Thursday 15 March 2012

In and Out of God - God and prayer

One Unanswered Prayer

Even though I wasn’t as close to him as everyone else was, his passion for life impacted me enough to suck tears from my eyes when I heard about his passing. He was the first and only person I have ever cried for at a funeral. That probably says something.

I was sitting on a chair in my room one night. The memory is a bit hazy so I can’t say exactly what I was doing, unfortunately. What I do remember, was fearfully answering the phone at 3am in the morning only to have my fear hyperbolically realised. He was in a car accident and was now in the Intensive Care Unit of San Fernando General Hospital. The sleepy voice on the phone advised me, “Pray boy, pray. Jus’ pray.”
The next day, a large group of us were gathered in the prayer room, on our knees, wailing before the Blessed Sacrament. We sang, we danced, and we beat the life out of the goat skin drums in some infantile, ironic hope that it would be transferred to him. We literally begged God, with tears in our eyes and bruised knees as the modern replacements for sackcloth and ashes, to save him. He died that day. Quicker than a thought.
It has been years, but I remember it like it was yesterday. Choir practice for his funeral was intensely challenging to bear seeing that he was the usual director. The keyboards did not sound as good played by those alien hands.

In prayer group, I remember our leader exhorting us to be vigilant in prayer and she reassured us that God was constantly giving her the word “Life.” Many of us had great trust in this woman’s reported clairvoyance. These words were a genuine comfort. What a horrible bubble to burst. Dead.

This may be the most difficult article out of all to stomach along with the one on suffering. Not everyone reads the Bible or cares about evolution or morality, but everyone suffers and ‘God’ is a short, sonorous word.

I had questioned it before, I am sure, but situations like this intensified my questioning. Just why do we pray? We pray for a variety of reasons. We pray before examinations, before meals, before driving up the highway, or before preaching. Why? There are different forms of prayer and it is impossible for me to go through all of them here. 

Still, all of the prayers that I have ever said were in and around 3 particular categories – Praise and adoration, meditation and contemplation, and petition. They were done individually, and sometimes together, according to the situation in which I found myself. I am sure you can relate.

Praise and adoration

“Bless Yahweh, my soul; bless his holy name, all that is in me! Bless Yahweh, my soul, and remember all his kindness,” is taken from Psalm 103 which is underlined in my Bible. I loved that Psalm and it still resonates in me as something beautiful. I was taught as a child that the first thing we should do when entering into prayer was to praise God. We were to recognise and acknowledge God’s sovereignty and our status as creatures that were totally dependent on his grace for our life and, more importantly, our salvation.

As my fingers punch these very keys I can remember, like a faint shadow, the emotion of joy and pure awe that would fill me whenever I genuinely worshipped God. I would do this on my own, but the feeling was more intense in a group of people singing and shouting in unison. There was a particular refrain that would feature in my praise – “There is no one else like you, God! You alone are great! You alone are wonderful.”
Why did we worship God? A particular song relates “To worship you, I live!” The very purpose of our otherwise banal existence is to worship God. God made us, me, you, to worship Him. Why? An omnipotent, omniscient God surely doesn’t need anything in his life, but he chose to create us, not just for us to live, but for us to praise him. It is possible that his ways are far removed from my own so I won’t say anything more on that.

But here is a problem. In my own reading of history, I came across a number of cultures, each of them who had their own ideas of gods who, strangely enough, were a direct reflection of the level of their ignorance. I do not mean that in a condescending way, although I imagine that's how it would sound, unfortunately. Ancient Egypt had a colourful pantheon of gods, some who shared the same job description. There was Ra and Horus, both were solar deities. This phenomena of worshiping the sun is seen everywhere. The Mayans, who are starring this year for their end-of-world ‘prophecy,’ worshipped the god Huracan, controller of the winds. Hindus revere cattle, just as the ancient Egyptians and Zoroastrians did, as sacred.

In spite of the religious piety of ages past,  today we make countless bad movies about Greek deities and we read of their stories in literature class. Hardly a thought is given to the fact that people genuinely worshiped these gods, once upon a time. Less thought is given to the fact that we are 'disrespecting their religion' as religious people today like to say. Since most of these religions no longer exist, we try to assess why they believed what they did. When we are ignorant about the causes of natural phenomena, we ascribe them to the work of a deity. With regard to the cattle worship, you find this style of worship among herder cultures who depended on cattle for their livelihood.

Human beings seem to have a natural tendency to worship things that seem larger than us, whether in physical stature, functional importance or social status. We literally grovel at the feet of celebrities today, researching their whereabouts, getting angrier than they are about their broken marriages. There doesn’t seem to be any better explanation for the presence of this need for worship across cultures, especially since they are far from monolithic. It is possible that this need to worship was implanted in us by God himself, though I am not sure which one and if I’m right to say “He.” We worship what we do not understand, what we need, what we dream of being.


I worshiped this God, not because he was objectively great, but because he was an emotional outlet, a space for me to let loose all my fears and worries without being ridiculed as being weak. In fact, Christianity tells young men that only “real men worship.” 

Contemplation

The beloved St Teresa defines contemplative prayer as “nothing else than a close sharing between friends; it means taking time frequently to be alone with him who we know loves us.” Of the three main forms of prayer, this one is usually regarded king, as it speaks of a union of the soul with the Holy Spirit which “strengthens our inner being with power through his Spirit,” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Although I write about this prayer form secondly, it was my favourite type of prayer. I got tired of the idea of asking God for stuff because I grew to believe that I was not in need of anything as long as I had his grace. Plus, I never felt worthy of receiving gifts from people, even from God.

A critical component of contemplative prayer is a “loving silence.” It requires time spent in isolation and quietude. All the masters of this form of prayer teach that it took them a number of years to get to a place where they could enter into the prayer with relative ease. For beginners, (a title you might hold for your entire life) quieting your surroundings is never as challenging as quieting your mind, especially one bombarded by as many distractions as the average 21st century mind is.

The desire to lose oneself and become one with something greater, I learned, is not specific to Catholicism, even though it was the most prized form of prayer for Catholics. If you look hard enough, you would find that this type of man-god communication is found in most religions. The Jews had a sect called the Essenes. Islam has a similar group called the Sufis. Islamic scholar, Alahmad ibn Ajibe says it is "a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one's inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praise worthy traits." This definition is strikingly similar to the Catholic definition.
One route taken to make sense of this is to assert that all religions "lead to the same God". Pope Benedict XVI answers this, and I have to agree, by saying "(St.) Paul does not say, if the pagans keep their own religion, that is good before the judgement seat of God," in Truth and Tolerance. Saying that all religions lead to the same God, reveals a God with multiple personality disorder. Yes, there are similarities between religions, but there are fundamental differences between theologies. Each one, by definition, renders the other one 'wrong'. 


The similarities between the types of prayer among religions, then, seem to have a more naturalistic explanation. It is interesting to note that religions hold contemplation in high esteem and consider it an honour that God would want to share this gift with his people. Unfortunately, God doesn't seem to want to unite with all his people, because you always find that there are people who are unable to enter deeply into contemplation. Is God reserving this gift for a select few? I think that this meme is better explained by differences and similarities in personalities and brain structures.

Petition

Finally, the most popular. We all are in need of something at different points in time and who better to ask than a God who can "supply all things"? We ask for  ‘travelling mercies’ all the way up to the cure for cancer and peace in the Middle East, hoping that the Almighty would bend his ear to our cry and answer in our favour.

When I was younger and more impressionable, I was genuinely inspired when told that God always answers our prayer. It was said that God either says yes, no, or not yet. Either way, it is an answer. God never leaves us hanging, you see. But, let’s strip this formula apart for a bit.
Do you want to go on reading? Yes? No? Wait?
You are saying that one of God’s answers to my prayers is “Yes”. Wonderful. I have had prayers answered before. Rainy season was the perfect time for me to test my faith. Having to leave home while the rain poured was always a hassle, so I tried praying for the rain to cease. Let’s say 6 times out of 10 the rain stopped. Whenever it didn’t, I would move on to the other options of “no” and “not yet".

Of course, I would praise God ebulliently whenever the rain stopped within 3 minutes. When it continued to fall, however, I would wonder if something was wrong with my prayer. Was I “in sin”? Did I not have enough faith? Or was God saying “no”? It is said God only says an outright no when he has something better in store. Did God want me to miss school that day? Nice.

But, how was I to know tell the difference between “No” and “not yet”? If the rain didn’t stop within 3 minutes, God could just have been saying no. However, it’s the rain we are talking about. It would have to stop some time and surely it did. Was that a no or not yet? I was not gifted with hearing the voice of God to clarify these confusing times for me. It seems as though the only time I was sure God answered my prayer was when the answer was yes.
So let’s focus there. Turns out that the types of prayers that were answered for me, were not anything special at all. God would help me pass an exam, but I had been doing that before I cared that he existed. Plus, I had colleagues who were excelling more than me academically who were of different religions. Was Jesus helping out my Hindu friend or was he being aided by a Hindu god? St Paul would have considered the statues of these Hindu gods to be demon infested.

Pushing aside all these conflicting thoughts, it was clear to me that the three part formula of answered prayer could have worked for just about anything. For example, if it is raining and I start praying to the low-hanging book bag strapped across my back, surely one of these three options would be fulfilled. The rain just might stop. That’s what rain tends to do, you know? Or it may continue raining, as it usually does. What exactly is the difference between my book bag and God in that scenario? Nothing.

Petitionary prayer is a weak argument for the existence of God, for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph. There is no objective standard to know whether God actually intervened into a situation or not, because he loves to keep himself hidden for some reason. The only way that prayer could prove anything about God, is if this God does something miraculous. Anything else could be attributed to natural causes. I will speak more about miracles here.

Your mind is being filled right now of all those times you believed God answered your prayers, isn’t it? That time when you were sick and God healed you, or something similar. Unfortunately, our brains have a natural flaw in the way it reasons. This particular flaw is called confirmation bias. We would like to think that we are in control of our memories, but we aren’t, really. When we hold a position on a topic, we tend to look for and remember information that supports our position easier than information that refutes or undermines it. I know you thought that your crush was also crushing on you. I mean, he smiled whenever he said “Good morning” to you. You totally forgot all the times he walked straight pass you on campus, though. In the same way, we forget all our unanswered prayers and turn a blind eye to the good lives our heathen friends are living.  
I feel the need to iterate who this God is. This God is all-powerful and all loving and he has given us free will. The Psalmist solemnly proclaims that God reads his “thoughts from far away” and that the word is not yet on his “tongue, Yahweh, before you know all about it.” What, then, is the point of all this praying? If God knows what I want to ask already, why do I need to ask him if there is a 1 out of 3 chance, apparently, of him telling me no. That doesn’t soften the blow, one bit.

The Simple Truth

There is this guy I know who is an example of what I would like to become. I won’t say his name because it may cost him his reputation. Plus, some of you probably know him. He’s good looking, smart and an all around good person. Not surprisingly, he was able to get hold of a female with qualifications just as good. They went around for like two years. Being the absolute genius he is, he got invited abroad to a conference for budding geniuses. I won’t say where. While away, another friend (who doesn’t deserve the crown) snuggled close to my real friend’s girl. Don’t worry, because she was strong enough to turn down his advances. When my friend returned home, his girl didn’t hesitate to spill the beans. My friend, instead of getting angry with the other guy....

Now. Let me pick at your brain. If my story telling ability was any good, those of you who know me probably tried to figure which friends I was referring to. Some of you actually did. Female readers probably went rode a tiny wave of emotion as you identified with the female in the love triangle. You may have gotten upset with the other guy who tried to make moves on her in the absence of her boyfriend. You’re probably upset with me for not finishing the story. Well, it doesn’t matter how the story ends, you see. I made it all up. How does that make you feel?

If my preceding assumptions about your reactions to the little story are true, you have been a victim of your brain. Smile, we are all stupid. The brain has the ability to imagine so realistically, that the images become real to you in that they solicit real responses from you. You actually got upset. Thinking that the story was true, then hearing it wasn’t, made you feel deceived. Similar things happen in well done movies.

What does this have to do with prayer? Everything. It does not matter if God exists or not with regard to prayer. The emotional experiences you have when praying, the consolations you receive, are all real but not necessarily from God. It seems more plausible that they are a product of your brain’s conceptualising ability. The concept of God was taught to you by your religion which you are a part of by sheer luck of the draw. This idea answers the question of why even among people of the same religion you find different personal ideas of God. It is why one Christian would prefer to pray vocally and another prefer contemplation; why one emphasises the just hand of God, and another, his loving one. 

It is important to note that all three of these forms of prayer are not esoteric to religion. We ‘pray’ like this every day in our relationships. We praise celebrities, we petition governments, institutions, friends and parents, we contemplate art and beauty and bask in the loving presence of our significant other. All these forms of prayer are found in all religions, with slight nuances that are attached to specific theologies. But as base level, its the same, especially for average people, ie, non-theologians. The layman doesn't really care whether God is three persons in one when their son is in the ICU. They want to know that this God would save their son’s life. That’s it.

Conclusion

A person’s ‘prayer life’ has ups and downs like a roller coaster and it usually runs parallel to the ups and downs of both a person’s inner and outer life. I used to pray alot, especially for other people. Mostly for other people. When I wasn't praying to other people, I was in contemplation of God's face. 


Today, I am tempted to pray ever so often when life gets tough, but it’s difficult to shake the idea that I am talking to myself. I just meditate instead and put on some Tchaikovsky or Esbjorn Svensson Trio. For the most part, I see prayer as an old form of slacktivism. It gives you the feeling that you've done something when all you've done was breathe. I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but it can still be applied none-the-less. 

Stay locked for God and evolution.

8 comments:

  1. I've read most of your posts and I can understand where you're coming from. Atleast most of your arguments seem to be based on the usual Greco-Roman philosophical conundrums. They're quite easily answered in a book called, "Incoherence of the Philosophers", by Imam al Ghazzali {rh}. He presents each case, analyses it, deconstructs arguments and uses logic and reason to explain most if not all of the usual arguments used against faith, religion and God.

    Muslims more or less know his works to be found in Thomas Aquinas' writings, due to the Iberian genocide by the RC Church.

    You may or may not remember me from school, but reading of your experience really does make me have to say I almost feel as if you're basing most of your writings on emotion. Rather, an appeal to emotion, whether it be in the enthusiasm in speaking to a gathering, the congregational motivation you experienced, or the death of a friend, your posts are based more on emotion than anything else. Appeal to emotion is common when discussing faith and religion, but here's a simple question to you Kwame, do you disbelieve in the current notion of God because of emotion or do you disbelieve because you want to believe in a form of God that doesn't exist?

    Looking forward to your response.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course I remember you! In my post about the Bible, I actually started writing an opening narrative that referenced you, but I changed my mind. I don't know if you remember that time you accosted me on the 6th form block to talk to me about the Bible - that's the story I was going to use.

      I came across Ghazzali's work through Willian Lane Craig, I think. Will definitely check him out. I disagree that these conundrums have been adequately answered though. They may seem answered because you are a believer yourself, but to a non-believer, they don't add up entirely.

      But no, it's not -because- of emotion, but emotion was involved. The emotion was impossible to get past because transition involved a deconstruction of my entire identity. You know who I was. The cause of it was what I believe to be good sense. The purpose of this series though is simply to share my journey and purge myself a bit, not refute theism. Maybe later on if I have the time, I will write much more explicit rebuttals that are geared towards philosophically minded folks. This was geared more toward the lay man.

      Delete
    2. I distinctly remember that incident, started in the library and ended on the steps of the block, almost an hour of intense discussion and quite a fun experience.

      William Lane Craig does use him quite a lot, the difference is, he always has to try to apply his statements to some Biblical narrative which always ends up producing a significantly weaker argument. I really suggest you read the book first before assuming they haven't been answered, this really isn't appeal of consequences of a belief (in my case), as I try to be objective as possible. It might seem odd, but that's what we're commanded to do as Muslims, see my post here:

      http://callingchristians.com/2011/03/28/how-humans-think-allah-swt-wants-us-to-think/

      As for answers not adding up entirely, you have to eventually come to a distinction, either you agree wholly with philosophical arguments or you agree with empirical arguments, combining the two will always in some way produce inconsistent premises, see my other post here:

      http://callingchristians.com/2011/12/01/atheism-belief-in-the-inconsistent/

      I've studied, read enough to answer most of these paradoxes. They're not a problem for me, because I have a method to analyzing, interpreting and producing a solution.

      I know who you were Kwame, and while I'm happy to see you exploring your thoughts, beliefs and becoming very proactive in discussion, what I will say is that don't let confusion lead you to popular belief. The main reason people leave religion, isn't because they can't get answers, it's that they don't like the answers they do get. As you and I both know, truth is relative and subjective among us homonidae, here's to hoping we can find some common ground and have a thrilling philosophical/ scientific discussion soon.

      and God knows best.

      Delete
    3. I've read your posts and there is a fundamental problem with your reasoning. You defined atheism well to begin with (I believe you used the dictionary definition) but you went on to use “God(s) do(es) not exist, because their exists no evidence for this (these) God(s)” as your working definition.

      Atheism does not explicitly say 'God does not exist', it simply says 'I do not believe because of lack of good reason'. Good reason here can mean evidence, and philosophical arguments. Your distinction between philosophical and empirical arguments are a bit disingenuous because some theistic assertions are bound in the empirical eg the Biblical notion of a 6000year old creation or the virgin birth of Jesus; for you, the veneration of the Black Stone being from the time of Adam and Eve. These claims are empirical claims.

      However, even without these things, I am skeptical of a philosophy that separates itself from empiricism because the human mind can construct a path to any conclusion with enough use of imagination. Philosophy should be tied to reality.

      Your comparison between the truth of Alexander's existence and Allah's existence because of testimonies are not as equal as you think. For one, the assertion in Alexander's existence is one about a natural and finite human being, whereas Allah is a supernatural, timeless being. The testimonies for the latter's existence, then, should not be on the same level as those for Alexander. The testimonies for Allah should be supernatural and timeless and they should be proven so.

      It is here that I would insert that all three Abrahamic religious use similar arguments for their faiths, but arrive at entirely different conclusions - Jesus is God, Allah is God, YHWH is God. The path to either end is 'logical' but only internally, which is why they can all stand philosophically independent of each other. When they are matched against empirical facts about the universe, evolution of life,age of the earth etc, their claims become less plausible.

      A friend of mine wrote this to show the problem atheists encounter in misunderstandings about the word. Check him out: http://www.caribatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/atheists-fight-for-survival-cant-let.html

      This one was pretty clear as well: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

      I hope to write my own eventually.

      Delete
    4. {Atheism does not explicitly say 'God does not exist', it simply says 'I do not believe because of lack of good reason'.}

      This is a blanket statement, it's with that I suppose you're new to atheism/ agnosticism, because there are two sides to each coin and there is a dichotomy in agnosticism/ atheism, that of positive affirmation and negative affirmation atheism/ agnosticism. Which is what I based my arguments against, that of positive affirmation.

      {Good reason here can mean evidence, and philosophical arguments.}

      It depends on a lot of criteria, are you negative or postively affirming God's non-existence, do you subscribe to a priori or a posteriori thinking, do you accept idealism or not, do you only work with empiricist arguments, do you believe in moral relativity or moral absolution etc etc You're trying to specify, that which is broad and expansive. So my writing isn't based on one sub group of atheistic beliefs, it's based on the foundations and that is the incorrect concept of God and the arguments for/ against that concept.

      For example, if 10 people believe cars exist and 9/10 believe those cares are supernatural but we can drive in them, the majority of your arguments would be against those 9/10 people, the problem you run into is the 1/10 who say a car is a car, your arguments wouldn't work. Hence, my article is pointing out, that the Greco-Roman philosophical arguments can work against a created God, a human God but it can't work against a belief of a God who is uncreated and has no likeness to us.

      {Your distinction between philosophical and empirical arguments are a bit disingenuous because some theistic assertions are bound in the empirical}

      Faith is based on science and beliefs, culture and society, but the negation of these beliefs of which you propose can only take one route or the other, do you disagree with religion because of philosophy or because of it's empirical concepts? Does one pivot on the other? Not all belief systems are monolithic so it's your reasoning which is appealing to a hasty generalization that would purport your inanity towards faiths.

      {eg the Biblical notion of a 6000year old creation or the virgin birth of Jesus;}

      The argument against the 6000 year old creation is a bit fanciful, I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, but we have to take into consideration hermeneutics for a moment and what the words meant to early Judaic teachers. Many of them didn't specify that yom meant year, it could have mean periods and periods of unspecified length. Given that we measure today by our scientific standards, we should be honest and understand their scientific standards of measurement (quantitatively and qualitatively) would differ to ours.

      Delete
    5. As for the virgin birth of Christ, let's not forget that at one point homonidae were asexually reproducing on a mass scale until gradual variation brought about two subspecies of differing genders.

      {for you, the veneration of the Black Stone being from the time of Adam and Eve. These claims are empirical claims.}

      That's a claim we don't make and a bit dishonest coming from you. We don't believe that, secondly, the veneration isn't of the stone, it's worthless to us, it's that the focal point of our faith is at a sacred place where we can meet and this is God's house or where God wants us to gather for praising, venerating and celebrating His mercies. Thirdly, that's a historical claim that at a specific time, a specific group of people in a specific place, had a specific incident that led to a specific tradition. I suggest you learn the difference between empirical claims (e.g. life sciences, physics) etc and philosophical claims etc and that of anthropological claims (whether chronological or historical).

      {Philosophy should be tied to reality.}

      Philosophy doesn't have to be tied to reality, which is why we have discussions on existentialism. I suggest you purchase any introductory book on philosophy to gather what it actually is, this really isn't the place to discuss something you're not too familiar with.

      {For one, the assertion in Alexander's existence is one about a natural and finite human being, whereas Allah is a supernatural, timeless being.}

      We label these arguments false dichotomies, essentially, you're telling me that I have to believe in your concept of God to accept that my own arguments can work with your arguments against an empirical God. Again, this is your inability to think, my God doesn't have to be finite for a group of people, at a time to experience a sign (ayat ur Rahman). For example, a group of Arians, who witnessed the ascension of Christ, then we have the Essenes who learn from James the Just, later to migrate to Arabia, with the Arians to await a Prophet as given in Devarim 18:18 and from their historical records then accept Islam. The narrative is established, the people document their beliefs and witnesses, they converge on a common truth despite inhabiting vastly differing areas of settlement. That's what I call evidence for God. You on the other hand, mock, laugh, jeer and insult these people, yet today, if we documented something strange, later on a group of people from a various city do the same and you both converge on truths, then we call that......collective truth, something that goes from unverified to fact, because of evidences converging. Something you will accept today, but not because it's in the past? If you can't accept the scales then, what good is there when those same scales are applied today?

      Delete
    6. {The testimonies for Allah should be supernatural and timeless and they should be proven so.}

      This is what we term a non-sequitur argument.
      If the car is red then all other cars must be red.
      If my idea of God is finite then your God must be finite.

      See how that works? One does not imply the other, a truth does not imply a false, it's beyond a paradox, but a contradiction. My belief isn't that what God gives should be timeless, but the signs of God shall be given by God. So one sign we accept is prophecies, does that mean prophecies should be timeless by your reasoning?

      Eg. The house will burn on the 27th of March, 2011.
      The house burns down on the 27th of March, 2011.

      You come on the 27th of the next year and ask for the remnants of the house to be burned against, because by your logic, it should be timeless. Faulty reasoning I must say.

      {It is here that I would insert that all three Abrahamic religious use similar arguments for their faiths}

      Fallacy of hasty generalization Kwame. The Jewish God differs vastly from the Christian God. See Rabbi Rashi's exegesis, see Origen's on the Flesh of Christ, see Aqidah At Tahawiyya. Proof by contradiction always works, in this case, I suggest you read these works, generalizing what people believe is really a dishonest act. I hold you, or rather I held you to a higher standard than this.

      {When they are matched against empirical facts about the universe, evolution of life,age of the earth etc, their claims become less plausible.}

      I don't see how or where you can say religions become less valid because of empirical evidences. Who is to say the qualitative system you use is the same as the scripture (of whatever faith) uses? Who is to say you grasp the exoteric and esoteric meaning of scripture? Your words display clear confirmation bias and you know what this means, I've seen you use it. When it comes to faith, you immediately judge it against your appeal to ad ignorantium, address it with straw men based on your understanding (appeal to consequences of a belief) and then you produce a conclusion, on the fallacies and biases you abused. I've seen it done time and time again, people don't like to use logic and reason, especially when arguing against religion.

      All you have to do is be objective and be honest in your reasoning, just because you disbelieve in something doesn't mean you have to be subjective in your arguments against it.

      Delete
    7. I think you misunderstand me. I admit I was hasty but that's because I rather treat with it in an entire post than under a comments section.

      If you read the posts I sent you, you would see that theists have a tendency to misunderstand what atheism is. It is simply non-belief. In a sense, you are atheist toward Jesus Christ or Ahura Mazda for whatever reason. I am just atheist to all of your gods. An atheist cannot say 'there is no God' (positively affirm God's non-existence) unless that God is defined, and we know that there are so many ideas of God that one, like yours, can always say that He was not addressed in my argument (1/10). If you disagree with my definition, it's cool, but I would like to know what you call someone who does not know whether God exists or not, but does not believe in one either.

      Note that I said philosophy *should* be tied to reality. Of course it doesn't have to be, but there is a danger in that because without tying it to reality, you can construct arguments to any conclusion you so desire. When I said that the Abrahamic religions all use similar arguments, I'm not sure why you called that a generalisation because I was not attempting to say you all worship the same God, but I was using it to illustrate my previous point. All of you use similar arguments to defend the existence of your *own* concepts of God - you all worship different Gods yet use the same arguments. What objective criteria is there to choose between the 3 God-concepts? What criteria is there for you to show why the Christian's logic is faulty? This is the problem with philosophy divorced from reality.

      What you called a false dichotomy isn't one, I think. Forgive me if I don't explain it fully, but it doesn't make sense that the same criteria used to ascertain the truth of natural phenomena could be used for supernatural phenomena. It's crazy to put the testimony of a prophecy on the same level of a witness to a crime. If I were to use the same criteria, I surely would not believe in Allah alone, but I would believe in all gods because all religions have stories of God-encounters that are attested to by more than one person.

      Apparently, I will always be addressing straw men, because there will always be a person who thinks I'm not talking about their God. The thing is, I don't feel compelled to *argue* for my non-belief in Athena. I know I may be misunderstanding the exoteric and esoteric meaning of scriture etc, but it is *difficult* for me to believe that a God would make his Word so difficult to interpret that only Islamic/Jewish/Christian/Hindu scholars can know what they *really* mean. I could be wrong about that because it is possible that God has some big plan for doing that, but it is not my responsibility to say why I don't believe that to be true. It is up to you, the theist, to show me why I *should* believe *your* story and not that of others. Will deal with these things later on in separate posts. Look out for them!

      Delete