It would seem that your experience(s) is more an immense feeling rather than an intellectual enlightenment.

Truth is best wrestled with, not embraced. The coming upon what may be right should bring about a journey, a journey of exhaustively flagellating and fighting with a profoundly unsettling idea that could, in time, deeply shape the living of one's future life. In contrast, it would seem that you, Colin, have come upon something very easy, something distinctly simple. And this is why your testimony leaves me slightly off put, for even if I believed in a God, such belief would never leave me assured or content. As I sit here, if I dedicate enough time to it I will be reminded of my sin, and will invariably be distressed and disgusted by it. Such a feeling brings me to humble thoughts, however, not to thoughts of pride, as though I am not a sinful wretch like any other, that I've what others do not.

Its just, some of us have learned to know better, while others are still searching. And I guess that's all there is to it. — colin

Indeed. I suggest you move your searching for humility from this forum to another, so that you might then find more members keen enough to massage your current ego. I myself will remain here, assured only in the fact that I will never be of such a wisdom to suggest that I know better.

Tell me you're right and I'll tell you you're wrong. Tell me you're wrong, and I'll tell you you're right.

I don't really wish to elaborate on the details of my experience. Although I would like to point out that I've had several of these experiences. And I continue to experience them, even this afternoon at church. — colin

Okay, but especially as someone who was an atheist, I'm wondering why you're interpreting your experiences as something other than simply unusual brain states. If you were to detail just what the experiences were, that might make it clearer why you've settled upon the interpretation that you have.

From my perspective, it's difficult for me to imagine what would possibly count in my interpretation as me having an experience of external-to-me religious phenomena rather than just figuring that my brain was doing strange (even if enjoyable) things.

The coming upon what may be right should bring about a journey, a journey of exhaustively flagellating and fighting with a profoundly unsettling idea that could, in time, deeply shape the living of one's future life. In contrast, it would seem that you, Colin, have come upon something very easy, something distinctly simple — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think Colin came upon this "something" very easily? That's not what he said:

My point is, it takes work. You have to earn enlightenment. Otherwise, it would lack any meaning. — colin

He experienced something, and therefore holds to be true whatever he now does. This is simplicity almost by definition. What struggle was there? If truth ceases to concern you, or challenge you, or demands you to rethink upon what you do think to be true, then truth is a liar.

But I was determined to at least know that I tried my best and couldn't find God . . . — colin

See, from my perspective, I find religious beliefs completely absurd, and I don't have any dissatisfaction with my present worldview. So I have zero motivation to "try my best and see if I can't find God."

I'm not doubting that you were an atheist, but you were definitely a very different sort of atheist than I am, you probably came to atheism from a different background than I did (I simply wasn't at all socialized into any religious beliefs; in fact, I had almost zero familiarity with religious beliefs until I was in my mid teens), and you probably had different motivations/justifications than I do for your atheism.

The point is more or less that Colin's enlightenment is simplistic-- all you have to do is feel God. Questions of what is ethical, work to discover or produce a good outcome, keeping logical rigour are all irrelevant. Just "feel God" and you will be wise. A distinctly reductive and simple account of what it means to understand, relate and respect yourself and the world.

When you experience something, you can say "I know what that was", and proceed merrily on your way. That is simplicity. Otherwise, you can stop, analyze, and try to understand exactly what it was that you did experience. This is not simplicity.

But saying, "I know what that was" is precisely what Colin has said, which is why I find his opining frivolous and entirely boring.

Did you not read Colin's last post, when he actually came around to starting to describe his experience?

Indeed I have. He writes,

"They simply know what feels good and keep at it. They can see it without figuring it out. They know what's right without having to spend much time or effort justifying it. And really, it is so simple."

If this sentiment strikes you as evidence for a man that has suffered, and still suffers, after the truth, I must assume you to be as intellectually vapid as he is. He has just embraced those who " just know" what's "right" simply because something "feels good" and so this therefore excludes he and them from "having to spend much time justifying."

Wait--it can't be that he's saying that the incontrovertible experience that transitioned him from an atheist to a religious believer is simply "knowing what feels good" and "knowing what's right" can it?

If someone told me, "Hey dude, Maestro Poptart, I experienced the jamming of a gnarled, rusty pipe up my ass the other day, and let me tell you, it felt great! If you haven't tried it, you just won't understand how right I am about it feeling marvelous, haha!" would I laugh as well, going off then to thrust a 2x4 up my butt? Should I trust mere feelings without thought and reasoning to be vehicles for the truth? No, I'mma actually go off and see whether I want to do what that someone says I really, really should. If I decide not to, that's great. But if I do, who cares. That guy's not right simply because he felt something to be good. It never follows that from what another feels to be right, I'm therefore wrong if I do not feel what they do.

I was once a master philosopher. — colin

>:O

Man, this thread is hilarious.

"Colin" is pulling your legs, guys.

That would seem more reasonable at least.

Btw, were you on the old forum? I can't remember.

Yes, but I only started posting there this past April or May. I know we interacted in a couple different threads.

I'm pretty sure you were telling me how much you agreed with me, but I suggested you just send money instead.

Or maybe that was just that dream I had.

Well, seeing as my currency is brilliant ideas, I don't doubt that I gave you some. I'm very charitable in that regard.

Willkommen.

In this case, Granny has offered us some specifics. Mister Paws was on her bed. But we might know Mister Paws was buried in the ground, dead, with a cement block on top. So with a few other premises we can deductively conclude that for some reason granny is not giving us accurate information. — Metaphysician Undercover

But remember way back a post or two, when you said;

When the description is a description of one's own personal inner experience, how are you, as another, able to identify that experience in order to verify what is being said about it? The only access which you have, to enable identification, is through the means of the other's description. You can only identify that experience through the other's description of it. The described experience can be assumed to be no other than the description of it, without an accusation of lying. So how could you say that the description is false unless it contained inconsistency, or blatant contradiction?

And you surely realize that Granny was talking about a risen-from-the-dead supernauiral visiting-from- the-great-beyond version of Mr. Paws, right? So your attempted dodge about Mr. Paws being buried and covered with a cement block on top is irrelevant. Not to mention tjat since it was a cement truck that did him in, it's in plain bad taste to allege that's how they'd covered his grave.

What you've demonstrated here is that you really think that if we think we have sufficient eason to reject a person's claims about contact from the supernatural, then we reject their claim, and explain what they say they experienced according to our own alternative explanation.

I don't find atheism entirely plausible, meaning I find the notion that the universe, and all of its composition, all of its laws, all of its evolutionary principles, consciousness, beauty, etc. all just appeared from nowhere. — Hanover

But that isn't atheism. That is consistent with atheism, but it isn't atheism itself. And it is misleading to say that all of those things that you mentioned just appeared from nowhere, since it is possible that with some of those things, it was a long and gradual process of development.

I don't find any theory about where everything came from entirely plausible either. I accept the Big Bang theory, but even experts seem to have trouble answering the question of what was before that, and whether that question even makes sense. But I find atheism more plausible than the alternatives.

What you describe as atheism, I see as agnosticism. Your epistemological standard seems relaxed here, and it's really more of a pragmatism. It's not that you have a firm justification for your belief. It's that given option A versus option B, A seems the least problematic, so A it is. I think I can agree with you that A is less problematic but still insist I don't know that A is correct, so I just concede agnosticism, as opposed to you who believe that that the results of your weighing test of two bad options offers you a justification for a clear conclusion.

Those are "others" whom Colin refers to. He envies others who seem to understand easily what he had so much difficulty with. There is nothing here to support your claim that Colin's understanding is simplistic.

What you've demonstrated here is that you really think that if we think we have sufficient eason to reject a person's claims about contact from the supernatural, then we reject their claim, and explain what they say they experienced according to our own alternative explanation. — Brainglitch

The point being, that in the case of Colin's op there was no sufficient reason for rejection, only a bias concerning the nature of the thing which Colin referred to as "God".

Your response here has me slightly peeved, I must admit. You've cleverly set up the onus to be on me for having to rehash and redress what I've already said, but I'm not going to do that. If you think I'm wrong, then give me more than an essential, "no". I've given you and Colin the time of day so far, now it's your turn to care enough to prove me wrong. If you can't do that, then I shall toodles and away.

ss

The point being, that in the case of Colin's op there was no sufficient reason for rejection, only a bias concerning the nature of the thing which Colin referred to as "God". — Metaphysician Undercover

You've said both (1) that unless there's internal inconsistency or blatant contradiction in what a person claims, the experience can be assumed to be no other than the description of it, and we have no grounds for saying it's false, AND (2) that we can reject a person's claim if we think we have "sufficient reason" to reject it.

So which is it?

Note that when I suggested an alternative explanation--since we know full well that brains are prone to generate just such kinds of experiences, (especially in certain situations, such as emotional stress) and that the particulars the brain constructs the narrative with are those it's familiar with from its own particular social context (God or Jesus or Krishna or Mary or Athena or the Great Witch, etc.)--you insisted that we have no grounds for rejecting the claim, but rather, since we have no access to their experience, we must accept what the person has told us.

Your argument strikes me as ad hoc. Seems to be that if the report is about God in some sense, then we accept it, and have no grounds other (than the obviousd one of internal contradiction) for rejecting it. But for reports other than about God we can propose "sufficient reason" to reject it.

What you describe as atheism, I see as agnosticism. Your epistemological standard seems relaxed here, and it's really more of a pragmatism. It's not that you have a firm justification for your belief. It's that given option A versus option B, A seems the least problematic, so A it is. I think I can agree with you that A is less problematic but still insist I don't know that A is correct, so I just concede agnosticism, as opposed to you who believe that that the results of your weighing test of two bad options offers you a justification for a clear conclusion. — Hanover

Your assessment of my position isn't too far off. What I call atheism is broad enough to include a sort agnosticism as well as stronger forms of atheism.

Application of my epistemological standard produces different results depending on context, so I do have firm justification in some contexts, depending on what we're talking about, and in other contexts, less so. If we don't even know what we're talking about, then I'll probably be more sceptical by default, but I do abide by standards along the lines of belief being proportional to evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So Colin's claims don't fare well. He obviously can't produce any evidence other than his own testimony, which is virtually worthless.

I think that my position is both less problematic and more plausible than alternatives, after weighing them. Although whether or not I'd say that it is correct would depend on what that means.

The new atheist critiques work well against the common conception of God as some kind of intervening sky father, touted around by evangelicals across the world. — darthbarracuda

Ah... so after reading further into the discussion, it seems you had already conceded one of your claims I took issue with:

Additionally, God is typically not seen as "complex", but rather necessarily "simple". — darthbarracuda

So, unless you claim that the conception of God referred to in the first quote is also simple, then you seem to have contradicted yourself. I thought you were contrasting your simple conception vs. a complex conception. You seem confused about which one is typical and which one isn't. I think it's the complex one that is typical and your simple one is not, which would make your statement in the second quote false.

I'm beginning to think you have such a stringent notion of "classical theist" that only a very select few can qualify as one. If that's the case, then one can hardly complain if classical theism flies under the New Atheists' radar. — Arkady

Yeah, and it's all the more amusing given that, as you can see, he started out by claiming that this is the typical stance.

I find it best to label myself an Ignostic, for mere agnosticism or atheism doesn't quite encompass all of my leanings. Have you considered this position?

After all, I did come here to spread positive feeling... — colin

Yeh right. That's either a lie or you're incompetent. Your OP used provocative language directed towards atheists, and I think that it was deliberate.

I suspected from the start that you might be a troll, and I'm not the only one to have thought this, since at least one other poster has said as much. I wouldn't be surprised if your OP is just "copypasta".

I find it best to label myself an Ignostic, for mere agnosticism or atheism doesn't quite encompass all of my leanings. Have you considered this position? — Heister Eggcart

Yes, I have, and I can relate to it inasmuch as I also tend to reserve judgement to some extent because of a lack of clarity in the meaning of certain terms - "God" being a prime example. But I don't use that term to describe my stance, since I prefer more well-known terms. I identify as an atheist, because I think that the term, given its meaning, best conveys my position. My views fit commonly used definitions. I don't believe in God - I never have - and I know that God, in accordance with some conceptions, does not exist. In the relevant contexts, I fit both types of atheism: weak and strong. I'm not really on the fence or haven't thought it through, so the term "agnostic" can give the wrong impression, but I am agnostic too in some contexts, so I don't wholly reject that term.

If your opinion was changed by an experience doesn't it mean a new kind of experience can change you back to where you were?

Q: As long as you are accepting the image of Jesus or Allah or any other prophet or son of god, you are blocking the actual GOD itself from your perception, because you come with a predefined GOD, that you know stuff about and can recognize it. Am I wrong?