Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Australian rePublic]

"WhErE aRe YoUr PrOoFs!!!?!!?"
Pls don't try that hard to fit the stereotype of the atheist, you're making me feel bad for you now.

Given that many people are atheists do to the lack of evidence for a god, how is it a stereotype to be asking for evidence. Oh and...you provided no evidence for your claim beyond anecdotes.

Given that many people are thists because of their experiences, how is it a steryotype to say that people's experiences are wrong?

[The New California Republic]

Given that many people are atheists do to the lack of evidence for a god, how is it a stereotype to be asking for evidence. Oh and...you provided no evidence for your claim beyond anecdotes.

Given that many people are thists because of their experiences, how is it a steryotype to say that people's experiences are wrong?

Where did Neutraligon say that?

[Australian rePublic]

Really? I see. Invalidation. Although hardly a zero, still a notable example of what I'm talking about. Regardless, I think it's pointless to continue this so...assume what you will.

There’s a reason anecdotes aren’t particularly valid.
If I walked to the shop and met someone who said hello, I would not therefore conclude that all of humanity is generally polite and agreeable.
Your personal experiences do not hold up as valid representation of the entire human population as a whole.

No, but if 90% of people said hello to me, and my friends in different countries also told me that anywhere between 80-95% of people said "hello" to them IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGES, then we can start making conclusions

[The Blaatschapen]

There’s a reason anecdotes aren’t particularly valid.
If I walked to the shop and met someone who said hello, I would not therefore conclude that all of humanity is generally polite and agreeable.
Your personal experiences do not hold up as valid representation of the entire human population as a whole.

No, but if 90% of people said hello to me, and my friends in different countries also told me that anywhere between 80-95% of people said "hello" to them IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGES, then we can start making conclusions

Greeting strangers

Well, that is just way too much interaction

*moves to Finland*

[Australian rePublic]

We all have lives outside of this thread.

Don't talk on my behalf

I wasn't speaking on your behalf. When I question why you had disappeared, someone replied with "sheep get tired"

[Australian rePublic]

Given that many people are thists because of their experiences, how is it a steryotype to say that people's experiences are wrong?

Where did Neutraligon say that?

He/she didn't. I never said he/she did. My point is that you can't disprove anyone's experiences

[The New California Republic]

My point is that you can't disprove anyone's experiences

Sure you can. If someone told me that a fart caused them to soar into the heavens then I think that "experience" can be conclusively disproved...

[New Legland]

Soooo... it's a matter of semantics, which I accept as a valid explanation.

What do think I've been trying to tell you this whole time? It's a matter of semantics

1. It wasn't about that specific verse.
2. Even so, that doesn't change the fact that Genesis clearly states that vegetation came before the Sun.
3. That also doesn't change the fact that, since the meaning is ambiguous, no one can claim that it's accurate as I could just as easily claim that it's inaccurate.

[The Blaatschapen]

Don't talk on my behalf

I wasn't speaking on your behalf. When I question why you had disappeared, someone replied with "sheep get tired"

I was replying to Thuzbekistan there

[Australian rePublic]

I myself have never blindly believed in God (since I was old enough to reason). I myself have always questioned my beliefe in God. Having said that, I think the whole issue is that we're trying to ask "what" God is, rather than "who" God is. We'll never what God is, and we'll never be able to prove/disprove him. If God does exist, His very nature would be completely incomprehensible to humanity, so incomprehensible that it's not worth discussing. Exactly why it would establish a system where it makes itself hidden to us, I don't know, but that's the system we've got. Trying to ask "what" God is will eventually have you running in the same circles. Now we have to ask who God is. How exactly do we do that? Through personal experience. Through keeping an open mind. I'll give you an example. Once, I was trying to drive somewhere, but my car didn't start. It didn't start for a few seconds. I was spewing at the time because I was making an UberEats delivery, so at the time I was upset that I would be late (and at this stage, they were thretening to kick me off the platform for being late too many times, but that's a whole other story). However, my car did eventually start. Later whilst I was driving, a woman randomly decides to run across the road, and I miss her by a few seconds. (If I had hit her, it would have been 100% her own fault, as I was driving at the speed limit, and she illegally emerged out of nowhere and ran across 3 lanes of moderate speed traffic). I realised later that the time delayed time to start my car was alighned almost perfectly with the time needed to prevent me from hitting that pedestrian. Notice how He interacted with my life without interefering with free will. This may have been a coincidence, but considering that I have had thousands, if not millions, of such experiences. They may have all been coincidences, but I don't think that that's statistically possible. I think this is what is meant by "proof of God is everywhere". If you keep an open mind, you will see God interacting with your life too. Now at this stage you could be thinking "confirmation bias"- fine, it could be confirmation bias, but what if it isn't? Experiencing God is something subjective and ONLY avaliable to you if you keep an open mind to it, and if you do NOT demand it. I cannot tell you what your experience of God is like. Experiencing God is subjective. My experiences of God will vary from yours. These differences in experiences is why there are inconsistencies between them. The difference of experiences is (probably) why there are inconsistencies in the Bible. Far, far too many people from too many people from too many cultures have had a supernatural experience, far too many for that to be a coincidence. God manifests Himself to us in manners which we're unable to describe. Discounting the existance of God based on anecdotal evidence is like discounting emotions based on anecdotal evidence, or like disciunting pain on anecodatal evidence. Trying to use anecodatal evidence to disprove the supernatural is like trying to use anecodatal evidence as a method of disproving God.

Another example would be if you were to assume for a minute that half of humanity is immune to pain, and it has been that way since the dawn of humanity. Now let's assume that you were on of the persons immune to pain. It would be like someone approaching you and saying "I'm in pain" and then you reply to them and state that "pain doesn't exist, you can't prove pain, the only proof of pain is anecodatal". Yes, the only proof of pain is anecodatal, but considering that millions of people from millions of cultures have felt pain in some form or another, you'd have to start questioning if pain exists. Now considering that pain is subjective, everyone will have a different experience of pain. Some might feel cramps, some might feel a sharp shooting pain. You can argue that pain doesn't exist because everyone's experiences of pain are different, but that doesn't mean that pain doesn't exist. The same applies to the supernatural. Now, as for which religion is the correct one, that's a topic for another post.

Sure, now we have technology to measure pain, but we have known about pain for millenia before the technology existed. Our inability to measure pain does not disprove pain's existance

[The New California Republic]

Once, I was trying to drive somewhere, but my car didn't start. It didn't start for a few seconds. I was spewing at the time because I was making an UberEats delivery, so at the time I was upset that I would be late (and at this stage, they were thretening to kick me off the platform for being late too many times, but that's a whole other story). However, my car did eventually start. Later whilst I was driving, a woman randomly decides to run across the road, and I miss her by a few seconds. (If I had hit her, it would have been 100% her own fault, as I was driving at the speed limit, and she illegally emerged out of nowhere and ran across 3 lanes of moderate speed traffic). I realised later that the time delayed time to start my car was alighned almost perfectly with the time needed to prevent me from hitting that pedestrian. Notice how He interacted with my life without interefering with free will. This may have been a coincidence, but considering that I have had thousands, if not millions, of such experiences. They may have all been coincidences, but I don't think that that's statistically possible.

Sure it is.

By the same token, bad shit happens all the time. If you focus on just the good things, then obviously it will make it seem like there is some divine hand at work.

---

If you keep an open mind, you will see God interacting with your life too. Now at this stage you could be thinking "confirmation bias"- fine, it could be confirmation bias, but what if it isn't?

But what if it is? Every true faith is infallible. It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth.

---

Experiencing God is something subjective and ONLY avaliable to you if you keep an open mind to it, and if you do NOT demand it. I cannot tell you what your experience of God is like. Experiencing God is subjective. My experiences of God will vary from yours. These differences in experiences is why there are inconsistencies between them. The difference of experiences is (probably) why there are inconsistencies in the Bible. Far, far too many people from too many people from too many cultures have had a supernatural experience, far too many for that to be a coincidence. God manifests Himself to us in manners which we're unable to describe. Discounting the existance of God based on anecdotal evidence is like discounting emotions based on anecdotal evidence, or like disciunting pain on anecodatal evidence. Trying to use anecodatal evidence to disprove the supernatural is like trying to use anecodatal evidence as a method of disproving God.

It isn't up to us to disprove it. If you make a claim, then it is up to you to prove it.

[Australian rePublic]

Once, I was trying to drive somewhere, but my car didn't start. It didn't start for a few seconds. I was spewing at the time because I was making an UberEats delivery, so at the time I was upset that I would be late (and at this stage, they were thretening to kick me off the platform for being late too many times, but that's a whole other story). However, my car did eventually start. Later whilst I was driving, a woman randomly decides to run across the road, and I miss her by a few seconds. (If I had hit her, it would have been 100% her own fault, as I was driving at the speed limit, and she illegally emerged out of nowhere and ran across 3 lanes of moderate speed traffic). I realised later that the time delayed time to start my car was alighned almost perfectly with the time needed to prevent me from hitting that pedestrian. Notice how He interacted with my life without interefering with free will. This may have been a coincidence, but considering that I have had thousands, if not millions, of such experiences. They may have all been coincidences, but I don't think that that's statistically possible.

Sure it is.

By the same token, bad shit happens all the time. If you focus on just the good things, then obviously it will make it seem like there is some divine hand at work.

Yes, that's the problem of evil. I already discussed the problem of evil at length from serveral different perspectives. I will add a new element here, however. Everyone has a struggle in life, everyone has a cross to bear. Some people are stronger than others. Stronger people get heavier crosses.

---

If you keep an open mind, you will see God interacting with your life too. Now at this stage you could be thinking "confirmation bias"- fine, it could be confirmation bias, but what if it isn't?

But what if it is? Every true faith is infallible. It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth.

Well if it is confirmation bias, what have I lost by thinking that it's divine intervention, have I? Also, the example I gave was very general. I've had even more personal experiences on a more personal level

---

Experiencing God is something subjective and ONLY avaliable to you if you keep an open mind to it, and if you do NOT demand it. I cannot tell you what your experience of God is like. Experiencing God is subjective. My experiences of God will vary from yours. These differences in experiences is why there are inconsistencies between them. The difference of experiences is (probably) why there are inconsistencies in the Bible. Far, far too many people from too many people from too many cultures have had a supernatural experience, far too many for that to be a coincidence. God manifests Himself to us in manners which we're unable to describe. Discounting the existance of God based on anecdotal evidence is like discounting emotions based on anecdotal evidence, or like disciunting pain on anecodatal evidence. Trying to use anecodatal evidence to disprove the supernatural is like trying to use anecodatal evidence as a method of disproving God.

It isn't up to us to disprove it. If you make a claim, then it is up to you to prove it.

Once again, you can't prove it. It's like proving that pain exists or that emotions exist. Imagine for a moment that YOU were IMMUNE to pain and emotion. If someone came upto and said that they were in pain, would you discredit their pain by saying "prove it?" If someone came up to you and said "I'm happy", would you discredit their happiness by saying "prove it?"

[The New California Republic]

I already discussed the problem of evil at length from serveral different perspectives. I will add a new element here, however. Everyone has a struggle in life, everyone has a cross to bear. Some people are stronger than others. Stronger people get heavier crosses.

Nonsense. People commit suicide all the time because they have been given burdens that are impossible to bear. There is no divine intelligence behind the shit that people get thrown at them.

---

Well if it is confirmation bias, what have I lost by thinking that it's divine intervention, have I?

One could argue that a connection with reality based upon justified and true belief has been lost.

---

Once again, you can't prove it. It's like proving that pain exists or that emotions exist. Imagine for a moment that YOU were IMMUNE to pain and emotion. If someone came upto and said that they were in pain, would you discredit their pain by saying "prove it?" If someone came up to you and said "I'm happy", would you discredit their happiness by saying "prove it?"

Pain and emotions have been proven to exist, as they can be measured. Pain is measurable. Emotions are measurable. Pain is a neurochemical activity that is well understood, and can be suppressed through drugs. Similarly, certain drugs to treat mental illnesses suppress certain emotions, because the neurochemical activity in the brain associated with those emotions is understood.

[United New England]

Plus, not all theists are Christian. In fact, the majority are something else, such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Spiritist, Jewish, Baha’i, Shintoist, Caodaist, Zoroastrian, Tenriist, Neo-Pagan, or Rastafarian. Many Buddhists, Taoists, Jains, and Unitarians could also be called theists. While similar concepts can be found throughout most religions, conflating all theists with Christians would be a mistake. The exact details of creation stories tend to differ, although of course they often share common themes, like increasingly complex life forms being brought forth from the Earth.

Plus, not all theists are Christian. In fact, the majority are something else, such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Spiritist, Jewish, Baha’i, Shintoist, Caodaist, Zoroastrian, Tenriist, Neo-Pagan, or Rastafarian. Many Buddhists, Taoists, Jains, and Unitarians could also be called theists. While similar concepts can be found throughout most religions, conflating all theists with Christians would be a mistake. The exact details of creation stories tend to differ, although of course they often share common themes, like increasingly complex entities being brought forth from the primordial chaos.

Any reason for what is essentially a double post aside from a couple of words?

Sorry, it was a technical mistake that I didn’t notice. I use NationStates on my phone.

[Neutraligon]

Given that many people are atheists do to the lack of evidence for a god, how is it a stereotype to be asking for evidence. Oh and...you provided no evidence for your claim beyond anecdotes.

Given that many people are thists because of their experiences, how is it a steryotype to say that people's experiences are wrong?

I can't say that you did not experience something, I can however dispute why you experienced it...or I can simply say I do not believe you when you say you experienced something (in the case of people who are known liars).

[Volkari]

"God is nothing else than human: he is the outward projection of a human's inward nature."

The only god that I believe in is the Man-God, who represents what we human beings are capable of when we throw away the ridiculous belief in a literal God.

[Marcianus]

No evidence, too many flaws in The Bible. Me personally, I am agnostic. There might be a god, there might not be. It's stupid to say you know for sure if there's a god or there isn't.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

"God is nothing else than human: he is the outward projection of a human's inward nature."

The only god that I believe in is the Man-God, who represents what we human beings are capable of when we throw away the ridiculous belief in a literal God.

All hail the God-Emperor of Man. Purge the xeno and the heretic! ESPECIALLY the heretic.

[Dogmeat]

My point is that you can't disprove anyone's experiences

Sure you can. If someone told me that a fart caused them to soar into the heavens then I think that "experience" can be conclusively disproved...

[Valrifell]

My point is that you can't disprove anyone's experiences

Sure you can. If someone told me that a fart caused them to soar into the heavens then I think that "experience" can be conclusively disproved...

Well, you can't disprove someone's experience in the weird and annoying sense that you can't technically disprove anything. But that's not good-faith debate, that's just pure existential dread that would make even Voltaire wince.

[Farnhamia]

Sure you can. If someone told me that a fart caused them to soar into the heavens then I think that "experience" can be conclusively disproved...

Well, you can't disprove someone's experience in the weird and annoying sense that you can't technically disprove anything. But that's not good-faith debate, that's just pure existential dread that would make even Voltaire wince.

I made M. Voltaire wince once. Stepped on his foot.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, you can't disprove someone's experience in the weird and annoying sense that you can't technically disprove anything. But that's not good-faith debate, that's just pure existential dread that would make even Voltaire wince.

I made M. Voltaire wince once. Stepped on his foot.

Now why would you do that? Just telling him he was "in the best of all possible worlds" would have done the trick.

[Valrifell]

I made M. Voltaire wince once. Stepped on his foot.

Now why would you do that? Just telling him he was "in the best of all possible worlds" would have done the trick.

No, that would just get him to write a very angry satirical piece.

[Australian rePublic]

I already discussed the problem of evil at length from serveral different perspectives. I will add a new element here, however. Everyone has a struggle in life, everyone has a cross to bear. Some people are stronger than others. Stronger people get heavier crosses.

Nonsense. People commit suicide all the time because they have been given burdens that are impossible to bear. There is no divine intelligence behind the shit that people get thrown at them.

I've pondered why God allows people's problems to esculate to the point where they commit suicide. The only conclusion I've come to is I don't know, however, many (and I'm NOT saying all) people who could have contemplated suicide but didn't go through with it wound up stronger than they were before.

---

Well if it is confirmation bias, what have I lost by thinking that it's divine intervention, have I?

One could argue that a connection with reality based upon justified and true belief has been lost.

No not really. I still believe. If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing, which doesn't stop me from maintaining that I'm right

---

Once again, you can't prove it. It's like proving that pain exists or that emotions exist. Imagine for a moment that YOU were IMMUNE to pain and emotion. If someone came upto and said that they were in pain, would you discredit their pain by saying "prove it?" If someone came up to you and said "I'm happy", would you discredit their happiness by saying "prove it?"

Pain and emotions have been proven to exist, as they can be measured. Pain is measurable. Emotions are measurable. Pain is a neurochemical activity that is well understood, and can be suppressed through drugs. Similarly, certain drugs to treat mental illnesses suppress certain emotions, because the neurochemical activity in the brain associated with those emotions is understood.

You clearly misunderstood my original point, go back 200 years and conduct the same experiment...

[Valrifell]

Nonsense. People commit suicide all the time because they have been given burdens that are impossible to bear. There is no divine intelligence behind the shit that people get thrown at them.

I've pondered why God allows people's problems to esculate to the point where they commit suicide. The only conclusion I've come to is I don't know, however, many (and I'm NOT saying all) people who could have contemplated suicide but didn't go through with it wound up stronger than they were before.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The outlook that you go through a depressive/suicidal phase and come out the other end with a stronger/sunnier disposition is very much a romanticization. At the other end of the storm cloud is the status quo antebellum, not rainbows.