Fanatical atheism?
Offline I've taken a cursory look around this forum and I have to say that I'm a little concerned. A lot of what has been said on these forums is derogatory and patronising rather than constructive and insightful. It seems to me a lot of you guys have abandoned one form of fanaticism and adopted another school of faith-based belief - secular humanism. The belief that dropping religion and looking to the future with nothing to guide us but reason will solve this worlds problems is essentially an article of faith. Almost humans have a tendency to devote themselves to a particular cause in order to derive a sense of solidarity or meaning, or else do so in the belief that the said cause will create a better world. Bertrand Russell defined fanaticism as believing one matter or cause to be pre-eminent among all others in one's life. I think to a large extent this is whats happening here with certain posters.
Now, I understand that in the USA secularists are under intensive pressure from bigots ignorant of everything but biblical learning. However, for the purposes of your cause don't you think your image is a little counter-productive, perhaps even hypocritical? This gung-ho attitude seems obnoxious to an outsider. In your disdain for theists and whomever else you decide to brand as 'irrational' you are in many respects mirroring the aloof attitude taken by religious fundamentalists. In many ways you are attempting to shove a message down unwilling throats and flaunt the superiority of your belief system over others. Take your the usage of your term 'mind disorder' in your site banner as an example. That implies that any who hold a religious belief do so because they are mentally unwell and are therefore inferior as human beings. Calling a person psychologically unstable simply because they hold a different opinion or think differently about a certain matter is pretty damn scary. If you're hoping to convince others they aren't going to respond very kindly to that kind of sentiment - imagine if you saw a site banner that read 'fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as atheism'. As I said, a little scary, and not very endearing. And yet given the history of human civilisation its arguably a claim with more weight behind it - assuming that we base what is 'natural' on what is the most prevalent.
Polite, intelligent and moderate debate is the best way of sorting through conflicting ideas and beliefs. Calmly explain your position, and the ellucidate reasoning behind it - don't try and force it on others. Respect is integral to this process. Try and show it to others even if it isn't reciprocrated. I guess what I'm trying to say is that despite the apparent sound reasoning and supportive evidence behind your beliefs, your attitude to others is something you really need to take into consideration. The last thing you want to do is adopt the attitude and approach of a hardcore evangelist - try not to fight fire with fire! Atheism may be very the metaphysical foundation upon which you choose to live your life, but don't let atheism itself become the focal point of it. Just like religion, socialism, fascism, patriotism etc. secularism can to some extent become an all-consuming ideology rather than merely an accepted truth. I'm interested to hear your thoughts, will check back later.
- Login to post comments
Being polite hasn't accomplished anything so far, and people have been trying for thousands of years. Time for something else.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
And secularism is not in any sense based on faith.
In a sense it's based on negative faith, aka doubt. Negative faith doesn't have the same ignorant drawbacks as positive faith. So theists recognize a kind of "faith" in atheists, they misidentify it.
I do agree that we should be less antagonistic in our approach and to be more constructive. In order to spread our rationale and critique of faith we must be more tactical. Soceity is plagued by egotistical debate rather than constructive conversation. We really need to embrace the latter. In doing so we are far more likely to be successful.
"It seems to me a lot of you guys have abandoned one form of fanaticism and adopted another school of faith-based belief - secular humanism. The belief that dropping religion and looking to the future with nothing to guide us but reason will solve this worlds problems is essentially an article of faith"
How exactly you concluded secular humanism to be "faith-based belief" is rather puzzling. I think you are really underestimating the virtuous power of reason here also. Do you propose that continuing with religion as a guide is a better path? And again, how this is an "article of faith" is extremely puzzling.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
I've been trying to get a handle on extremism because I've seen first-hand what extremism can do. For the past twenty years I've been on a path of discovery. The first twenty years of my life were so riddled with indoctrination I didn't know who I was, let alone what I believed. Therefore, I tread with care.
It is possible that what someone may see as atheistic extremism is simply atheists questioning a societal norm: Faith is sacred.
It's become taboo to question another person's faith, no matter how whacky or detrimental to mental and societal health it is. If a person says, "Hitler won World War II," he or she is going to get called on it. If a person says, "The word 'us' is nominative," he or she is going to get called on it. If a person says Pythagoras totally screwed up his theorem concerning right triangles, he or she is going to get called on it. If a person says, "I don't exist," he or she is going to get called on it.
If, however, a person says, "I'm going to heaven because I believe in Jesus," that person gets a pass because talking honestly about religion has become taboo. What he or she is saying is just as ridiculous as the items I listed above, but it is not subject to normal debate, so the belief lingers on. I would argue that faith is not only illogical, but destructive, but that's for another thread.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
If I said that there was a pink elephant in the sky that talked to me I would. quite rightly, be deeemed insane. Yet people who claim that God talks to them are consindered preferectly reasonable. I do not see why this should be.
Richard Dawkins put a quote in "The God Delusion" which is quite pertinenet. I don't remember the exact quote but it was something along the lines of "If one person has an irrational belief it is called insanity, if many people have an irrational bellief it is called Religion".
The difference between me and a good portion of North America is that said portion of North America sees a difference between pink sky elephants and the Christian God and I do not. They are both equalily non-exsistent as far as I can tell. I cannot prove it, but I've yet to see any evidence that supports either pink sky elephants or God, and I've seen quite a lot of evidence that the Bible is wrong and that the scientific viewpoint explains the way the world really works. This is not "faith" this is si simply my judgement based on the evidence. If somebody can produce legitimate evidence that God exists then I will concede the issue. I've yet to see any such evidence.
to say humans have some kind of value worth preserving is to take on an assumption with faith.
I disagree. I don't have faith in just base humanity, but evidence for its progression in our success so far as a species and civilization.
I do see an intrinsic value in every person's life simply because in some small way it affects my own. Would I understand my emotions if there weren't others to elicit them from me?
And that leads us to the first post. Obviously, I Have A Clever Name, has seen something that elicited a response from him/her. For some of us, the degree of response depends upon the degree that we are acted upon. The more obnoxious the idea seems, the more obnoxious people become. It isn't necessarily irrational, but a symptom of being human.
With that said, there is a line. People know where it is. I know where it is. Sometimes crossing it feels good. That makes us human. If we were forced to suppress that then it would be a 'cult'. Just by the very fact that accusations of 'cult-like behavior' and 'irrational behavior' remain and are responded to should be enough evidence against it.
However, some people just don't get it and never will. It doesn't mean they're 'hated', but rather reviled and eventually avoided.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I got lost a bit here. what does 'it' refer too?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
geez sapient, that visual wasn't necessary to get your point across.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
i understand your point i think, i'm saying that the image didn't help me understand your point better, it just made me want to look away from the thread.
It did me to. But then most religious acts do. Taken in this context, maybe you'll see why we despise it so.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Fanatical Thiesm, monotheism, Fanatical Atheism, Fanatical Deism, Fanatical anything, any form of ABSOLUTISM is a poison to the human race and all other species and the planet and nature we inhabit!
In Reason:
The reasonable Deist:
Iconoclastithon
"There is no greater weapon against errors of any kind than REASON, I have never used any other and I trust I never shall"-Thomas Paine
"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon"-Thomas Paine
sure, atheism requires faith (especially the strong atheism of the RRS), but i don't think that faith is the issue at hand, i think it's the object of faith.
all my life i've heard half-witted christians rail on atheists with the tried and true "atheism requires just as much faith as christianity" schitck, and it misses the point completely, i think. obviously an atheist is more comfortable putting his faith in the idea that there is no god than the idea that there is a god, and vice versa for the christian. sure, they are both matters of faith, but the point is how convinced you are of what it is you're putting your faith in.
"faith" is becoming one of those vague throwaway words like "soul" that have come to mean absolutely nothing.
Well said.
BB
that our progression/success as a species or civilization is a good thing or that it makes you happy, is a belief we take on that cannot be judged with evidence. it's just an implicit assumption we carry on in our day to day lives when we decide life is worth living and things are worth doing. (this is what humanism means)
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Breakthroughs in medicine = not a belief
Equality = progression
Those two items are pretty evidentiary supporting human improvement.
Humanism has more pieces that make it dogmatic. I don't ascribe that label to myself. Atheism is nothing more than a 'lack of belief in any deity' ergo it requires no faith.
The assumption that anyone is a strong atheist needs to be clarified. One could be considered a strong teapot atheist but a weak atheist with regard to a god they know very little about. Atheism is just atheism.
There is also no faith involved with not having faith.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Ever since I watched the show with Ergun Caner, I've gotten a very fanatical, church-type vibe from the RRS.
For instance, before the show even started, Brian, Rook and Kelly were sitting around talking, ironing out technical issues, etc., and I noticed some very interesting things:
1) RRS apparently has a record label of some sort, or at least a select few hip-hop artists that record custom-tailored songs to fit their agenda. I know for a fact that i heard the phrase "Rational Responders" more than once during the course of the playlist. I was instantly reminded of christian hip-hop artists such as T-Bone, Gritz, and KJ-52. Very generic structure to the beats, very lame, cheesy, overly atheistic lyrics. Sapient was presenting the songs as though they represented a new day rising in the world of music. Ha.
2) The RRS members were wearing matching, custom-made hooded sweatshirts. Very "youth group"-esque.
3) The personality structure seemed to fit that of comparable radical christian ministries: the relatively level-headed but nonetheless fanatically devoted spokesperson and leader (Sapient); the fiery, angry chick with a bottle of hair dye (Kelly); the young scholar hell-bent on unearthing 100% definitive proof of his agenda through textual study (Rook); the older, wiser sage making cameo appearances from afar (Flemming).
The bottom line is this: it's just as irrational to believe that God doesn't exist as it is to believe that God exists. No empirical proof exists for or agaist God. Sure, empirical proof exists for a host of mindblowingly complex scientific processes, but this neither confirms nor denies God in any way.
Atheists are making knowledge claims about the same realm as theists: God doesn't exist vs. God does exist. We're both making irrational assertions. The difference between theists and atheists, though, is that I'm fully aware that my conclusions are illogical and irrational, and I'm okay with that because I believe that there is more than one way to acquire knowledge, and more than one type of knowledge. On the other hand, atheists (at least the ones on this site) arrive at similarly illogical and irrational conclusions, but operate under the assumption that they've been completely logical and completely rational throughout the whole process.
All in all, I see just as much if not more blind, misguided, narrow-minded fanaticism from atheists as I've seen from fundamentalist christians. The construct is the same, just insert a different ideology.
This has been kind of disappointing if I may say so. I came here hoping to gain some enlightenment from the atheists, and all I got was more blind, vitriolic ideology - vomited forth in the same spirit as the fundamentalist churches I've encountered in my life.
I hear talk of free thinkers, but I've yet to see one here. Instead I see people just as tied to their atheistic ideologies as most christians are to their theistic ideologies.
Please, change my mind, I really want you to. But until then, I'll just conclude that atheism is just as much a religion as fundamental christianity - possibly moreso.
Can't y'all get this through your thick heads that evidence against isn't required? Do you have evidence dragons don't exist? What about aliens living on the sun? Fairies? Bertrand Russel's teapot?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
But why isn't evidence against God required? You say that as though it's just common knowledge, but I'm asking - why is this the case? What makes this necessary?
Dragons, aliens living on the sun, fairies, and Bertrand Russell's teapot all have something in common - they all have absolutely no relevance to anything whatsoever. The existence of God, however, potentially has a maximum amount of relevance on everything - he is the potential metaphysical underpinning of the whole thing.
And that's what you guys have consistently neglected - the metaphysical underpinning. I'm just as fascinated by science as any of you, but I understand at the end of the day that the deepest scientific analysis still doesn't reveal a metaphysical underpinning, or a basic, fundamental origin. And if you're content with that, that's fine, that's your business. Myself, on the other hand, I'm not satisfied. I want to go deeper. Empirical experience can only truly yield one type of knowledge - empirical. It may, however, help to implicitly point to other types of knowledge (mystical), but it cannot truly give the deepest answers, and most importantly, it does not truly yield the conclusions that many of you have seemingly arrived at - that God does not exist.
You guys, like myself, are giving a non-empirical answer to an empirical question. It's just as much of a leap for me to say that God exists as it is for you to say that God does not exist. The difference between us is that I acknowledge this and attempt to parse out different types of knowledge and knowledge acquisition, whereas you guys do not acknowledge the problem with your conclusions, and insist upon continually giving equally non-empirical answers to empirical questions. The thing is, your conclusions are only problematic when viewed through the lense of your own narrow ideology.
I really had hoped to establish an intelligent, level-headed, enlightening, exhilarating dialog, but you guys are just as far gone as any of the fundamentalist christians I know.
OK, I propose there is a genie living 2 miles under the ice in Antarctica. Anyone who directly comes in contact with it will have any wish he or she wishes granted. Clearly this would have a profound impact on everything if it were true. Can you prove this false?
I also propose I created the universe an hour ago. All your memories and anything that indicates this isn't true I planted to test your faith. This would have relevance on everything. Can you prove that not true?
Learn basic logic.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
My God, again with the Cartesian bullshit. You guys are as chuffed with Descartes as some christians are with Blaise Pascal and C.S. Lewis.
A genie living 2 miles beneath the ice in Antarctica has nothing to do with anything. It's something that you just created in your mind a few minutes ago. I'm not talking about a genie or a magic lamp or a dragon or a fairy. I'm talking about the genuine metaphysical underpinning of existence. Something that people have been searching for and writing about for literally thousands of years. Huge difference.
And as far as you proposing that you created the universe an hour ago, that's one of the countless variations on Descartes' "Evil Genius". I'm telling you, the farther you go into Descartes, the farther you disappear up your own ass. It's exponential.
I've actually never even read Descartes, I just made them up. You can't just say an argument only works for God. A very basic rule of logic is you assume something doesn't exist unless there is evidence that it does. Just because it would be important if it existed doesn't change that.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
In order to present evidence 'against' something then there should be evidence 'for' it in the first place. I can't just 'take your word' for something allegedly as important as a deity. It actually is common knowledge. We want proof not to spend our existences gathering 'un-proofs'. We also don't want to be victimized by people that presuppose something exists and fail on a continual basis to provide said proof supporting their claims.
Yet again, you allege that god has more merit than all of these other things without a shred of evidence. You are ascribing characteristics to a god that you cannot even believe in on a rational basis.
In your opinion. In my subjectively metaphysical opinion, I have merely chosen not to believe in things without evidence. If there is a 'metaphysical underpinning' then its lack of a valid explanation provided by you or any other theist should be able to point out that it is only an hypothesis.
'implicitly' requires trust or faith by assumption. I'm afraid that you have a better chance of selling refrigerators to eskimos than you do of selling a 'metaphysical underpinning' to a bunch of skeptics.
Since you so openly acknowledged that empirical evidence cannot point to the existence of god(s) then what was your sermon about again? Proof or the lack thereof?
Yeah Yeah Yeah. You're better than us because you believe that you see everything. Oh thank you mighty holier than thou seer of all that I do not. Bless me with more baseless accusations and flood me with assertions until I cannot stand it. Oh thank you for being theist #349712 to tell me that I am blind for not seeing what isn't there.
I'm afraid that I do not concur with your assertion that it requires more 'faith' to say either one of those things. However, it does require infinitely more faith to believe in a deity without evidence.
[dripping sarcasm]Oh yeah. Because we just so twisted your arm to come here and make baseless accusations concerning our knowledge, dress habits, and quest for knowledge. You're so right.[end sarcasm]
Honestly, if you don't see that Matt has already engaged you in level-headed discussion then how are we supposed to 'implicitly' take your assumptions? For someone who claims to see more than we, you have poorly tried to see our side of the issue at hand.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Just because a ridiculous argument is popular--god exists, for example--doesn't make it true. What you are saying is a logical fallacy: Appeal to Popularity.
The Christian religion is just as ridiculous as Scientology. The only reason it isn't derided as thoroughly as Scientology is that it became an official religion due to a decision by Constantine. Christianity and Christians weren't terribly popular when the religion first appeared. In a couple hundred years Scientology may actually be respected. I hope not. I would like to see the beginning of the end of religion in my lifetime.
Do I need to explain to the theists in this thread why belief in god and non-belief in god are not on equal footing when it comes to probability? It's a pretty simple explanation, but I'd rather not type more than I have to.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yeah, you're correct. I was actually pretty impressed with the cordiality of the discourse between Ergun Caner and the RRS. What the RRS has to say may be controversial, but how they try to express it is actually congenial most of the time. I've seen various squad members get angry at times, but hey, they're human.
I've found their patience instructive and will strive to be less antagonistic on the forum.
Note that what I say may be offensive to believers, but I am going to try very hard to never bring it down to a personal level. I can't guarantee I'll never sink to ad hom attacks, but I'm going to do my dead-level best.
I think a lot of what people perceive as "antagonistic" is the RRS's position that religion is irrational and dangerous. This is not a popular or politically correct position. They may incorrectly infer that certain members are also being personally obnoxious.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
For the Original Post:
I think you intention is good, but you have not fully evaluated this site and you make a lot of assumptions. Yes, we always need to be careful of cults and fanaticism. However, this is why science, reason and logic are not susceptable to moving towards cult-like behaviors. Here is why?
All three demand skepticism, questioning, and new ideas. In Science we constantly demand evidence, knowledge, and studies of rigor. Althought theories are supported and endorsed by multiple sources we speak in likelihoods and probabilities, not absolutes. The idea is to grow through reason. In religion, nothing grows, nothing is questioned, things are stale and stagnant.
This can relate to your difficulties with the term "Mind disorder". Psychologically disordered individuals usually have difficulties changing their beliefs and rules about the world. They tend to hold these beliefs rigidly and attempt to fit themselves and the rest of the world into their preconceived ideas. Does this sound familiar?? Yes, religion does the same thing and despite the evidence religion continues. Also, similar is that individuals who have psychological struggles learn their beliefs about themselves and the world at young ages from parents, family, and their culture. Again, does this sound familiar?? At what age is religion taught?? What if reasoning skills were taught instead? What if we taught children to test out things they are told and to ask questions about the world?? Interestingly this is what you do in empirically supported psychotherapy. The therapist gets the client to test out their rigid beliefs and to constantly question their own thinking. By doing this the client feels better and behaves in a more effective manner. As long as the ideas on this site are questioned, there is no need to be scared. Of course, by nature there will be questions.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
breakthroughs in medicine are means to an end, that is the survival of a human or humanity. why preserve humanity?
progression defined by whom?
that these statements support human improvement i am not doubting. rather it is that curious phrase you use..."human improvement"
why should humans improve?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Why would we want to stay the same?
Pragmatism. If we required evidence against unsupported claims to reject them, we could never reject any unfalsifiable claims. There are an infinite number of possible unfalsifiable claims. Therefore, we would have to believe them all. This is simply not practical. Our brains are only so big, we are limited in our understanding, so we cannot afford to believe every claim ever made. We must decide which claims to reject and which to believe. Since unfalsifiable claims cannot lead to any useful knowledge, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of them. Thus, by rejecting unfalsifiable claims, we eliminate the problem of having to believe useless things that waste space in our brains.
You are using God as a catch-all concept for 'everything we don't know', or The Unknown, aka the God of the Gaps. Where did the universe come from? Unknown. Therefore God did it! How did life begin? Unknown. Therefore God did it!
You cannot get to a known (God) from an unknown without evidence.
If you want relevance, you just have to be a bit more creative in the examples. The aliens in the sun are responsible for the life-giving light energy given off by the sun. Without them, there could be no life on Earth! Plants need light, and we need plants, so the aliens in the sun are VERY relevant to your life. Now, do you believe they exist?
We don't neglect it, we just realize that we don't know the answer, so instead of making up an answer, or borrowing one from an unreliable book, we just say "I don't know". God, the catch-all Unknown, is not an answer, because you can't answer a mystery with another mystery.
Give an example of 'mystical knowledge' and show how it is actually knowledge (can be demonstrated to be true). My guess is that you cannot, because mystical knowledge is not knowledge at all, but wishful thinking.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Actually, it's not much different at all. He made the genie up a few hours ago, and the Jews made Jesus up 2000 years ago. Both claims are equally made up.
The point is that these are unknowns, and you can't just put in your Big Unknown to answer some question. You cannot demonstrate ANY knowledge of the 'metaphysical underpinning', so why should we pick your answer over any other? Maybe the aliens-in-the-sun also created the universe so that they could have somewhere nice and cozy (our sun) to hang out in. This answer is just as good as your answer that the creator is Yahweh.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I'm not particularly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that requiring evidence against unsupported claims would also require us to equally believe every claim ever made. We're not talking about any and every claim, we're talking about the specific claim that God doesn't exist vs. God exists.
Besides, the conclusion "God does not exist" is just as unfalsifiable as the conclusion "God exists". They are both equally non-empirical answers to the same empirical question.
It's a tad more complex than that. I don't advocate using God as a crutch to fill in the unknowns. I'm open to all there is to know in the world, which is more than can be said for many of the "freethinkers" here.
But there are some very simple questions that I've yet to receive a coherent "atheistic" answer to, such as: What is the origin of matter? I went straight to the source, straight to your leader, if you will - Sapient - and all he could muster was "Matter has always existed." Doesn't sound very rational to me. I'm certainly not satisifed.
I'm not saying that we should just fill in the unknowns with "God did it!", but I think that it is very rational to consider other forms of knowledge acquisition beyond that of human rationality and logic when we run into brick walls such as these. But this is of course when things get paradoxical, even scary - when the next logical step is abandoning logic, if only partially or temporarily. Leaving very fundamental and vitally important empirical questions such as "What is the origin of matter?" largely unexplored is not only irresponsible, but highly irrational as well.
Agreed. If we stick to the schema of relying purely on human rationality and logic to find evidence, then we have a problem. If, however, we are willing to expand the possibilities of knowledge acquisition (and distinguish different kinds of knowledge altogether), then we admittedly still have a problem, but indeed a much smaller one.
I don't want relevance, I just want to know what there is to know, and I don't think that this can be achieved through the narrow means that you suggest.
The aliens on the sun example is not only a piss-take, but it's wholly irrelevant to the conversation at hand. I'm not suggesting anything particular here; I'm not even suggesting Jesus or the Judeo-Christian God yet for that matter; I'm merely suggesting a metaphysical underpinning, a basic origin and driving mechanism - not a conclusion, but merely a starting point.
I'm not asking you to make up an answer. I never suggested that, and I don't advocate that under any circumstance. And I'm certainly not asking you to so much as open the bible, let alone borrow any answers from it. I'm instead asking you to go deeper into the questioning process when faced with the difficult questions, to not be satisfied with "I don't know" as a conclusion, especially when you pride yourselves on being especially rational, logical, intelligent human beings. What this displays is a lack of curiosity and a fear of the unknown - 2 hallmarks of dogmatic groups, theistic and atheistic alike.
Above all I'm asking you to consider other methods of knowledge acquisition besides human rationality and logic.
I cannot demonstrate mystical knowledge to you rationally, logically, or empirically (in their traditional senses). That would be illogical (traditionally).
To say that mystical knowledge is not actually knowledge is selling your mind short.
I'm not even talking about Jesus. Jesus is a separate issue altogether from "God in general". But just for kicks, let's go with that example for a minute. There's a hell of a lot more historical evidence that backs the existence (and even resurrection) of Jesus Christ than there is that backs the existence of genies beneath Antarctica or aliens on the sun.
The interesting thing with examples such as genies beneath Antarctica, aliens on the sun, and yes, even Bertrand Russell's teapot is that they immediately bring a great deal of absurdity to the table, and the placement of this absurdity is certainly no accident - it serves the purpose of creating a diversion to avoid answering the very hard questions (i.e. What is the origin of matter?). Sleight-of-mind, if you will.
I'm not suggesting anything this particular, this defined, and certainly nothing this absurd. I'm merely suggesting that a non-empirical source lies behind our seemingly unanswerable questions, which is really what the genies, the aliens, and the teapots are themselves offering - beneath all the nonsense (if you should ever happen to find the bottom).
I think the only faith I have is the faith that none of us has all the answers. The world is too huge, too amazing, too bizarre, for any of us to have figured it all out yet. Maybe we never will. Look at all the new inventions, and theories proved wrong, and changing concepts in the sciences.
And that includes me. I may happen to believe that there isn't a god as I've heard it described by others. But I don't pretend to be absolutely certain, and have no intention of insisting that I'm right. I can believe that many belief systems are absurd, but I have no evidence of that, just as there is no real evidence that their god exists. I can't prove a negative, just as them pointing to a human-written book doesn't prove their beliefs. I have my own feelings about it, but as far as science is concerned, I think we all have to admit that science hasn't yet advanced enough to explain the entire universe and our existence.
Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life
"I think I'm Clever" (hope I got that right) wrote-
" Polite, intelligent and moderate debate is the best way of sorting through conflicting ideas and beliefs."
I couldn't agree more. It's too bad the countless victims of Christian intolerance throughout the blood soaked history of Christianity were never afforded this consideration.