Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Bling

Do atheists get a hard time?

309 posts in this topic

After reading yet more claims and opinions.... I would like to ask the atheist members who have read this thread....Do you feel like you're having a hard time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in so far as being an atheist is concerned No. this is one of the very few places i tell others about my belief system ( or lack thereof. ) and as they say out of sight out of mind. what people don't know they won't bother me about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that is the general condition of most of humanity? Why should atheists be any different.?

So is that how you see yourself ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant stop claiming what is a fact, as a fact. That would be lieing. or allowing an untruth to stand as such. Of course you are free either to disbelieve me or to think I am wrong/ deluded, but that is your responsibility, not my own. I only have a responsibilty to be as honest and as objective as i can, in retelling what i know from experience to be true. Of course sometimes I also logically extrpolate what might be possible, from that which is true, but we all do that.

But you haven't shown us one piece of evidence!! Your stories are just that to me - stories, and quite unbelievable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont actually have any religious beliefs or attend a church, just a personal relationship with god.

And how do you know this is God you're hanging out with? If this God told you to kill people, would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you know this is God you're hanging out with? If this God told you to kill people, would you?

He doesn't; he is deluded. He believes that this god character provides him with money to donate to the community, and with money to sustain a household. He is able to have a great meal and eat apple crumble, whilst an African boy dies tonight because he consumed contaminated water. Somehow god provides him with this money, but decided an African boy's life is not good enough to allow him the liberty of living a happy, healthy life.

EDIT: Now, watch. He is going to make an unnecessarily long post in defense of his love for "god", and how this "god" character loves each and every one of us. Or he will say something to the effect of "perhaps his relationship with god is not as intimate as mine".

He has made it clear that god is present during times of sexual congress with his wife. That is how intimate his relationship with god has become.

Frankly, Walker... I think it is time to step away from the peace pipe, if you know what I mean.

Edited by Alienated Being
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, Walker... I think it is time to step away from the peace pipe, if you know what I mean.

I think I also should step away. I've found that anyone who says their religion is a bunch of private ESP experiences with supernatural beings is not someone who responds to logic.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what is encountered on these forums, ad nauseam. A will to have God conform to your terms and expectations. For whose benefit is this interview ? Surely it is yourself ! You have a will to interrogate God, in truth the only man worthy of God is he who would listen in utter silence, the idea that God would need prompting from your questions is laughable. Not as laughable, I admit as Alienated Being who trumpeted a $10,000 reward for an irrefutable demonstration of the existence of God, but stipulating it required to be simultaneously world-wide, and confirmed by a gaggle of scientists as genuine. I cannot imagine what conditions would have attached to a $100,000 reward !

Exactly! That's what I was pointing out when he said he could talk with god the way one person may talk to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---some atheists--- they just are. In nearly any given argument, inevitable there will be several apeal to ridicules ( flyng spaghetti monsters & sky daddies), ad hominimns, begging the question, etc etc etc. They are usually ripe with them. Not to mention most are basing their entire arguments off of a premis that has already been prooven to be false.

Some common example arguments

--It is illogical to believe in an all seeing sky daddy-- obviously " sky daddy" is an attempt at ridicule. This is an attempt of the arguer to cast the opposing view point in a rediculouse matter instead of actually make a case against the argument itself.. ( it dosnt matter if they think it is or not). This is a logical fallacy. Its fine to believe, but do not claim to be logical while using fallacious logic. It just makes the person look silly.

This permiates most of the atheists/skeptics that I see here. There are many more grievous examples pretty much running the gambit of formal fallacy. On other issues there are corolation problems, straw men, and a simple lak of knowledge and massive assumptions on the subjects they are preaching about.

I end up being the skeptic of skeptics, they should thank me and it's a lot of fun.

When debating someone with such an extraordinary claim who doesn't posses extraordinary proof, it is not uncalled for to ask him/her to take a step back and acknowledge the absurdity of their position. If at that point he/she shows he is serious and entrenched in his/her position, you know there is no reasoning with such an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know he doesnt help others? I personally know dozens of people he has helped and have read the stories of hundreds of others. What you are saying, perhaps, is "why hasn't he made himself real to me?"

I dont know.

I think that statement is in the center of this issue. You are following a path blindly not knowing why you're headed there. That's something I personally couldn't do. Not knowing also creates the possibility for error. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of alternate explanations for your experiences. Even more if we delve into supernatural ones where no evidence is required (say, Satan has been tricking you - who knows why? no need to explain it, right?).

Back to the topic. So you've had experiences in your life that led you down your path. Because the authority is supposed to be a supernatural being, you feel compelled to convert others. Atheists regard that as you giving us a hard time. It is fair you explain why in this thread. It is not fair to do so outside of such discussions. When you meet atheists in real life, do you attempt to convert them? Just know most of us find that very uncomfortable and offensive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that statement is in the center of this issue. You are following a path blindly not knowing why you're headed there. That's something I personally couldn't do. Not knowing also creates the possibility for error. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of alternate explanations for your experiences. Even more if we delve into supernatural ones where no evidence is required (say, Satan has been tricking you - who knows why? no need to explain it, right?).

Back to the topic. So you've had experiences in your life that led you down your path. Because the authority is supposed to be a supernatural being, you feel compelled to convert others. Atheists regard that as you giving us a hard time. It is fair you explain why in this thread. It is not fair to do so outside of such discussions. When you meet atheists in real life, do you attempt to convert them? Just know most of us find that very uncomfortable and offensive.

I'm not defending anyone here... But I would assume that for Walker the idea of not knowing is irrelavent. Faith is beyond the testable; thus, faith is knowledge insofar as the knower is convinced of its (whatever it is) validity; whatever the source of their faith may be.This is a typical a priori versus a posteriori mindset.

Now, I'm not mentally geared in the way he is; I need tangability derived from various variables, assuming they are objective variables, to provide proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending anyone here... But I would assume that for Walker the idea of not knowing is irrelavent. Faith is beyond the testable; thus, faith is knowledge insofar as the knower is convinced of its (whatever it is) validity; whatever the source of their faith may be.This is a typical a priori versus a posteriori mindset.

Now, I'm not mentally geared in the way he is; I need tangability derived from various variables, assuming they are objective variables, to provide proof.

He claims to have been an atheist before the "proof" he witnessed. No faith involved there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly one contributory factor might be that the more militant (i.e. Dawkinsian) Atheists always seem to want to perpetually point out how they're Rational and have overcome Old fashioned Superstition, and the feeling of intellectual superiority and smugness that this tends to put across. And also, of course, the way that Dawkinisian Atheists invariably seem to be on a crusade to convert the believers, you might say, which is always highly ironic since that's what they always accuse "religious" people of constantly doing. It is, of course, wrong for Religious people to do this, but it's entirely right and indeed, essential for Rational people (i.e. Atheists) to do it. This might be seen by some as hypocritical. If all that they wanted to do was stick up for their beliefs and talk about them, I'm sure no one would have any problem with that at all, but it always feels like you're being shouted at all the time.

This sword cuts both directions. I've heard atheists, a la Dawkins, behave this way, but I have also heard Christians behave just as badly. It seems that the hottest arguments are between people who know the least.

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims to have been an atheist before the "proof" he witnessed. No faith involved there.

There are so many tales of alcoholics and criminals having an epiphany and completely accepting a religion. How come atheists don't have these heartwarming tales?

"I was a sinner. There was nothing I could do about it because I was told humans were born to sin. So I cheated on my wife and embezzled from my company. I thought God hated me and was punishing me for my sins so I numbed the hate with alcohol.

"Then a friend explained to me that God was nothing but a myth created by people in power to control the masses. I realized that I have free will and I should rely on my friends, my family and myself for support, not some made-up supernatural creature. Once I took responsibility for my behavior, I was able to give up the booze and get my life in order."

See, that doesn't sound very good, does it! For some reason it's more appealing to surrender our lives to a religion and have it solve our problems than to use our own brains to solve problems ourselves.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims to have been an atheist before the "proof" he witnessed. No faith involved there.

lol okay then... odd. I wonder to what degree he was an "atheist" because most don't start off believing in anything initially. We are taught... told to believe. I've never once met a child who developed a sense for god worship without it first having been presented to them. Not to mention I don't think I've ever met a child who without prior indoctrination had an innate understanding of god and what god wants, etc...

That being said, I also don't think one is necessarily an atheist unless he were to have a real understanding of what that meant.

So, to what extent was Mr. Walker an "atheist" prior to divine revelation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is that how you see yourself ?

Na! as with almost everything, I am in a tiny minority. The comment was in part ironic. But actually very few humans exercsie their full potential to be all they can be. Many seek contentment in mediocrity and averageness. Thats ok but it just didnt work out for me. I have taught thousands of children. Less than a dozen ever became all they could have become. Sometimes that was because of external limitations placed on them , including how they were conditioned by their parents, but almost always it was because they didnt want to make the effort, exercise the self disciplines required, and sacrifice pleasure etc to do so.

Without serious motivation, most people are incredibly lazy and complacent, especially in the west. Few ever learn how to use the many forms of intelligence and thought availailable to them, or how to reason, use logic, philosophy etc. Many never even learn to read well enough to do so effectively and efficiently or to develop useful higher maths.. Few ever extend themselves with challenges, in any form of life, but especially intellectual ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you haven't shown us one piece of evidence!! Your stories are just that to me - stories, and quite unbelievable to me.

Of course. You have no comparative evidentiary experience and you make your own choices of belief based on your own life experiences. But while that works for you it makes you wrong to deny the reality of my own experiences. Wrong in fact, not wrong to believe what you believe. its like you arguing form a position of disbelief with a person who has met an ordinary run of the mill alien Or indeed a real ghost. You can believe what you like, but their evidentiary experiences makes you choice of belief (disbelief) factually wrong (if their experiences are real)

Its irrelevant if i show you evidence or not as long as the evidences are clear factual and conclusive to me. I dont have to prove to you any claim about my life. I couldn't and i wouldn't, because to do so is unneccesary, as long as I know what is true and real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. You have no comparative evidentiary experience and you make your own choices of belief based on your own life experiences. But while that works for you it makes you wrong to deny the reality of my own experiences. Wrong in fact, not wrong to believe what you believe. its like you arguing form a position of disbelief with a person who has met an ordinary run of the mill alien Or indeed a real ghost. You can believe what you like, but their evidentiary experiences makes you choice of belief (disbelief) factually wrong (if their experiences are real)

Its irrelevant if i show you evidence or not as long as the evidences are clear factual and conclusive to me. I dont have to prove to you any claim about my life. I couldn't and i wouldn't, because to do so is unneccesary, as long as I know what is true and real.

So basically, 'here are the facts as I see them but gosh golly I don't have to prove them to you'. Sounds like a politician.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do you know this is God you're hanging out with? If this God told you to kill people, would you?

Dont be inane.

How do I know my dog is a dog and not a cat?

The second question is laughable but just to make it clear First duch an entity is a loving caring compasioante empowering teaching mentorig one it would no more tell me to kil someone than i would tell anyone to kill someone And second just suppose it did hypothetically No i would not. (Unless there were other logical, rational reasons for doing so, that applied anyway)

Suppose god woke me up from a deep sleep and i saw an intruder standing over my wife with a large knife. If god said, "kill him quick, he's about to stab your wife" I'd do so, but I'd do that anyway, without any advice from god and without any ethical qualms. In my case god doesnt work like that. He'd find a better solution to the threat and apply it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, 'here are the facts as I see them but gosh golly I don't have to prove them to you'. Sounds like a politician.

Why do you see /feel/believe, that I need to prove any truth about my life to you, or to anyone ? It's my life, not yours. I am not telling you to live as i live, just explaining how and why i live as i do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you see /feel/believe, that I need to prove any truth about my life to you, or to anyone ? It's my life, not yours. I am not telling you to live as i live, just explaining how and why i live as i do.

What's the justification behind hiding it? If it's easy to prove, if it's something you claim as solid facts, then of course you're going to have people asking for evidence? Is that wrong? To prove your point to others who may be swayed by the evidence you provide? Keep it to yourself or back up the statements and claims you've provided, it's up to you, but it would be like if I claimed I had a flying car and used it to hang out with Owen Wilson every Saturday. No one would believe me if I didn't show us flying over Paris or something. So why tell us this if you don't feel the need to back it up? With any claim, you should back it up if you can, or you're just telling a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that statement is in the center of this issue. You are following a path blindly not knowing why you're headed there. That's something I personally couldn't do. Not knowing also creates the possibility for error. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of alternate explanations for your experiences. Even more if we delve into supernatural ones where no evidence is required (say, Satan has been tricking you - who knows why? no need to explain it, right?).

Back to the topic. So you've had experiences in your life that led you down your path. Because the authority is supposed to be a supernatural being, you feel compelled to convert others. Atheists regard that as you giving us a hard time. It is fair you explain why in this thread. It is not fair to do so outside of such discussions. When you meet atheists in real life, do you attempt to convert them? Just know most of us find that very uncomfortable and offensive.

LOL I dont discuss "religion" with anyone else other than friends and family. Half of them are more religious than me. The rest are militant atheists We all rub along fine. Makes for interesting family birthdays etc.

However in principle YOU (generic) are responsible for how you chose to feel or respond to any conversation, made by anyone else on any topic. If you (generic) cant control your feelings and emotional responses you will have a difficult life in our diverse world. You cant expect people not to talk about topics which might offend you. Thats a limitation on their freedom of speech. i would insist that no one talked about football in my presence, for example.

Ps blindly? No i follow a path of logic and common sense which i have spent years thinking about studying and applying and which gives me great adbvanatages and benefits in the world. Health hapiness love community friendship family respect etc Few people are as well loved as I am or as happy empowered in love etc. I follow a path which makes me stronger, better, more capable all the time, so tha ti can do more for the people who depend on me and rely on my wife and I and so tha t inever have to worry about fear, guilt, envy, hate, lust, anger, depression, loneliness, isolation. etc.

My argument is that, from my experiences, such a life is available to every /any human being.

I would feel guilty if i failed to point this out to others, and i always chose not to do something for which I would feel guilty at any time after.

Ps important The I DONT KNOW which you bolded was my response to the question "why has god not manifested to you?"

Of course i dont know. A lot of people ask me why god might manifest to me and not to them. I cant have a clue why god doesn't manifest to them, because I am not living in their mind, but i can logically consider why he might have manifested to me. And i tried to explain this.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the justification behind hiding it? If it's easy to prove, if it's something you claim as solid facts, then of course you're going to have people asking for evidence? Is that wrong? To prove your point to others who may be swayed by the evidence you provide? Keep it to yourself or back up the statements and claims you've provided, it's up to you, but it would be like if I claimed I had a flying car and used it to hang out with Owen Wilson every Saturday. No one would believe me if I didn't show us flying over Paris or something. So why tell us this if you don't feel the need to back it up? With any claim, you should back it up if you can, or you're just telling a story.

Because only YOU need the justification. I do not, any more than i need to justify/prove my relationship with my labrador ( i dont claim to own him; we live in a mutually beneficial relationship) Are you seriously suggesting that, on forums like this, people do not talk about things they do not have transferrable proofs for? Be a very limited forum wouldnt it?

You can tell me anything you like. I wont actively disbelieve or believe any of it. But i will accept that you are telling the truth as you know it, and that you are not deluded and that you are not lying ;depending on the contexts of your experiences Eg if you were drunk or under the influence of drugs, I would be more skeptical. Ps i back up stories with accounts of contextual proofs and evidences . i dont accept any of my reality without such verifiable contextual proofs and evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't; he is deluded. He believes that this god character provides him with money to donate to the community, and with money to sustain a household. He is able to have a great meal and eat apple crumble, whilst an African boy dies tonight because he consumed contaminated water. Somehow god provides him with this money, but decided an African boy's life is not good enough to allow him the liberty of living a happy, healthy life.

EDIT: Now, watch. He is going to make an unnecessarily long post in defense of his love for "god", and how this "god" character loves each and every one of us. Or he will say something to the effect of "perhaps his relationship with god is not as intimate as mine".

He has made it clear that god is present during times of sexual congress with his wife. That is how intimate his relationship with god has become.

Frankly, Walker... I think it is time to step away from the peace pipe, if you know what I mean.

You dont quite get it do you? many people die of contaminated water.Thanks to god in my life, thousands less do than would other wise have done. We have provided, via gods gifts to us, water food schooling sanitation etc for thousands of people, especially children, around the world and continue to do so. it is esier for god to create wealth for me to give to others because i live amids abundance and wealth A lot harder to help that african child in a country of scarcity, poverty, war and disease. God gives me everything, but asks that i give all that i can to help others of my brothers and sisters, all of whom, like me, are a part of god. because god is in me and around me always so of course he is invloved in the most intimate moments of my life. Tantric or cosmic sex incidentally enhaces the sexual experience, markedly. That doesnt worry me The interesting thing is that he is also with you every moment of your life including the sexual ones. You just aren't aware of it. I find that very amusing.

I havent taken any non prescription drugs including alcohol or tobacco for 40 years. I also find it amusing that you associate a god experience with mind altering, rather than with extreme lucidity, rationality and clear headedness. Being with god is a natural state for humanity and individual humans. Altering our minds with any form of drug is not. It cant lead to truth, only illusions. I drank and did drugs as a teenager. Life is far superior without using them. But i wouldnt push that onto others. It is a truth which has to be self realised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending anyone here... But I would assume that for Walker the idea of not knowing is irrelavent. Faith is beyond the testable; thus, faith is knowledge insofar as the knower is convinced of its (whatever it is) validity; whatever the source of their faith may be.This is a typical a priori versus a posteriori mindset.

Now, I'm not mentally geared in the way he is; I need tangability derived from various variables, assuming they are objective variables, to provide proof.

Let us be quite clear. i do not believe. I am not really capable of believing. I know or i dont know. I suspend belief and disbelief until I know. i know god as i knw my wife and my dog . Thats it; simple. Descartes argued we could not know anything beyond our own existence. He was physically wrong although philosophically it was a good concept. In truth we exist, and thus we know. It is our organic existence which creates the brain, which allows the mind to evolve, which allows us self awreness ie knowing we exist. Without our physical, concrete, organic reality we would NOT exist, and we could not therefore know we existed .

I know god through those tangible evidences, just as i know anything.

faith is a belief based choice. We have no choice in what we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.