Atheists, if I told you....

"As I explained, it's like when you spot your toothache, your favorite music, your love of your pets, etc. Easiest thing to spot."

-- that's a bad analogy. a tooth ache is suggestive of an actual, demonstrable tooth. you're trying to connect this feeling you get (whatever that is) and labeling it to or from a god.

my favorite music is a subjective choice. you're trying to say when I hear a song I like I don't choose it, it chooses me. my preference to something doesn't perpetuate or call for a sort of majestic encounter or experience. no evidence of a spirit or intervening (non-physical) presence. you're just arbitrarily connecting those two things together w/ nothing more than your preferred ideology.


"No, as I said before, it's not made up. It's there already. You discover it."

-- what is "IT"? can you explain "IT"? how did you discover "IT"? more over, whatever "IT" is, how did you identify that's what "IT" is?


"Which you wouldn't know unless you've tried. You haven't, and you show no inclination toward doing so. Your loss, not mine."

-- bro... i was "Christian" for over 20+ years. how could you assert that ive never tired something when you don't know me? you're just showing your ignorance.


"As I already said, THIS God cannot be quantified in any public manner. But it can be a shared experience producing a same or similar conclusion. That refers to the three steps of knowledge-acquisition in which you seem to have no interest."


-- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - you have none - therefore, it is dismissed like all the others who assert anomalies: big foot, loch ness, tooth fairies, leprechauns, aliens, etc...

and no, I have no interest in someone peddling a 'how to' or 'steps to' book in efforts to sell a product. I won't waste my time w/ such nonsense. the book itself may be informative, but as it relates to this topic of deities, its completely rubbish. the book doesn't give you step to reach any sort of divineness. if you claim it does, I have some beach front property to sell you on mars.


"I know it because I've experienced it - or perceived it - that way. The definition is an interpretation based on a divine union experience. Nobody told me, although the universal similarity of such experiences is highly indicative of a common Source being involved in them."

-- so you admit that its YOUR perception and YOUR interpretation, meaning its what YOU make of it. which has no affect on anyone else or our natural universe. which means YOU can define it. we just have to accept that you have this something special w/no conceptual way of actually identifying it.

for example, you'll never be wrong on any of your points, because you can merely keep moving the goal posts and redefining it to fit the narrative you wish. conversely, I couldn't possibly be right, because I don't know what "IT" is, nor did I experience "IT".

essentially, you're just going to say whatever you want to win the argument because we're debating ideologies --- "my god is different from your god, blah blah blah". we'll never get anywhere like this.

*side note: I am curious as to what your experience was, and if it could be rationally, justifiably, logically explained.


"No, I defined my God-experience by my personal perception. I didn't get it from books, for example. If you put your hand on a red-hot stovetop, and say "It's hot!", are you making up your own definition of "heat"? Then if you watch others do the same thing and they say, "It's hot!", are they making up their own definition of the experience and the stovetop and the heat?"

-- HUZZAH!! THANK YOU! you're using a demonstrable, human experience. the hot stove is going to be hot because that is a consistent, methodological human experience. if we place our hand on a hot stove we are going to move it because it is proven to hurt - therefore - we remove our hand.

YOU PROVED MY POINT!

now make the same correlation to a deity/higher power using the same methodology that EVERYONE else would experience exactly the same as the hot stove analogy.
what would the exercise be that we could test (like the hot stove) that would consistently show us that an deity was/is responsible? by that I mean we could consistently run this test over and over again, thus proving your god hypothesis.

we live in the same cognitive reality. meaning, we experience things generally the same. why does the 'stove' exercise ring true for all, but not the 'god' proposition.


"No, I discovered it. It was already there. I didn't create it. Others have had the same experience and they too call God nonmaterial and transcendent. In fact, the only spiritual system that I am aware of that does NOT so declare God is Pantheism, which conflates God with the material world."

-- WHAT IS "IT"??? until you can define "IT", I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! ... and not everybody calls god "non-material". that's merely YOUR perception of YOUR god. do you not see the dilemma here? you've admitted "it" is or was an experience. so, can an experience be an "it"? and what was this experience? perhaps there's a reasonable explanation for "it" or the experience?

*side note: the word "it" is used to describe an object. so, "it" may be the wrong term to use going forward. because if you're going to continue to use the term "it", than "it" needs to be demonstrated.


"Not at all, as I've been saying repeatedly. Not "because I say so", but because I have experienced God in this manner."

-- you really have to present your experience for a good ole contrast. we can't keep going in circles talking about this "experience".


"It's not an appearance, it's a reality that we do know God as a personal experience in our inner selves. And I never claimed that it is attainable by a natural universe. In fact, I claimed the opposite. YOU are the one insisting that God be discoverable by "facts and figures" related to this universe. I never made such an impossible claim."

-- I don't know its a reality. so, strike one there.
welp, we exist in a natural universe and if it doesn't come from this universe, yet we experience it IN our universe, then it MUST be intravenous and metaphysical - beyond space and time. yet, how did you detect something that exists beyond space and time? and why would you accept something you cannot detect or demonstrate?

wait, let me guess... because you feel it. no wait, because you experienced it. furthermore, I have yet to have "it" explained to me; or what the experience was.

"I wouldn't be interested in supporting or discouraging you in putting forth your own ideas about God. So far, you've been doing fine on your own."

-- "YOUR OWN IDEAS ABOUT GOD" ...insinuating you did the same w/ yours?
again, more evidence that this is all likely just a figment of your imagination. why, in the same cognitive universe, would we all have different gods, but every other experience (stove scenario) is virtually the same? awfully convenient.


"Not at all: it's a simple statement that God can be as much an object of experience as are your love of your pets, your favorite music or sports team, your knowing when you have an itch or a toothache, your knowing that you've worked out a math problem - all subjective, and REAL, experiences. There is nothing empty or esoteric about my claim. And as I have pointed out, it is acquirable spontaneously and through meditative/contemplative practices, i.e., "gnostic" acquisition of spiritual knowing. It is not about belief or making stuff up."

-- this is just another example of your failure to contrast reality to your perception of reality... my pets are demonstrable. I can have you listen to my music or watch my team play. my itch or toothache are products of a demonstrable human experience. all humans have experienced this. and they're not subjective --- I can show you all those things and we can experience them together right now if we had to.
now, how would we both experience god together? YOU HAVE NO CONTRAST OF EXPERIENCE TO DRAW FROM! any scenario you come up w/ is just something you cam up w/. you're saying we all have our own little personal hand-held gods, and they're all uniquely special for each individual. OR... you could just have one of the common theistic gods of the day - that's fine to.

you're not interested in the same things im interested in. im interested in truths and facts. you're interested in perpetrating what's been going on since man first invented gods. yours is just on a smaller "personal" scale. a belief that is impervious to criticism because its an unfalsifiable god/claim.


"1. The Injunction: "if you want to know 'X', then DO 'Y'." If you want to know if Jupiter has moons, look through a telescope; if you want to know God or some aspect thereof, look through the spiritual lenses provided for the task."

-- wouldn't you have to prove the a spirit exists before you could look through a spiritual lense? are you starting to see the problem yet? this author is just making *beep* up and you're eating it up w/ a spoon.


"2. The Experiment: Perform the Injunction. Take notes. Make conclusions."

-- sit around - pray/meditate - jot down whatever you want - come to whatever conclusion you want. ... yea, so far these are foolproof.
[EYES ROLL OUT OF HEAD]


"3. Share your Conclusions with others who have adequately performed Steps 1. and 2. (this part of the process is called "peer review" and works in religion like the example of the Zendo where the sensei tests the meditating students' Conclusions for accuracy and truthfulness)."


-- OH MAN... YOU WERE RIGHT. I SAT AROUND AND PRAYED/MEDITATED AND FOLLOWED THESE BRILLIANT WORLD-TILTING CONCEPTS AND... *farts in a jar*

come on buddy... COME ON BUDDY! HAHAHAHA!! we certainly agree on one aspect... we could definitely use some peer review. hahahahahaha!!!!

I can't believe you actually posted this nonsense in efforts to support your case. im actually a little embarrassed for you.

you know what this sounds like... pray - ask jesus into your heart - HUZZAH! jesus lives! if only it were that easy.


"Well, like, hey Man, I never *beep* ast ya ta take my word for it. Whatcha been smokin', Dude?
All along, I've consistently offered you the definitions AND THE MEANS for discovery of the inner Divinity. Now I have even supplied you with the three steps of knowledge acquisition, which are necessary and feasible for both physical and spiritual knowledge-acquirement. Huh. My old lady says I'm wastin' my time with you."

-- yea, brah... I took your totally tubular test - *fart sound* maybe I forgot to wear my magic crystal necklace...


"No. Not the God I'm talking about, Who/Which is not a "possibility" of philosophy or science, but rather a living Presence personally experienced - that is, not a possibility, but an actuality"

-- exactly, we're not talking about the same god. we're not talking about the same anything. we're talking about a vision of your imagination.

*side note: I also like how its now a living presence. I would love to know what that is... and how you identified it and defined it. you say you experienced it. well, if its an it, its an object. and if its an experience, then "it" is the wrong verbage.


"I've been saying that all along. The God-definition I'm explaining has no connection whatsoever to philosophy or science. It's connection is to personal experience."

-- AGAIN, for like the third or fourth time, im going to need to know about this experience in order to have a proper contrast. im going to test it against actual reality (natural universe) vs. your perception of reality.



"Been there, explained that a dozen times: you know it in the same way you know you have a headache, you love your pets, you like your favorite music, or realize when you have solved a problem or have come up with a new idea. No mystery. Just unmediated, immediate knowledge."


-- nope. my headache is correlated to my head. my pets are demonstrable. I can have you listen to music and show you my team play.

now show me god using demonstrable examples like you gave...

this is what you think your statement sounds like: pets are real. music is real. god is real. HUZZAH! checkmate atheist.

in reality, this is what your argument sounds like:

here's my dog.
here's my cat.
here's my hamster.
here's my pet dragon. it exists in my heart and soul. you can't see it, its not demonstrable, but its there and it exists because I experience it everyday.

if you can't see the error in that, then you're just blinded by your own brick wall of irrationality/indoctrination.


"YOU WILL KNOW 1)if you are making the search (it doesn't look like you are - you really seem far too scared to - that is probably why you are steadfastly ignoring all the data I've been supplying to aid in your..."search"

-- you've done nothing but started w/ the conclusion that this works and is infallible, rather than test the accuracy and consistency of it. you done nothing but assert this as foolproof as long as im sincere. its totally contingent on my sincerity. the 'god' proposition only works if im sincere? this all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity can do whatever... nah - im not sincere. wow... this god just became totally useless.

essentially, this all powerful god (like every god in history) only works when *I* turn on the on switch. gotcha...


"2) if your search is sincere; and"

-- HA! literally just answered this ^^


"3)if/when you find God. It has nothing to do with me, so asking me is silly and irrelevant. It is between you, your search, and the inner God. I have nothing to do with it. But you will never undergo the search if your pre-chosen attitude prevents you from beginning on the meditative/contemplative path. Again, and sadly, that is your loss, not mine."


-- oh, believe me... i know its silly and irrelevant. i just wanted to hear you make your case, and have you read back your own rhetoric.