to me this is obvious. It has the power and chooses to use it, and I am converted. I would have no choice in the matter because my thoughts are nothing against omnipotence.
I am a Christian and have always thought that if an Atheist met God, they couldnt prove that it was real or not so they would just say that it wasnt real.
i am an atheist and i agree to a point. what really matters is how the athiest met god and what took place. if god smited the athiest and gave removed the athiest's arms he would have evidence. if god came during an LSD trip than there would be no evidence. but then again i don't really believe that an atheist will ever really meet god. but that is probably because i am an atheist. i don't believe god really exists. maybe the lsd trip though...
I did have a spiritual experience (was aware of a divine presence, as a medium). BUT... it did not make me believe any more than what I experienced. It was just an experience and did not make life feel anymore simple, I could not explain the point of life or know whether God existed. Even if God really came to me now, I would soon (within a few weeks) dought it was God. Only if something significantly changed my wellbeing,feelings,mind, consciousness I maybe nearer to being AWARE (believing).
Its a point I have thought about quite often as well. If an omnipotent god made me believe then I would have no choice. But to do so he would have to remove that part of me that questions everything and looks for the natural explanation. And by doing so, I would no longer be me.
Of course not, I can't be certain of anything except that the entity known as TheHanzoMK1 exists and that doesn't even exist simply because it's an avatar I use to communicate threw. My physical body could be seen in a similar fashion I suppose and those around me could just be illusions created by my mind to entertain me. Yet that also raises more questions such as why would my mind bother with such a farce in the first place? A godly confrontation would leave more ?'s than A's.
The thing is, if god came down and said "here I am" he would be infallible, and you would lose your free will. God does not want uniformity, he wants diversity. He does not fear "disbelievers". Obviously I am not a fundamentalist, I don't think the bible is anything close to accurate(if there is a universal evil, this is the first place it would hide, a "holy book"), but there is an oneness to the universe, and that is what I call god. God=Love=Energy=Light=Mathamatics=Life
I've had a mystical experience, and you are completely right, me having this experience has never once help me show others that which I experienced. I can not take on the oneness I felt with the universe, the connection to every piece of life that has every existed, and show it to you. I can barely remember it myself, the further in time I travel away from that moment, the less grasp I have of it. But believe me, it does change you, one way or another, and that is how it is designed.
Being in love is a personal experience...it doesn't make that love healthy nor is usually everlasting! i agree with your points here. Sadly, many religionist DO try to use personal experience as proof of god. Ironically, if God DOES gve certain people personal experiences then it shows that He CAN and DOES affect freewill...that HE IS partial...AND it dismantles the whole aspect/requirement for faith that the theology is founded on! Great vid!
When a magical force acts on your mind it either has or does not have the power to change it. Then it's not up to you but up to the ability of that magical force.
What happens afterwards, assuming the magic is no longer in effect, is a different question. if you remain a sceptic than most likely the influence of magic will gradually fade away.
Of COURSE i would believe if a all powerful deity FORCED me to believe...
However, if the deity made me believe but I had full free will elsewhere, I probably would keep it to myself because I would still have the logic to realize that I would sound like a nut.
Unlike some people who call others nuts, until they have first hand experince, and become equally nutty, then wonder why I don't accept their testimony as proof.
example: Atheists who allegedly experience hell first hand
when you throw in the supernatural, ANYTHING is possible.
Meaning, if someone descended down, moved the mountains, read my mind, etc etc (!!! amazing things) Who is to say it is not the "dark force" of one religion ie satin trying to trick me into believing a false religion? (hey, christians use this as a argument when someone has a "spiritual" expereince with a different religion, why can't I flip it on them?)
No. I don't believe experience is really useful at all for finding truth. Experience is great at building an individual, but that's about it. In fact, I use the same argument against Buddhism/eastern/new age-y beliefs as well.
I would also need proof, not just a psychological/emotional episode.
Also, the timing of this "experience" would be called into question. If it was just before or after going to sleep, I would not allow myself to be fooled as it is clearly a result of imagination and my brain's chemical status before/after sleep.
If it was something during normal hours, I would immediately look for a cause. Without proof, it is meaningless.
Also, what if I started to believe in one particular religion as a result of an "experience" but then come to find out it was a result of a meth lab near by/next apartment? Would others in that situation choose to still believe, or be shaken forever?
Assumption plays a high role in the personal experience episode. What is it that makes people susceptible to such things? Insecurity? Desire to be lead rather than lead their own lives?
If the Christian line of thought is that their god knows everything and can do anything, it would know exactly why we dont believe and exactly what it would take to even begin the process of belief, even for the most stubborn skeptic in the world.
The fact that this doesn't happen is telling. The fact that Christians are angry about that is also telling.
Not only that, but even if I "experienced" something, I would have a number of hard questions to ask my delusion.
If it were truely a god then I think you wouldn't have a choice in the matter. If said god made the universe then all epistemology is irrelevant in face of him. This would negate any idea of free will though so I dunno...
Hi, excellent vid Clutch. I could not believe it based on a personal experience, because I need my beliefs to be based on something tangible. Science has clearly shown how the brain can be decieved from scanning. If I saw something that nobody else could see, then how can I reference it with others' mundane experiences? There are some deeper points I could go into but I don't think I have all day to write a book on it. Good comments from cappl.
Can you completly believe in a religion? If you really believe in god you have to be a fundamentalist, because god doesn*t make mistakes and he MEANS EVERYTHING 100%, that is written in the bible/koran/etc. Every time you make rationalisations to fit the word of god in you life, you*re distancing yourself from the true religion. Will you start killing non-believers? Read your book - you have to! The most religions can be described with one word: ridiculous - No I would never believe in your gods
Actually, I very much disagree. I think it's the fundamentalists who have the incorrect view of their deity and holy books. Their 'God wrote it, so it must be 100% true' reasoning is very simplistic and ignores all the cogent philosophical, historical and linguistic arguments to the contrary.
I'm going to try and get a video out on this at some point, but I really think this idea that the fundamentalists have the more 'true to religion' attitude is a deep misunderstanding.
4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be alike (...) but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Misunderstandable? A metaphor? Fundamentalism seems to be the way to NOT rationalise the irrational - As a "modern" believer you can find excuses/rationalisations, or you accept, that you can*t support everything "god said"
No, fundamentalism is the static viewpoint. The view that 'this was said once, so it applies absolutely and universally.' They have their rationalisations for this, but I find them to be flawed. It is that view that I find to be based on misunderstanding. What is within the text is static, but the application and interpretations are not.
Of course, we can dismiss all views to the contrary as 'rationalisations' or 'excuses', but I can do that too.
"These atheists like taking the Bible literally because it's one hell of a lot easier to dismiss. They have their excuses and rationalisations, and half the time won't even hear opposing views because they cant accept that religion isnt as obviously flawed as they once thought. That means they might be wrong, and they cant entertain that thought."
I always liked the argument, that certain parts, (that don*t fit) are "not meant literally" "are metaphors and symbols"... what do you say then with this? Is god himself a metaphor? Are the 10 commandments just a symbol? Is the "dschijhad" just an exaggeration? If you do so, you begin with a religious book and end up with a moral codex - nothing more or less than the knigge. Just with more illustrative storries for your entertainment... By doing so you deny the fundamentals of religion itself!
I like the habbit of theists to pick out the "good fruits", or to demand absolute tolerance for their believe system... to demand, that I simple watch over all that.
By the way... What sort of interpretation let*s me see, that the excerpt I posted down there, is completly pacifistic and is not meant literally?
Don*t get me wrong... I like your work and I don*t want to piss you off personally, but I thing I have reason to disagree with you for that point...
Ahh, you're getting to something here. I think that the whole concept of god that fundamentalists hold needs an overhaul. It's also the concept that a lot of atheists hold of god. I'm guessing it's also the view you take of him. In which case the fundamentalist interpretation would be logical. But I don't think it works. I think it ignores many important philosophical and theological ideas and simply stagnates everything around it, unwilling to bend to contemporary ideas.
No interpretation of the Bible would make it pacifistic, but a cultural interpretation would render it irrelevant. The way I look at God and morality is not as a static decreed law, but an ever-progressing quest to perfection. I can philosophically justify the latter, but not the former. In this view, that passage was written in one stage of moral advancement we have since far outpaced. The theist would say we are closer to God than back then. The Bible is documentation of part of our journey.
Sure, it was written as solid and absolute, but few books on morals aren't. We talk about many moral issues today as if they are solid, but in 1000 years people will probably see our views as backwards and dogmatic too.
I'm really not a fan of the "metaphor" argument either, and I'm don't want to come across as a Bible-bashing atheist. It is simply that the progressive approach fits philosophically, culturally, historically and linguistically with what I know. The fundamentalist one does not.
I can agree with that, as it makes sense. I can accept that as a concept to find positive aspects of the religious thoughtsystem. You describe religion as a progressing form of moralsystem. That*s ok for me, but I think a believing theist would disagree, because it*s only one aspect of a religion and the fundament of (for example dogma) is, that certain points are meant absolutely literally. However - your perspective on this point is acceptable, even if you tranform religion to philosophy.
The only way that a diety would be able to convince me of his existance, would be to reconsile all of the logical arguments against him, in whatever experience he was presenting me with. It would not be the personal experience that could make me believe, it would be the content of the message delivered in that experience.
Only if he came down to many witnesses. Then can be proved by empirical science by many independent researchers. Then I would believe, but not worship...
If god came down and proved it existed, then no, I wouldn't believe. I would know. I could then prove the existence of god. Belief is nothing more than acceptance, not proof. Someone who claims a personal experience is lying, god requires belief...any attempts at proving is a lie. No I would not believe anyone's personal experience nor would I believe if god came down and gave me a personal experience. I would think I've gone insane.
The deity would not need to use 'its' power to change my mind. The tangible proof and testable one is all that is needed.
Yes! I would believe!
There is also the opposite circumstance. From total believer to nonbeliever. This requires effort on oneself.
Which is a more probable circumstance? Effort or miracle? I have exerted effort and still am doing so. I certainly would welcome an experience in real miracle if such exists.
What would I do? If god could provide an experience to which I couldn't 'not believe' then I would be forced, as a slave, to believe by the terms of what that god has provided.
I, along with my mental faculties, would be a slave.
Personal experience can also be deceptive. Since revelation is a method for knowing God that originates only in God, one has to basically accept God's testimony about himself (God) as absolute truth. But if God is a deceiver and lies to us about himself, how could we ever find out?
I have had such a experience and I am completely convinced in the existence of a divine source of benevolent energy. The transformational quality of the experience is undeniable and it is this which convinces me and not the experience itself.
It's far too easy to trick yourself to ever trust a personal experience. I hear some atheists say that a personal experience is proof for you but you can't use it to convince me. I don't agree. Noone, not even the person who experienced it, should ever trust a personal experience of the divine as legitimate evidence. Of course, the thing is, even believing a god exists doesn't answer the question of whether or not to worship him. If it was the Christian god, for example, I would reject him.
I guess I'd have to evaluate the situation if it were to happen. There are people who it has been discovered had problems in the temporal lobe area (temporal lobe epilepsy) and they had "visions." Knowing this, I might go get checked out by a doctor. Now if this appearance happened with a lot of people at once on earth at the same time, I might evaluate what we shared in common (food we ate that day, water, etc.) to come to the conclusion. The appearance wouldn't be a conclusion for me.
real clutchy: invoking thoughts of belief, non-belief, god, self. if there is no god and there is no proof in the pudding to be found then why constantly bring this all up. discuss the things that really matter (are there any?). Maybe mankind invented god because she was tired of worshiping her navel.
"if there is no god and there is no proof in the pudding to be found then why constantly bring this all up."
So dismissive.
I happen to find this an interesting and important issue. If there is a divine being I would like to know about it. Sitting there silently with my objections gets us nowhere. But if we vocalise them and challenge opposing views both sides can come to a better understanding if they are willing to learn. I think that's worth talking about.
Your videos always invoke thought Clutch! I am not sure what would make me believe either. Being a nurse I've seen somethings that have baffled me. Believers declare them miracles. I on the other hand discount them as medical flukes.
I've thought about this for a while. Theists think that just because I don't believe in God that I am essentially a lost cause even though I will believe anything as long as there is good evidence supporting it. I don't consider a personal experience as good evidence. If the biblical God did exist, I doubt I would worship him either.
whether not not a personal experience would convince completely the depends on the nature of that experience, I dont think I would doubt it and think it was a psychological thing if the experience happened without indication of an hallucination and was extremely powerful
So I think an actual revelation would convince me, but hearing a voice say "Im god and I am real, when I am extremely drunk, not I wouldnt be convinced"
You answered the question yourself. If an omnipotent deity was dead set on making me a believer, then it wouldn't matter how strongly i was prepared to disregard a personal experience. Surprisingly, the all powerful being would win this struggle.
if a god came down and gave you...gave me that lobotomy, and changed your (or my) way of thinking. yes, if a god was able to lobotomize us, it may make us a drone to his/her utter salvation (you know, like the other idiots that do it on blind-faith).
About 30 years ago, I had experiences with God that were amazing. He spoke to me on one occasion. I've reflected on this many times as you can imagine. Never have I doubted that what I experienced was real. If the Creator who created you and knows you better than you know yourself makes himself known to you, you will not forget it. Maybe you can walk away from it, I don't know. My biggest fear would be to loose out on what I have in God. That would be a disaster.
I might add that what I experienced lined up with the Bible and my experiences started the same day I started to read the Bible. However, when I had these experiences I was unfamiliar with much of the Bible and years later I read scripture that touched on what I had experienced.
Of course when I started to read the Bible the experience was that of knowing I was saved and had a second chance in life. The experiences became greater as I grew in my faith. Also, my experiences were between me and God, it wasn't like any talked me into it or I was trying to a part of some group. I found God in my bedroom and had an amazing experience while driving my car and he spoke to audibly at the place where I worked.
So what makes you so special? All the years that I tried to get in touch with God I got nothing, and I am not alone, there are millions of us. Are we just trash to God, disposable people?
Jerimiah 29 "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Looking back on my experience, this verse explains some of it. I wasn't seeking an experience, I wanted to make sure I was right with God, that I was saved. When someone told me only someone who is saved can say Jesus is Lord, I seized on that. I called out to Jesus with every fiber of my being. I surrendered completely, I didn't hold anything back. It was the name of Jesus.
cont. Also, I believe I was able to call out to him and surrender to him on this level because I had a relationship with him already. I had read the gospel. I can remember reading about the woman who was caught in adultery and Jesus rescued her, this gave me a lot of faith and love for Jesus. God will only give you as much as you can handle. And the better you know him the more you can trust him.
Great topic for a video and great question. I haven't ever had spiritual experiences. I used to believe in ghosts and souls when I was younger, but never saw anything to confirm it. As far as seeing God in person on Earth, it depends. Which God would people be seeing? The Judeo Christian deity? If so, and if I were to see Jesus, I would probably want to see him walk on water first before believing.
Hmm, bringing this experience into the realm of the concrete world as opposed to just sights and sensations brings in a whole new aspect. It could possibly be more reliable because it could be tested, but most people wouldn't have the facilities at hand. How could you tell that it wasn't a trick of some sort? I imagine Penn & Teller could do most of the stuff Jesus is claimed to have done.
Yeah, that's one of the problems, eh? Not only Penn and Teller, but also Criss Angel who did the walking on water trick, too. Unless Jesus was a magician? Though that may be unlikely.
I thought we determine objectivity of our experiences by comparing them with other peoples. If I see an elephant, and so does the rest of my party, I can assume there is something out there probing my senses. Of course, there is no way to be absolutely sure, but seeing an elephant and hearing voices that no one else in the vicinity senses raises suspicions. That is when you can say that the experience is created within your brain, rather than a reaction to external stimuli.
I have had three spiritual experiences in my life. Well two since one occured in the dream but the sensation of being connected to everything at once and the undifinable love I felt seemed very real.
I have to admit at 17 I waa atheist. from 17-21 I had these experinces and became a christain again and did not become an atheist again until age 30.
The mind is capable of creating very strong delusions and any eexperince that cannot be tested should not be trusted.
hey u look like michael stipe
gerardoitalia 2 years ago
to me this is obvious. It has the power and chooses to use it, and I am converted. I would have no choice in the matter because my thoughts are nothing against omnipotence.
larryishere1 2 years ago
I would believe provided a) I was not the only one to experience said God, and b) there was evidence that couldn't be explained any other way.
jmthetank 2 years ago
If a deity revealed itself to me, I'm pretty sure I would believe it exists, yeah.
MotionFur 3 years ago
I am a Christian and have always thought that if an Atheist met God, they couldnt prove that it was real or not so they would just say that it wasnt real.
SayntAce 3 years ago
i am an atheist and i agree to a point. what really matters is how the athiest met god and what took place. if god smited the athiest and gave removed the athiest's arms he would have evidence. if god came during an LSD trip than there would be no evidence. but then again i don't really believe that an atheist will ever really meet god. but that is probably because i am an atheist. i don't believe god really exists. maybe the lsd trip though...
greycloud24 3 years ago
I did have a spiritual experience (was aware of a divine presence, as a medium). BUT... it did not make me believe any more than what I experienced. It was just an experience and did not make life feel anymore simple, I could not explain the point of life or know whether God existed. Even if God really came to me now, I would soon (within a few weeks) dought it was God. Only if something significantly changed my wellbeing,feelings,mind, consciousness I maybe nearer to being AWARE (believing).
Catherine8here 3 years ago
Google: Alexandrian Philosophy Politics
For Philosophy
For Intelligent Politics
For a 21st Century Enlightenment
AlexandrianDoctorate 3 years ago
Its a point I have thought about quite often as well. If an omnipotent god made me believe then I would have no choice. But to do so he would have to remove that part of me that questions everything and looks for the natural explanation. And by doing so, I would no longer be me.
rlepine 3 years ago
That would also kinda kill the whole "free will" part of the gig too wouldn't it?
itsjustmax 3 years ago
Precisely.
rlepine 3 years ago
Of course not, I can't be certain of anything except that the entity known as TheHanzoMK1 exists and that doesn't even exist simply because it's an avatar I use to communicate threw. My physical body could be seen in a similar fashion I suppose and those around me could just be illusions created by my mind to entertain me. Yet that also raises more questions such as why would my mind bother with such a farce in the first place? A godly confrontation would leave more ?'s than A's.
TheHanzoMK1 3 years ago
The thing is, if god came down and said "here I am" he would be infallible, and you would lose your free will. God does not want uniformity, he wants diversity. He does not fear "disbelievers". Obviously I am not a fundamentalist, I don't think the bible is anything close to accurate(if there is a universal evil, this is the first place it would hide, a "holy book"), but there is an oneness to the universe, and that is what I call god. God=Love=Energy=Light=Mathamatics=Life
tarmogoyf333 3 years ago
I've had a mystical experience, and you are completely right, me having this experience has never once help me show others that which I experienced. I can not take on the oneness I felt with the universe, the connection to every piece of life that has every existed, and show it to you. I can barely remember it myself, the further in time I travel away from that moment, the less grasp I have of it. But believe me, it does change you, one way or another, and that is how it is designed.
tarmogoyf333 3 years ago
Being in love is a personal experience...it doesn't make that love healthy nor is usually everlasting! i agree with your points here. Sadly, many religionist DO try to use personal experience as proof of god. Ironically, if God DOES gve certain people personal experiences then it shows that He CAN and DOES affect freewill...that HE IS partial...AND it dismantles the whole aspect/requirement for faith that the theology is founded on! Great vid!
julzabro 3 years ago
When a magical force acts on your mind it either has or does not have the power to change it. Then it's not up to you but up to the ability of that magical force.
What happens afterwards, assuming the magic is no longer in effect, is a different question. if you remain a sceptic than most likely the influence of magic will gradually fade away.
jesokingcryst 3 years ago
And when i say "he influence of magic will gradually fade away" i mean you will move loser to what really happened.
The other scenario when it's only a psychological distorder might take simular course.
In the worst case scenario you're left with "i don't know".
jesokingcryst 3 years ago
Of COURSE i would believe if a all powerful deity FORCED me to believe...
However, if the deity made me believe but I had full free will elsewhere, I probably would keep it to myself because I would still have the logic to realize that I would sound like a nut.
Unlike some people who call others nuts, until they have first hand experince, and become equally nutty, then wonder why I don't accept their testimony as proof.
example: Atheists who allegedly experience hell first hand
thefakeyeti 3 years ago
when you throw in the supernatural, ANYTHING is possible.
Meaning, if someone descended down, moved the mountains, read my mind, etc etc (!!! amazing things) Who is to say it is not the "dark force" of one religion ie satin trying to trick me into believing a false religion? (hey, christians use this as a argument when someone has a "spiritual" expereince with a different religion, why can't I flip it on them?)
thefakeyeti 3 years ago
No. I don't believe experience is really useful at all for finding truth. Experience is great at building an individual, but that's about it. In fact, I use the same argument against Buddhism/eastern/new age-y beliefs as well.
sorienor 3 years ago
I would also need proof, not just a psychological/emotional episode.
Also, the timing of this "experience" would be called into question. If it was just before or after going to sleep, I would not allow myself to be fooled as it is clearly a result of imagination and my brain's chemical status before/after sleep.
If it was something during normal hours, I would immediately look for a cause. Without proof, it is meaningless.
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
Also, what if I started to believe in one particular religion as a result of an "experience" but then come to find out it was a result of a meth lab near by/next apartment? Would others in that situation choose to still believe, or be shaken forever?
Assumption plays a high role in the personal experience episode. What is it that makes people susceptible to such things? Insecurity? Desire to be lead rather than lead their own lives?
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
If the Christian line of thought is that their god knows everything and can do anything, it would know exactly why we dont believe and exactly what it would take to even begin the process of belief, even for the most stubborn skeptic in the world.
The fact that this doesn't happen is telling. The fact that Christians are angry about that is also telling.
Not only that, but even if I "experienced" something, I would have a number of hard questions to ask my delusion.
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
If it were truely a god then I think you wouldn't have a choice in the matter. If said god made the universe then all epistemology is irrelevant in face of him. This would negate any idea of free will though so I dunno...
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
I would need proof of something physical not mental. Like regrowth of an amputated leg.
Domzdream 3 years ago
Hi, excellent vid Clutch. I could not believe it based on a personal experience, because I need my beliefs to be based on something tangible. Science has clearly shown how the brain can be decieved from scanning. If I saw something that nobody else could see, then how can I reference it with others' mundane experiences? There are some deeper points I could go into but I don't think I have all day to write a book on it. Good comments from cappl.
kentmage 3 years ago
Can you completly believe in a religion? If you really believe in god you have to be a fundamentalist, because god doesn*t make mistakes and he MEANS EVERYTHING 100%, that is written in the bible/koran/etc. Every time you make rationalisations to fit the word of god in you life, you*re distancing yourself from the true religion. Will you start killing non-believers? Read your book - you have to! The most religions can be described with one word: ridiculous - No I would never believe in your gods
Cappl 3 years ago
Actually, I very much disagree. I think it's the fundamentalists who have the incorrect view of their deity and holy books. Their 'God wrote it, so it must be 100% true' reasoning is very simplistic and ignores all the cogent philosophical, historical and linguistic arguments to the contrary.
I'm going to try and get a video out on this at some point, but I really think this idea that the fundamentalists have the more 'true to religion' attitude is a deep misunderstanding.
Clutchology 3 years ago
4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be alike (...) but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Misunderstandable? A metaphor? Fundamentalism seems to be the way to NOT rationalise the irrational - As a "modern" believer you can find excuses/rationalisations, or you accept, that you can*t support everything "god said"
Religion is about power - not philosophy..
Cappl 3 years ago
No, fundamentalism is the static viewpoint. The view that 'this was said once, so it applies absolutely and universally.' They have their rationalisations for this, but I find them to be flawed. It is that view that I find to be based on misunderstanding. What is within the text is static, but the application and interpretations are not.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Of course, we can dismiss all views to the contrary as 'rationalisations' or 'excuses', but I can do that too.
"These atheists like taking the Bible literally because it's one hell of a lot easier to dismiss. They have their excuses and rationalisations, and half the time won't even hear opposing views because they cant accept that religion isnt as obviously flawed as they once thought. That means they might be wrong, and they cant entertain that thought."
See, it's pointless, isnt it?
Clutchology 3 years ago
I always liked the argument, that certain parts, (that don*t fit) are "not meant literally" "are metaphors and symbols"... what do you say then with this? Is god himself a metaphor? Are the 10 commandments just a symbol? Is the "dschijhad" just an exaggeration? If you do so, you begin with a religious book and end up with a moral codex - nothing more or less than the knigge. Just with more illustrative storries for your entertainment... By doing so you deny the fundamentals of religion itself!
Cappl 3 years ago
I like the habbit of theists to pick out the "good fruits", or to demand absolute tolerance for their believe system... to demand, that I simple watch over all that.
By the way... What sort of interpretation let*s me see, that the excerpt I posted down there, is completly pacifistic and is not meant literally?
Don*t get me wrong... I like your work and I don*t want to piss you off personally, but I thing I have reason to disagree with you for that point...
Cappl 3 years ago
Ahh, you're getting to something here. I think that the whole concept of god that fundamentalists hold needs an overhaul. It's also the concept that a lot of atheists hold of god. I'm guessing it's also the view you take of him. In which case the fundamentalist interpretation would be logical. But I don't think it works. I think it ignores many important philosophical and theological ideas and simply stagnates everything around it, unwilling to bend to contemporary ideas.
Clutchology 3 years ago
No interpretation of the Bible would make it pacifistic, but a cultural interpretation would render it irrelevant. The way I look at God and morality is not as a static decreed law, but an ever-progressing quest to perfection. I can philosophically justify the latter, but not the former. In this view, that passage was written in one stage of moral advancement we have since far outpaced. The theist would say we are closer to God than back then. The Bible is documentation of part of our journey.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Sure, it was written as solid and absolute, but few books on morals aren't. We talk about many moral issues today as if they are solid, but in 1000 years people will probably see our views as backwards and dogmatic too.
I'm really not a fan of the "metaphor" argument either, and I'm don't want to come across as a Bible-bashing atheist. It is simply that the progressive approach fits philosophically, culturally, historically and linguistically with what I know. The fundamentalist one does not.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I can agree with that, as it makes sense. I can accept that as a concept to find positive aspects of the religious thoughtsystem. You describe religion as a progressing form of moralsystem. That*s ok for me, but I think a believing theist would disagree, because it*s only one aspect of a religion and the fundament of (for example dogma) is, that certain points are meant absolutely literally. However - your perspective on this point is acceptable, even if you tranform religion to philosophy.
Cappl 3 years ago
The only way that a diety would be able to convince me of his existance, would be to reconsile all of the logical arguments against him, in whatever experience he was presenting me with. It would not be the personal experience that could make me believe, it would be the content of the message delivered in that experience.
JohnsJava 3 years ago
I think I probably believe, mostly because I trust my own thoughts and experiences a lot more the external ones.. if that makes any sense.
AceHatesAll2 3 years ago
Only if he came down to many witnesses. Then can be proved by empirical science by many independent researchers. Then I would believe, but not worship...
Br0k3nS41nt 3 years ago
i would think i was insane.
EverettsVLOG 3 years ago
Evidence is all!
tecnoblix 3 years ago
If god came down and proved it existed, then no, I wouldn't believe. I would know. I could then prove the existence of god. Belief is nothing more than acceptance, not proof. Someone who claims a personal experience is lying, god requires belief...any attempts at proving is a lie. No I would not believe anyone's personal experience nor would I believe if god came down and gave me a personal experience. I would think I've gone insane.
ZullGostnu 3 years ago
The deity would not need to use 'its' power to change my mind. The tangible proof and testable one is all that is needed.
Yes! I would believe!
There is also the opposite circumstance. From total believer to nonbeliever. This requires effort on oneself.
Which is a more probable circumstance? Effort or miracle? I have exerted effort and still am doing so. I certainly would welcome an experience in real miracle if such exists.
onotheo 3 years ago
It sounds like you've been reading Hume^^
What would I do? If god could provide an experience to which I couldn't 'not believe' then I would be forced, as a slave, to believe by the terms of what that god has provided.
I, along with my mental faculties, would be a slave.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Personal experience can also be deceptive. Since revelation is a method for knowing God that originates only in God, one has to basically accept God's testimony about himself (God) as absolute truth. But if God is a deceiver and lies to us about himself, how could we ever find out?
TaylorX04 3 years ago
I have had such a experience and I am completely convinced in the existence of a divine source of benevolent energy. The transformational quality of the experience is undeniable and it is this which convinces me and not the experience itself.
NLPNVC 3 years ago
It's far too easy to trick yourself to ever trust a personal experience. I hear some atheists say that a personal experience is proof for you but you can't use it to convince me. I don't agree. Noone, not even the person who experienced it, should ever trust a personal experience of the divine as legitimate evidence. Of course, the thing is, even believing a god exists doesn't answer the question of whether or not to worship him. If it was the Christian god, for example, I would reject him.
Archaneus 3 years ago
I guess I'd have to evaluate the situation if it were to happen. There are people who it has been discovered had problems in the temporal lobe area (temporal lobe epilepsy) and they had "visions." Knowing this, I might go get checked out by a doctor. Now if this appearance happened with a lot of people at once on earth at the same time, I might evaluate what we shared in common (food we ate that day, water, etc.) to come to the conclusion. The appearance wouldn't be a conclusion for me.
amberview30 3 years ago
real clutchy: invoking thoughts of belief, non-belief, god, self. if there is no god and there is no proof in the pudding to be found then why constantly bring this all up. discuss the things that really matter (are there any?). Maybe mankind invented god because she was tired of worshiping her navel.
MePaulTube 3 years ago
"if there is no god and there is no proof in the pudding to be found then why constantly bring this all up."
So dismissive.
I happen to find this an interesting and important issue. If there is a divine being I would like to know about it. Sitting there silently with my objections gets us nowhere. But if we vocalise them and challenge opposing views both sides can come to a better understanding if they are willing to learn. I think that's worth talking about.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Your videos always invoke thought Clutch! I am not sure what would make me believe either. Being a nurse I've seen somethings that have baffled me. Believers declare them miracles. I on the other hand discount them as medical flukes.
BethRN74 3 years ago
That would contradict "freewill," which so many religious people are convinced exists.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
I have to say no because of this contradiction.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
I've thought about this for a while. Theists think that just because I don't believe in God that I am essentially a lost cause even though I will believe anything as long as there is good evidence supporting it. I don't consider a personal experience as good evidence. If the biblical God did exist, I doubt I would worship him either.
EnigmaMR 3 years ago
whether not not a personal experience would convince completely the depends on the nature of that experience, I dont think I would doubt it and think it was a psychological thing if the experience happened without indication of an hallucination and was extremely powerful
So I think an actual revelation would convince me, but hearing a voice say "Im god and I am real, when I am extremely drunk, not I wouldnt be convinced"
Knowntje 3 years ago
You answered the question yourself. If an omnipotent deity was dead set on making me a believer, then it wouldn't matter how strongly i was prepared to disregard a personal experience. Surprisingly, the all powerful being would win this struggle.
TimQuasty 3 years ago
4:20 great point
"Unless you believe, you will not understand"
-St. Augustine
TheIrrationalAtheist 3 years ago
augustine was a calvinist, calvin actually got his view from him.
Knowntje 3 years ago
wow! great video man!
excellent thoughts.
holybabble 3 years ago
if a god came down and gave you...gave me that lobotomy, and changed your (or my) way of thinking. yes, if a god was able to lobotomize us, it may make us a drone to his/her utter salvation (you know, like the other idiots that do it on blind-faith).
holybabble 3 years ago
About 30 years ago, I had experiences with God that were amazing. He spoke to me on one occasion. I've reflected on this many times as you can imagine. Never have I doubted that what I experienced was real. If the Creator who created you and knows you better than you know yourself makes himself known to you, you will not forget it. Maybe you can walk away from it, I don't know. My biggest fear would be to loose out on what I have in God. That would be a disaster.
biblethink 3 years ago
I might add that what I experienced lined up with the Bible and my experiences started the same day I started to read the Bible. However, when I had these experiences I was unfamiliar with much of the Bible and years later I read scripture that touched on what I had experienced.
biblethink 3 years ago
Of course when I started to read the Bible the experience was that of knowing I was saved and had a second chance in life. The experiences became greater as I grew in my faith. Also, my experiences were between me and God, it wasn't like any talked me into it or I was trying to a part of some group. I found God in my bedroom and had an amazing experience while driving my car and he spoke to audibly at the place where I worked.
biblethink 3 years ago
So what makes you so special? All the years that I tried to get in touch with God I got nothing, and I am not alone, there are millions of us. Are we just trash to God, disposable people?
traog 3 years ago
Jerimiah 29 "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Looking back on my experience, this verse explains some of it. I wasn't seeking an experience, I wanted to make sure I was right with God, that I was saved. When someone told me only someone who is saved can say Jesus is Lord, I seized on that. I called out to Jesus with every fiber of my being. I surrendered completely, I didn't hold anything back. It was the name of Jesus.
biblethink 3 years ago
cont. Also, I believe I was able to call out to him and surrender to him on this level because I had a relationship with him already. I had read the gospel. I can remember reading about the woman who was caught in adultery and Jesus rescued her, this gave me a lot of faith and love for Jesus. God will only give you as much as you can handle. And the better you know him the more you can trust him.
biblethink 3 years ago
Great topic for a video and great question. I haven't ever had spiritual experiences. I used to believe in ghosts and souls when I was younger, but never saw anything to confirm it. As far as seeing God in person on Earth, it depends. Which God would people be seeing? The Judeo Christian deity? If so, and if I were to see Jesus, I would probably want to see him walk on water first before believing.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Hmm, bringing this experience into the realm of the concrete world as opposed to just sights and sensations brings in a whole new aspect. It could possibly be more reliable because it could be tested, but most people wouldn't have the facilities at hand. How could you tell that it wasn't a trick of some sort? I imagine Penn & Teller could do most of the stuff Jesus is claimed to have done.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Yeah, that's one of the problems, eh? Not only Penn and Teller, but also Criss Angel who did the walking on water trick, too. Unless Jesus was a magician? Though that may be unlikely.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
You have brought into question the objective validity of the individual's life experiences.
What is the difference between a personal experience/understanding of a meditative/prayer-like "something", vs a scientific experiment?
What makes one real is dictated by the experience that is the most commonly held.
"Reality" is in our minds alone, without our cognitive schemata built through experiences, reality would not make "sense"
What then is a delusion, "objective reality" not commonly held?
sampsonoff 3 years ago
Very good question.
I thought we determine objectivity of our experiences by comparing them with other peoples. If I see an elephant, and so does the rest of my party, I can assume there is something out there probing my senses. Of course, there is no way to be absolutely sure, but seeing an elephant and hearing voices that no one else in the vicinity senses raises suspicions. That is when you can say that the experience is created within your brain, rather than a reaction to external stimuli.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Interesting.
Chuloloc 3 years ago
I have had three spiritual experiences in my life. Well two since one occured in the dream but the sensation of being connected to everything at once and the undifinable love I felt seemed very real.
I have to admit at 17 I waa atheist. from 17-21 I had these experinces and became a christain again and did not become an atheist again until age 30.
The mind is capable of creating very strong delusions and any eexperince that cannot be tested should not be trusted.
seth1hades 3 years ago
Good video
Terrizaster 3 years ago