Atheism on Trial

[raw_thought]

I am an agnostic. However, I know a little bit about world religions. Educated theists know that myths are metaphors and should not be taken literally.

[raw_thought]

For example, Hinduism is monotheistic! Everything is God! Brahman is Atman. The various gods are simply masks and metaphors.

[Obvious Leo]

For example, Hinduism is monotheistic! Everything is God! Brahman is Atman. The various gods are simply masks and metaphors.

Holy shit!! are you aware of the implications of this allegation??

This means that the birth of Christ was simply due to an ordinary inconvenient teenage pregnancy and not the consequence of the actions of a randy supernatural being with a sharp eye out for unsuspecting virgins.

Who's going to break the news??

[raw_thought]

I fail to see your logic.
I said that myths are metaphors and not to be taken literally.
Jesus said that he was yhe son of God because everyone is. Luke 17;21.
Unfortunately, Constatine made it into a literal social structiure. God, Jesus, king, bishops, us normal people.

[Obvious Leo]

Jesus said that he was yhe son of God because everyone is.

This is mere hearsay. There is no evidence that Jesus ever said anything of the kind. He was a very pious Jew and it is inconceivable that he would have made such a blasphemous statement.

Don't believe everything you read in press releases which appeared centuries after the event.

[raw_thought]

Jesus as a pious Jew woild never have said that he was the one and only son of God. That is a Roman tradition. The Roman emperors even had temples built to themselves.
Jesus was aware of Buddhism, Greek philosophy etc because Judea at that time was a center of trade. Remember Alexander the great went to India hundreds of years before Jesus time. Anyway, Jesus was primarily Jewish but he did co-opt ideas from other cultures.
Luke 17;21..Ye are Gods....Speak of God being in everyone. Unfortunately, the idea of God being in everyone makes it difficult to justify a hierarchy and so Constatine changed Christ's message. He called Christ's message herasy. Many gospels were destroyed (Thomas etc) and only those that seemed safe to the power of elites were kept.

[raw_thought]

However, even those gospels that were let in, have passages in them that proclaim the gnostic message. Jesus was a gnostic! He incorporated other cultural ideas.

[Gary Childress]

When it comes to "god". Two people can agree GOD exists and one could be right, where the other is wrong!

For my money they are both wrong.

Of course, I would think it depends upon what is meant by "god". It's maybe one thing to say Zeus exists and maybe another to say Ahura Mazda exists. Or it could be that Zeus and Ahura Mazda are the same god only having been mistaken for different gods. Or there could be a different god or gods altogether or no gods at all (and those who thought there were gods should stop eating those mysterious mushrooms). But somewhere "out there" in the world (so to speak) there must be an objective answer to the question of whether "the god known as Zeus" exists or not and whether this god known as Zeus uses thunderbolts or not, for example.

Many different people in many different eras of human history (whom some call "mystics") have claimed "union" with some sort of god or gods. I would think there is an objective answer as to what exactly they experienced, whether it be some sort of illusion or not. And I think we are all faced with the basic choices of either believing their accounts to whatever degree, not believing them or expressing uncertainty to various degrees.

Why would you even begin to give any credibility to these myths in the first place?

Maybe Walter Stace says it best:

“Finally I come to the argument for the existence of God which is based on the occurrences of specifically mystical and religious experiences. I am prepared to admit that such experiences occur among people of different races and social traditions, and that they have occurred at all periods of history. I am prepared to admit that, although the experiences have differed considerably at different times and places, and although the interpretations of them have differed still more, there are probably certain characteristics which are common to them all and suffice to distinguish them from all other kinds of experience. In view of this I think it more likely than not that in religious and mystical experience men come into contact with some Reality or some aspect of Reality which they do not come into contact with in any other way.”

Walter Stace, from Mysticism and Philosophy

[Obvious Leo]

Gary. Are you yourself suggesting that a subjective experience should be regarded as legitimate evidence for the existence of a supernatural being? If so, let's hear your argument.

Why would you think that attaching the opinion of a man known to be obsessed with mysticism and the occult could be germane to this discussion. In my country we can access deeper wisdom in our fortune cookies than Stace ever produced in his entire life.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Of course, I would think it depends upon what is meant by "god". It's maybe one thing to say Zeus exists and maybe another to say Ahura Mazda exists. Or it could be that Zeus and Ahura Mazda are the same god only having been mistaken for different gods. Or there could be a different god or gods altogether or no gods at all (and those who thought there were gods should stop eating those mysterious mushrooms). But somewhere "out there" in the world (so to speak) there must be an objective answer to the question of whether "the god known as Zeus" exists or not and whether this god known as Zeus uses thunderbolts or not, for example.

Many different people in many different eras of human history (whom some call "mystics") have claimed "union" with some sort of god or gods. I would think there is an objective answer as to what exactly they experienced, whether it be some sort of illusion or not. And I think we are all faced with the basic choices of either believing their accounts to whatever degree, not believing them or expressing uncertainty to various degrees.

Why would you even begin to give any credibility to these myths in the first place?

Maybe Walter Stace says it best:

“Finally I come to the argument for the existence of God which is based on the occurrences of specifically mystical and religious experiences. I am prepared to admit that such experiences occur among people of different races and social traditions, and that they have occurred at all periods of history. I am prepared to admit that, although the experiences have differed considerably at different times and places, and although the interpretations of them have differed still more, there are probably certain characteristics which are common to them all and suffice to distinguish them from all other kinds of experience. In view of this I think it more likely than not that in religious and mystical experience men come into contact with some Reality or some aspect of Reality which they do not come into contact with in any other way.”

Walter Stace, from Mysticism and Philosophy

What a self deluded fool.

[raw_thought]

Gary. Are you yourself suggesting that a subjective experience should be regarded as legitimate evidence for the existence of a supernatural being? If so, let's hear your argument.

Why would you think that attaching the opinion of a man known to be obsessed with mysticism and the occult could be germane to this discussion. In my country we can access deeper wisdom in our fortune cookies than Stace ever produced in his entire life.

For the individual experiencing something, that is proof that that something exists. I know that I am visualizing a triangle,however I cannot prove that to you.

[raw_thought]

Mysticism has nothing to do with the occult. As a matter of fact they are opposites. Mysticism is the direct perception of reality without yhe intermediary of words and symbols. The occult is about using symbols to obtain material possessions and/or ego gratification.

[Gary Childress]

Gary. Are you yourself suggesting that a subjective experience should be regarded as legitimate evidence for the existence of a supernatural being? If so, let's hear your argument.

Why would you think that attaching the opinion of a man known to be obsessed with mysticism and the occult could be germane to this discussion. In my country we can access deeper wisdom in our fortune cookies than Stace ever produced in his entire life.

I'm not saying it "should" be regarded as "legitimate" evidence. I'm saying it "could" be evidence of some sort of supreme being. What is your argument for ruling out all such testimonies?

[Obvious Leo]

I'm saying it "could" be evidence of some sort of supreme being.

Yep. Could be the tooth fairy.

What is your argument for ruling out all such testimonies?

If it sounds like bullshit it is.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Gary. Are you yourself suggesting that a subjective experience should be regarded as legitimate evidence for the existence of a supernatural being? If so, let's hear your argument.

Why would you think that attaching the opinion of a man known to be obsessed with mysticism and the occult could be germane to this discussion. In my country we can access deeper wisdom in our fortune cookies than Stace ever produced in his entire life.

For the individual experiencing something, that is proof that that something exists. I know that I am visualizing a triangle,however I cannot prove that to you.

Er, no. That is not proof anything exists at all. Did you really mean to day that. Experience has to be personal, and we experience things that have no external reality; pain, hunger - but also dreams, hallucinations and illusions.