Why Atheists don't believe

This is quite simply incorcect.It is correct to say "....same way you know you love your mother, is the same way you will know THAT YOU LOVE GOD, when and if you meet Him...."

Great post Q. Wish I had written it. Compact and pertinent.

Once again we're looking at subjective experience. Each of the people are experiencing something, clearly. However, there are other explanations for the phenomena that don't require a Big "C" claim. There's a fair amount of literature on the subject of contagion, for instance. You might find the article Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness interesting in this context. It discusses the historical record of this type of phenomenon in a large-scale sociological context. Crowd psychology effects, especially in the charismatic and Pentacostalist churches, is also well documented as part of the religious experience that you describe.However, my point is that there is no way to objectively evaluate the experiences the individuals you mention. The conclusion that the Spirit filled them is based on a Big "C" claim that is simply not evidenced. That they had an experience is beyond doubt. What that experience actually derived from is problematic. I think this is a very cogent point. Individual subjective experience IS going to be different because each individual perceives the experience differently (THAT was awkward). It lends credence to my argument that people are not experiencing an extrinsic phenomenon, although there are other possible explanations. Indeed. I can quite believe that your conversion experience made a profound change in your life. That is often the case - in both directions. However, that doesn't substantiate the claim that there was an extrinsic reason for the experience, now does it? I guess I come down on the side of "never". On the other hand, given a large enough sample, we can come up with a statistics that would allow us to predict a distribution of responses around a mean. In other words, we can develop a model that allows us to state in general terms what a particular "feeling" might mean. However, it can never be more than a generalization - not objective reality. I think you're conflating objective with subjective. What you've described, your understanding of "love", for instance, will never be more than subjective. You said it yourself: "I know what I feel". I would argue that no one else can know it, however, except in their own subjective understanding of what it feels to them. Well, as a friend once told me: 2+2 can equal 5, for sufficiently large values of 2. In other words, the concepts of "2", "4", and "5", are conventions. They represent identities which we all agree on. They are not "Truth", as you and I usually use the term, and as you use it here. They don't depend on feelings at all. We would find it weird if someone insisted that 2+2=5, because they only way that would be "true" is if we redefined 2, as my friend did. Redefining your terms to make a statement true when in reality it is false is rather poor approach.As to the rest of your post, I want to thank you for sharing your experience with me. And the beer was pretty good, too.

Thank you.

Are you sure, or did you take what I meant out of context?They are both subjective feelings to others, but not to yourself.If your going to start making exact comparisons like that, then you have a lot of work to do, and many statements to correct from everyone here.

What about the bible?It gives instruction on how to "meet" God. They seem to have worked for me, and enlightened me enough so that I can see clearly to the truth.Did I mention also that in an instant, I understood about 80% more of the bible, once I felt what I believe to be the Holy Spirit? Everything became so clear.

Riverrat, that was really a great post.The world could use more of this sort of tolerance. Even though I am an atheist I need to remember to judge others by who they are and not what they believe.I think the world is big enough for well meaning people of all types...It's the fundies (x-tian, muslim, even atheist) we have to watch out for.

Thanks Peace and love.

if only more could even consider the ideas you present here, we'd be much better off.

iano The arguement for an eye for an eye is too simple for the application to humans. If I were to steal a dollar from you I could agree then that the replacement of a dollar seems to be a vialble solution. This is because I assume we are on relatively equal economic grounds.
However the application of eye for an eye would not be so cut and dried if we take a more complex but still plausible situation.A man is begging for food and is slowly starving {since he smells bad and people will not help him out} and in desperation he succumbs to the temptation to break into a food store after hours and eating to satisfy his hunger. Beyond that he has no wish to commit further transgressions and,as he goes to leave out the back entrance from which he left, is confronted by the store owner who had stayed at the store after hours to drink away his sorrows and who had passed out previous to the beggar breaking in.
While intoxicated ,he levels a handgun at the thief and screams at him to stay where he is and discharges the weapon accidently.The theif is hit in the right leg and is dropped to the ground, but the desperation of his situation now apparent to him he ignores the pain and rises to fight back.A police officer on patrol in the town had noticed the discharge flash of the handgun from the front of the store and drives around back and parks his vehicle at the door that the beggar had pried open to gain entrance.He gets out and,weapon drawn, proceeds inside where he hears the commotion.
He observes the two men struggling for control of something and raises his revolver and draws aim then commands the two to stop.The thief and the store owner had just become entangled in a fight for control of the weapon and when the officer yelled at them to stop they both reflexively raised the arms that were locked in combative engagement for the weapon, an action that caused them to grip tigher to the pistol and the weapon subsequently discharges hitting the police officer in the face and ,in another reflexive action, the officer lets off a round that subsequently kills the store owner.Now, just on the basis of eye for an eye,what justice can we meet out to "balance the scales of justice" so that equilibrium returns to the social order that was disrupted?

Brenna, I am working on it.
I have been placed in a church, and allowed to become part of the leadership for a reason.The church recognizes that the way church has always been done, is not working anymore. People are smart these days, and probably more in touch with the temple that is them.We are an experience generation, and people want to feel something real.If Jesus os truth, and our bodies a temple, then no matter what, there will always be a way to get in touch with that truth.I am working with the Pastors son, a youth pastor, and we are trying to change things, but it is dangerous groun, operating in a "forerunner" spirit.But in order for the church to work, then it must be relavent to todays world, and it must love, and be part of the community. Forget about the one Holy man with all the answer, we are in this together, and we all have much to learn. Thanks for helping me learn sometimes.

http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/05/304.htmlyou should listen to this. it changed my life.

Like many here, I too am not atheist, but will answer nontheless. I actually used to, but as I grew older and started looking at the issues myself, I realized that all the stuff I had been preached as a child was baseless, with no evidence in its support. Sure do. When my boss says that we need five more pizzas made, I make them, I don't go to check if we are actually out of pizzas; I just do it. Why? Because if we end up wasting a load of pizza at the end of the night, that's his own loss, not mine. However, when it directly impacts my life, I most certainly would not accept (I don't believe in anything) something without good evidence to do so.Trék

Well that really has nothing to do with evidence does it?I can say with authority that, yes, a good percentage of atheist do not believe in stuff without evidence, at least of some sort.

quote:

---

I can say with authority that, yes, a good percentage of atheist do not believe in stuff without evidence, at least of some sort.

---

Problem is it's just not true - if there was a "good percentage" of atheists who "do not believe in stuff without evidence" then they would be unable to function in the real world.Let's take a simple example - when my significant other says she is going off to work - how do I know she is? she could be off meeting another boyfriend?If someone tells me they went on holiday to Spain - what evidence do I have besides their word? Why am I likely to doubt them?If they tell me they went to Spain and helped the King of Spain defeat a terrorist cell, I'm not as likely to believe that without further evidence!If I eat out and they tell me the chicken is an organic chicken - what evidence do I have besides them telling me that? Am I going to leap up and ask to inspect the kitchens, take blood/cell samples? No of course I am not!An even more simple example - if I ask someone for directions and they give them to me, a normal person does not suddenly demand proof or evidence that the directions are correct.It's not a either/or - it's a complex case by case thing. At best you can say "do not believe in stuff that sounds highly unlikely without evidence". Edited by CK, : No reason given.