stranger]

And part of your belief in a Godless universe comes vicariously from their experience.

Fantasy. People have lacked belief in gods before existentialism was a thing.

What I do think is that it is an experience common to atheism and religion.

So what?

I see no evidence that your arguments derive from anything other than a committed belief in philosophical empiricism.

Try paying attention.   

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think I am claiming it is universal since i've said there are many atheists who won't go to where the French existentialists went to.

Let's be honest here Vlad.

We aren't talking about universality - i.e. all atheists

We aren't talking about most atheists

We aren't talking about many atheists

We aren't even talking about some atheists

We are actually talking about one atheist - Jean Paul Satre

So if you want to follow this line I suggest you take it up with him ... oops, a bit difficult, he's been dead for over 40 years.

[Stranger]

I see no evidence that your arguments derive from anything other than a committed belief in philosophical empiricism.

Also, I'm not actually making an argument. I'm just pointing at the huge gaping holes in yours. The challenge for you is to put forward even the first hint of a reason to take your god seriously that doesn't instantly fall apart at the first hint of reason and logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's be honest here Vlad.

We aren't talking about universality - i.e. all atheists

We aren't talking about most atheists

We aren't talking about many atheists

We aren't even talking about some atheists

We are actually talking about one atheist - Jean Paul Satre

So if you want to follow this line I suggest you take it up with him ... oops, a bit difficult, he's been dead for over 40 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also, I'm not actually making an argument. I'm just pointing at the huge gaping holes in yours.

Those gaping holes just seem to appear through the tinted spectacles/welders goggles of philosophical empiricism

The challenge for you is to put forward even the first hint of a reason to take your god seriously that doesn't instantly fall apart at the first hint of reason and logic.

And the challenge for you is to find empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism.

[Gordon]

Those gaping holes just seem to appear through the tinted spectacles/welders goggles of philosophical empiricismAnd the challenge for you is to find empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism.

No, Vlad - the challenge is for you guys to offer a credible argument for 'God' that is neither fallacious nor incoherent: the burden of proof remains yours.