Final Thought About Atheism

by The wanderer 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  The wanderer

  Final Thought About Atheism

  After having reviewed the last thread about atheism, I have decided there
  exists a common theme among the postings. The themes surrounding the
  posts were “Where is the proof that God exists?”
  
  If the answer offered were, “Take a look around and view all the evidence
  of creation including plant, animal, and human life” that answer would no
  doubt meet certain objections.

  A Different Twist On The Subject

  It dawned on me to ask whether an atheist believes in the spirit world or not.
  
  The reason I ask is that top college’s in the United States and top university's
  in The United Kingdom have paranormal psychology departments that deal
  with these subjects.
  
  Individuals that have a high-level of education including doctorate’s claim
  that such exists. Now, if top colleges and university’s have evidence that
  concludes such exists, that maybe enough to support the belief that God
  does exist.

  Just keeping an open mind …

  Respectfully,

  The Wanderer
• 

  OUTLAW

  Wanderer..God may very well exsist..No one actually knows that he does.....I don`t believe the ones,that say he does exsist..I don`t believe the ones,that say he doesen`t exsist..I believe the ones that say,they don`t know...OUTLAW
• 

  Warlock

  The ONLY way to say whether God really exists or not, would be to say you have ABSOLUTE knowledge, and NO ONE has that.

  I have FAITH that God exists, but can I say for a certainty he exists? I sure HOPE so.

  Warlock
• 

  BluesBrother

  paranormal psychology departments

  Yes, we always used to say that if you re named angels as "extraterrestrials" a lot of people would find them easier to believe in..

  I loved the "X Files"
• 

  JamesThomas

  Individuals...claim that such exists.

  Perhaps the answer lies in what all existence subsists within, rather than in questioning what may or may not be.

  j
• 

  Confession

  Hi Wanderer...

  The reason I ask is that top college’s in the United States and top university's
  in The United Kingdom have paranormal psychology departments that deal
  with these subjects.
  
  Individuals that have a high-level of education including doctorate’s claim
  that such exists. Now, if top colleges and university’s have evidence that
  concludes such exists, that maybe enough to support the belief that God
  does exist.

  I thought your discussion might benefit from Wikipedia's explanation of Paranormal Psychology. Here it is in part...

  According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal. [1] The term is based on the Greek para (beside/beyond), psyche (soul/mind), and logos (account/explanation) and was coined by psychologist Max Dessoir in or before 1889.

  The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena and the validity of scientific parapsychological research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism. The field is regarded by critics as a pseudoscience. Parapsychologists, in turn, say that parapsychological research is scientifically rigorous. Despite criticisms, a number of academic institutions now conduct research on the topic, employing laboratory methodologies and statistical techniques, such as meta-analysis. [citation needed] The Parapsychological Association is the leading association for parapsychologists and has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1969. [6]

  Given the above, I'm not sure I follow the logic you're attempting. The spirit world, which the Bible teaches is the residence of God, angels, etc., does not necessarily have any link to a discussion of paranormal psychology. Wikipedia also explains that the "paranormal" is merely "an umbrella term to describe a wide variety of anomalous phenomena." (This just means stuff that deviates from our "normal" understanding of how things are supposed to work.)

  Further, as you can read from the above, there is a great deal of professional criticism swirling around this area of study. But even if there weren't, their research is not about proving anything like the existence of the "spirit world" of the Bible. For instance, they study how the concentrated human mind can have an affect on things in the outside world.

  I have personally begun to examine the work of scientists and quantum physicists, and am flabbergasted with what I'm discovering. But, although I maintain a belief in "god," this examination is certainly not leading to a belief in the Judeo/Christian "God," but more a remarkable and all-pervasive field of energy that we ourselves are part of.

  As active JWs, most of us limited the information we'd allow ourselves to consider. That can even happen when we leave the organization. Here's hoping we all learned enough from that terrible experience not to keep ourselves from examining all the information on an important topic such as this one.

  Regards,

  Confession
• 

  Crumpet

  I don't believe in the spirit world despite madam buttlight's convincing arguments to the contrary. I've dabbled here and there made personal appeals to Satan to send me some sort of sign and recruit me to the forces of darkness (ok some, especially my parents, would argue that he has) and he was just as responsive to my prayers as God. In other words nada. There is just no evidence, just a desire to believe that this world and this life is not all there is. I do believe the human psyche is capable of much more in terms of evolution and I am always practicing my telekinesis ---- mainly on the washing up, also to no avail.
• 

  LittleToe

  Wanderer:
  "Final thought"? You've given up so soon?

  Crumpet:
  Are you sure you were praying to the right "Satan"? You'll only get a response from the "only true ™ " one.
• 

  Qcmbr

  This matter of proof is important as it is at once the achilles heel of non-believers and believers. The onus of proof must be upon believers (since they posit the existence of something to account for the phenomena of life) and all believers believe they have proof (from the bible through to experiences of the spirit) but they rarely have enough proof to remove faith (faith healers never replace limbs) ergo their proof leads to faith in a higher power not to repeatable control (the weather would be a lot better.)
  
  The non-believer therefore also suffers in the attempt to disprove the issue because the lack of repeatable control is not in itself what faith promises so is not in itself a proof against (the statistical uselessness of prayer will not convince the believer who has had a divine experience while in prayer.) Now the one thing that can be attacked successfully (written dogma) results in the proliferation of faith not its nullification. Exposing fallacy and nailing it to the door of the church doesn't destroy the church it merely births new interpretations of faith (creationism has few 6 day advocates but plenty of IDers). The very proof required to destroy religion would in and of itself prove it (i.e. to logically and scientifically destroy God you'd need to find him first and prove he was a charlatan.)
  
  Hence the battle continues both sides hampered by a lack of testable evidence one ending up with faith in a higher power and the other with faith in the intellectual fitness of mankind.
  
  I would suggest that there is another way and it argues more for the weakness of believers than for anything else.
  
  If the bible (substitute your religious legend here) has any validity and truth as a record of the paranormal / divine then it is indeed possible to have the proof - someone else did if the record is true. The question is therefore how does one engage the supernatural and gain an element of that proof?
  
  Crumpet (and Tetrapod) have tried the bargain with the devil approach - if God's too distant to reach then maybe the devil will rush to fill the need. I can suggest why this wouldn't work but what do I know.
  There seem to be many different tricks and disciplines used to engage the divine - meditation, chanting, prayer, obedience (fanatical and normally considered the better the more blindly done), sacrifice (now we slit the throats of foldable cash but the principle is the same), purity (sexual), exlusivity (create a special enclave to which God can speak from house church through to Mecca), iconography, building houses for God, day dedication (Sabbaths and Sundays), ritual, saught persecution, priesthood creation, stratification of the body of religion into compartmentalised jobs (deacons , mullahs and microphone managers) and so on..
  
  My personal quest is to find the key that would unlock the real proof. Where are the believers who can walk on water? I'm fairly disinterested in those who can carry me no further than I already am and have withdrawn from humble acceptance of failure and future potential into the world of dogmatic assertion (read any thread here RE scriptural interpretation as believers(such as I) state assertively what it means without any real proof and argue that upon such frail interpretations the souls of mankind hang.) My faith now rests upon the hope that it is is possible to have more than warm fuzzy feelings and archaic readings fom ancient civilisations' myths. I want the real answer to the inherant atheism that is within us all - real concrete proof that does not rely on special pleading and the light falling a certain way.
• 

  Abaddon

  The wanderer

  You seem to miss the difference between educated people claiming the paranormal exists and evidence that concludes such exists.

  They are two entirely different things. The first means precisely nothing, the second does not exist; there is no proof of the paranormal.

  If there were, it wouldn't be paranormal or supernatural, would it?

  Paranormal and supernatural claims are by definition unproved.

  Qcmbr

  The non-believer therefore also suffers in the attempt to disprove the issue because the lack of repeatable control is not in itself what faith promises so is not in itself a proof against (the statistical uselessness of prayer will not convince the believer who has had a divine experience while in prayer.)

  This is correct from a belivers viewpoint. A materialist would not see this as suffering, as being asked to disprove something which is not proved is a logical absurdity.

  Now the one thing that can be attacked successfully (written dogma) results in the proliferation of faith not its nullification. Exposing fallacy and nailing it to the door of the church doesn't destroy the church it merely births new interpretations of faith (creationism has few 6 day advocates but plenty of IDers). The very proof required to destroy religion would in and of itself prove it (i.e. to logically and scientifically destroy God you'd need to find him first and prove he was a charlatan.)

  Hence the battle continues both sides hampered by a lack of testable evidence one ending up with faith in a higher power and the other with faith in the intellectual fitness of mankind.

  Good point; I would add that in belief strutures which do not reply upon repeatable phenomena there exists a latitude or impreciseness that lends such belief structures to schism. Look at 'Life of Brian'; there are five schisms in the group that start following Brian within five minutes of the crowd first deciding he is a prophet.

  There is no measurable difference between divine revelation and making it up as you go along.

  But the 'one thing that can be attacked successfully' bit is again from a belivers viewpoint, which is a diferent paradigm to that used by materialists. Atheists are NOT hampered by 'a lack of testable evidence', as such a condition infers something is unproved. After yay many millenia it is reasonable to conclude lack of testable evidence for god means there IS no evidence for god, not that we haven't found it yet.

  I want the real answer to the inherant atheism that is within us all - real concrete proof that does not rely on special pleading and the light falling a certain way.

  Good.