Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

So it was not a BELIEF in god, nor god HIMSELF who intervened in your life to save you from addiction.

How, then, was your recovery related to a god?

Whereas I think that the problem with our concept of "evil" is that we habitually commit the fallacy of hypostatization and other misuses of reification. For example, we tend to assume a linear relationship between "good" behavior and "evil" behavior, which again is to treat "evil" or "good" as substances one has "more of" or "less of."

However, the difficulty of discussing such abstract concepts is very ancient. Here, in Meno, Plato's friend Socrates discusses the concept of "virtue" with a fellow by the name of Meno.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html

Although Plato is in many people's opinions incorrect in making the assumption that we must already be familiar with information that we are capable of coming about by surmise, the document illustrates an important point about abstract concepts:

Although any abstract ethical concept tends to follow the same principles, it is a reflection of our own reactions. What makes something "beautiful" or "evil" or "honorable" to us is like a psychic fingerprint. Each has the same general shape and may have many similarities, but such concepts can only really be defined in the end as an echo of the combination of one's inherent personality and characteristics developed over a lifetime of experience that only one person in the universe will ever have. This is ultimately what a truly abstract concept is.

However, you would find the study of the Islamic Golden Age very interesting to study. In my opinion, what happened there is like almost the opposite of the Protestant Reformation. Where the Protestant Reformation opened up the idea of freedom of inquiry and led us to asking questions even of ourselves (Calvinists ironically being the most neurotic self-questioners), a school of thought was becoming prevalent in Muslim theology that suggested that all meaningful events in life are predetermined directly by God thereby making it ineffectual to question one's own actions.

And my interpretation of this is that the makings of a strong society is its ability to question itself. What makes us Westerners is that we see this moment, the here and the now, as a time when we might decide our own destiny. Nobody can decide for us. No authority can lead us. Some of us believe that we are under the guidance of God, but we all ultimately write and sign the cheque on anything that we do. We hold ourselves accountable, always.

But that's just my speculation.

No, I never missed any of what you just said.

The "facts of your life" are still a matter of interpretation. In order to even say that your interpretation, God, is the best interpretation, you have to meaningfully know how to evaluate such an idea, how to apply the philosophical analysis. How to exclude the other ideas, etc. Talking about "trying everything else", doesn't verify that what you tried was actually God, it doesn't make a distinction between a projection of God and an external entity, it simply doesn't work, and I don't think you seem to have the awareness of how it can be seen as problematic. This is pointed out by posters all of the time.


...... Except no, it really isn't. Even further, I don't think you have evaluated any of this for philosophical content.


I've used logical arguments. You haven't. I mean, seriously, your story isn't that compelling given the existence of all of the other BS out in the world that we are justified in our skepticism towards. If you talked about healing an amputation, with medically documented proof, that's one thing. However, for a psychological disease, how can we separate a projection of God, from God for such purposes?


You sought a solution. .... I'd rather not explain myself too much as this would likely lead to insult. Let's just put it this way: What you are doing here has nothing to do with analysis. You do not seem to be willing to build up some detailed form of analysis, and.... maybe this is something you lack. You don't seem to know how to separate your experience from the interpretation of it, and that's kind of a problem.


I do..... that's why I mocked the idea. Very few meaningful constructions of this show why AA ought to work, but Amputees Anonymous. Cancer Patients Anonymous, and all of these other groups would not work. If God intervenes, what would it matter if it were a psychological condition? Even further, why not intervention elsewhere?

Let's just face it, given what you present as God, and all of the other lack of behavior that makes no sense for that, and that psychological conditions reduce the effective ability to distinguish between a projection of God, and an external metaphysical agent, I have to say that the agent makes more sense. Even you seem to admit that you lack the effective ability to make the distinction, yet, any analysis would use this.

In any case, if you have intellectual honesty, go and do an analysis. Not the shoddy job you've continually presented, but rather something that proves that no other agent or phenomena is reasonable or possible. Saying "I've tried everything" doesn't cut it. You have to do some philosophical framing here, and you have examine why God does X, and not Y, and so on and so forth.

Please try to listen very carefully here ...

1) Upon a simple willingness to believe, I took investigative, hopefully-lifesaving action* ... and then I found out;
2) God did not "intervene" in any way at all -- I just willing and simply accepted what I had heard was available.

*Kind of like a scientific experiment within the realm of spirit.

So you were an atheist prior to this "hopefully-lifesaving action"?


(Perhaps if you didn't constantly speak in vagaries, people would understand you better. After a dozen similar conversations, I to this day have no clue how your beliefs actually changed and when, and the exact reasoning.)

Hmnn, if you actually believe in the creation myth (even if it just the talking snake and the rib-woman) you are much closer to the fundamentalists than you think.



1. The world has tons of evil.
2. God is all powerful
3. God is good.

All three of those propositions cannot be true. We know the first to be true. So (God is not omnipotent) or (God is not good). You pick.

the fact you changed your outlook and way of thought could have brought any relief you needed, it would then seem as if the religious context was the cause when your own psychology were the actual trigger.
not saying i know, but i do know the subconscious work in mysterious ways.

Vexcalibur, do you ever make soup?

Do you leave the bones and the scum in the pot?

~sigh~

And this is the part where he obstinately insists it had something to do with a god,
that something being NEITHER his belief in one (which would be the psychological mechanism)
nor an intervention by said god,
and instead repeats for the dozenth time his hopelessly-ambiguous references to some sort of personal "investigation" into god's existence after a friend informed him the god he already believed in could help him not be a drunkard.

I'm at this point not convinced the endless nonsense isn't DUE to the bottle.

I had hoped you would not misunderstand me there, but that has happened. The "facts of my life" I had mentioned were/are simply these:

1) I was dying of alcoholism and could do nothing about that;
2) I took action to "abandon myself" -- my will and my life -- to "God" as you might understand and/or even deny Him;
3) I am no longer dying of alcoholism.


I well understand what you are saying there, but no, I do not. I had not asked myself to heal myself, and neither had I asked any other man to do that for me ... and so while considering and/or even completely disallowing -- my own preference -- some alleged "God of the gaps" and/or whatever else, you tell me why I no longer have to drink! However, and again, please be sure to notice:

I have already been down ever single one of those rabbit trails (or watched other people on them) and still nearly died (and/or attended funerals of those other alcoholics trying that other stuff) along the way!


Philogos has already elsewhere addressed some of this far better than can I, but here is the bottom line as I have personally experienced it:

"Logic is great stuff. We liked it. We still like it. It is not by chance we were given the power to reason, to examine the evidence of our senses, and to draw conclusions. That is one of man's magnificent attributes. We agnostically inclined would not feel satisfied with a proposal which does not lend itself to reasonable approach and interpretation. Hence, we are at pains to tell you why we think our present faith is reasonable, why we think it more sane and logical to believe than not to believe, why we say our former thinking was soft and mushy when we threw up our hands in doubt and said, 'We don't know.'
"When we became alcoholics, crushed by a self-imposed crisis we could not postpone or evade, we had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing. God either is, or He isn't. What was our choice (or alternative) to be?"

"There is a solution. Almost none of us liked the self-searching, the leveling of our pride, the confession of shortcomings which the process requires for its successful consummation. But we saw that it really worked in others, and we had come to believe in the hopelessness and futility of life as we had been living it. When, therefore, we were approached by those in whom the problem had been solved, there was nothing left for us but to pick up the simple kit of spiritual tools laid at our feet. We have found much of heaven and we have been rocketed into a fourth dimension of existence of which we had not even dreamed.
"The great fact is just this, and nothing less: That we have had deep and effective spiritual experiences which have revolutionized our whole attitude toward life, toward our fellows and toward God's universe. The central fact of our lives today is the absolute certainty that our Creator has entered into our hearts and lives in a way which is indeed miraculous. He has commenced to accomplish those things for us which we could never do by ourselves."
("A.A.", the book, pages 53 & 25, emphasis added)

Now I do know none of that is going to change your mind about anything, of course, and I even know alcoholics who have died in outright defiance of all of that ...

... and yet I shamelessly thank you for this opportunity to nevertheless post the above for the possible sake of anyone else who might yet ever actually both need and want to hear it in any day of any year yet ahead!


I think you mean to say you think I don't seem to have said awareness, but I certainly do ... and yet all of that is only problematic for you! I already know the deal inside and out.


Unless you have some proof for either of those statements, I will just quietly dismiss them as having been founded upon either simple ignorance or outright arrogance.


Not true. I have presented the facts of my life and some related conclusions, and you have yet to suggest any kind of logical argument against any of that ... and yes, we are just going in circles here ... but that is quite okay with me!


I have not even been trying to compel, but yes, I do understand.


Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Where did you ever get the idea of chronic alcoholism being "a psychological disease"?! In fact, it was a psychologist (therapist) I had been seeing for years who finally figured out my deal and sent me a "Tell him I am sober" message (via my ex-wife) that quickly led to my having myself locked up so I could sober up and hopefully even be sober when I got to his office ... and then he, the psychologist, sent me to God!


... and I have never said it was. All of this only got started once again because I could not resist responding to a flat statement someone else -- dear Bethie -- had made.


**prepares to knock straw man out of the arena**

The message of Scripture is one of reconciliation and transformation, not body-part replacement.


He does not ...


See just above.


Been there, done that and puked all over the tattered T-shirt (many, many times)!


That is your issue, not mine.

Last edited by leejosepho on 09 May 2011, 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Probably because it is considered one by the PSYCHIATRIC community, and is listed in the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, criteria being:
"... maladaptive alcohol use with clinically significant impairment as manifested by at least three of the following within any one-year period: tolerance; withdrawal; taken in greater amounts or over longer time course than intended; desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control use; great deal of time spent obtaining, using, or recovering from use; social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced; continued use despite knowledge of physical or psychological sequelae."

This I believe answers the question I've asked you three times on two different threads which you've conveniently ignored.

In order to "abandon yourself" to a god, you MUST FIRST BELIEVE IN ONE,

THEREFORE YOUR RECOVERY FROM ALCOHOLISM *FOLLOWED* YOUR THEISTIC BELIEF,

IT DID NOT *CAUSE* IT.

Last edited by Bethie on 09 May 2011, 9:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Triumphant bold caps passing lightly over my inconvenient counterexample.

I'm sorry. I haven't seen you say anything in the last EIGHT HOURS.

After the whole "that which cannot be ruled out as impossible must be true" joke of yours, I generally have no interest in anything you might have to contribute to an attempt at rational discussion.

Nope ... and once again:

"Save for a few brief moments of temptation the thought of drink has never returned ...
"Seemingly he could not drink even if he would ...
"... [and] its elements are simple. Circumstances made him willing to believe.
"He humbly offered himself to his Maker - then he knew."
("A.A., the book, page 57)

And again, but this time in outline form:

1) willing to believe some power greater than him both could and would;
2) offered himself (took action to find out);
3) then (after that) he knew.

Last edited by leejosepho on 09 May 2011, 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

So you "abandon yourself" to entities you DON'T believe in?

Why choose a god versus a Pasta Monster, in that case? Do you not like spaghetti?


Did/do you typically profess "willingness to believe" in particular abilities and whims of deities you DON'T FIRST BELIEVE EXIST?


You've developed an actual TEST for the god concept? Again, what IS it?! Don't you want to share it with the world and go down in history as the non-scientist who answered the unanswerable question? What are you waiting for? Oh, and what chemicals are needed for the test? Should I buy some beakers?

Well of course. How could he doubt, after an undetermined amount of time presupposing and utilizing as yet to be even vaguely-defined methodology to confirm?

Last edited by Bethie on 09 May 2011, 9:12 am, edited 3 times in total.

Did you miss the "we of agnostic temperament" part?