Atheists...

Clarification: That's not theology by any stretch, it's just secondhand from several American Christians and American ex-Christians I know who've talked to me about this sort of thing. They were very clear that at least on some level it was comforting (think schadenfreude, though I may have spelled that wrong) to 'know' that everyone outside their denomination was going to Hell - at least until they made close friends outside that denomination.

How is this comfort in Satan? Sounds like some sick comfort in the misfortune of others (as you say, schadenfreude), misfortune at the hand of God - after all, Satan doesn't decide who is going to Heaven. It's comfort in an elitist, vengeful God, not comfort in a terrifying demon who will corrupt one's soul.

Fair enough! Sorry for the interruption.

Man has use of reason - that's one of our qualities, and this quality, like all other distinguishable human qualities, is the result of our physical composition. Reason takes place within the brain.

But man does not need rationalism in order to exist. We've done without for most of our history.

Why doesn't this have any logic?

We can reason our way to anything. Regardless of the power of a logic argument, the argument doesn't necessarily correspond to reality.

There's no inherent hypocrisy here. Perception is not a logical process.

But perception is not a logical faculty. Dogs have perception, but no use of reason. What makes sense is not always logical. And much of our reasoning is done in reverse - we have a conclusion, and then conjure up a rationale for the conclusion, especially where morality is concerned.

Not at all - even if everyone disagrees with you, you might still be right.

I use the term 'awake' to represent some sort of spiritual experience, the experience that seems to be had by people the world over. Theophany is a more technical term for theists.

Logic seems to have nothing to do with such experiences. They are beyond human expression; words are insufficient and man's faculty of reason is insufficient to express the experience accurately.

The matter has little to do with comfort. Consider some western notions of Satan - no comfort in such a being.
Notions of God have a variety of influence. The difficulties of a people often influence the way people view God.

Do you understand God through logic? Or do you evaluate God notions as described by man with the use of logic?

So, perhaps this experience beyond logic and language is 'real' and not to be discredited because language and reason cannot properly express the experience.

Cool, I didn't know that.

Yes but man needs rationalism for innovation, and I'm sorry if we do not agree in this respect but existence is only worthy if innovation is construed

Logic is a more absolute approach. For example, it is logical to assume that light is non local and the actuality that is able to correspond to logic is universal. Perception to reality is introspectral, just as heaven is, I mean there is no actuality to it because the idea is transcendent. So as I believe logic is more credible heaven and hell are silly thoughts.

Yeah you're right.... we can reason our way to anything, so what.

Well we reason our perception to give it potential, not just the potential it has on us but for us to be able to manipulate and have potential on it.
Otherwise, what would be the point of consciousness?

Is it there based on perception of it (no causal reasons necessary), or for rational implications? God is meant for reasoning, it symbolizes reasoning. So yeah reasoning through the mind, whatever form you want to call it. Logic, intuit, etc.

I figured that. Perhaps there is a subconscious response to experience that displays extreme importance to the ego. look, in some time science will prove spiritial experiences to be conjured from actual constructs of one's own body. However spiritually awakening they may is important yes, but people should not go insane by believing, 'oh God was the cause for my spiritual experience'. These experiences are just the capabilities of the brain acting in a very great intellectuals.

Well maybe you should elaborate on these experiences. Are they still within the limits of human perception, the five senses, and can they be reasoned? What makes these spiritual experiences different form reality's experiences. What is beyond perception would be that beyond reality, not paralleled to it. People having these experiences probably doubt the prospect of their mind conjuring the very experience.

Have you seen the movie 'A beautiful Mind'? The guy who is super intelligent, has created himself people that aren't existent but very much real to him. It is experience that came from his own brain's abilities.

When the mind gets to a certain point of intellect like a high enough IQ, such projection experiences are naturally the ability of the corresponding mind, so God is an invention of a margin of intellectual capacity.
High enough IQ and the truth is seen, too low and the concept can't even be conceived.

You said man would not exist without logic - and that statement misses the point. Logic is one of man's abilities. Man would exist without logic; we just wouldn't have that particular ability. Man can exist without feet.

We managed to develop agriculture without rationalism.

Why discrdit the transcendent?
Either way, heaven and hell have been logically defended.

So maybe absolute reliance on reason isn't such a good idea.

I have no idea how this relates to the issue.
I'm not even sure what you're saying.

God is meant for reasoning? That's a minority opinion of God.

So what if these experiences are part of our mind's capability - obviously, some people are capable of having the experience.

Yeah, I've seen the movie, and I think you misunderstood the film. He wasn't crazu because he was brilliant. He happened to be crazy and brilliant. Appealing to IQ doesn't make much sense - there is no agreed upon definition of intelligence.

Obviously experiences like theophany are within the limits of human experience. They seem to transcend the five senses. We can rationally investigate them; we can rationally investigate anything. The real question is 'what use is the rational investigation of these experiences?'

I meant existence looses its purpose without some form of rationalizing thought. We would be monsters without it, which I doubt would be moral to become.

Heaven and hell have been logically defended?!. Plz elaborate.

Too bad, thats just the way humanity is.

Even a theophany experience requires reasoning of it, otherwise theres no point to it. It would simply not exist. We would never think of it again.

Consciousness is very much relevant, because we are conscious. Are you saying that theophany occurs when we are not self aware? So the perception of the experience is going to be reasoned.

Well it is not God providing the experience, it is the mind.

The point was that given a beautiful mind we can all have an experience of the kind that you say is spiritual. God is not involved in this, even if we can not reason our way as to how it happened it doesn't mean that we should give up reason for transcendence. There is still the 'why it happened', something that the mind gives perspective to by reasoning and rationalizing the experience, otherwise the experience had no use in the first place.

I think your describing our capability for self control and reflection - not our ability to employ strict Aristotelean rationalism in every instance of life - which we cannot do.

Actually, that's not the way humanity is. Humanity does not rely on absolute rationalism. We rely on emotion, instinct and simple deductions based on highly personal experience.

I think we've hit complications because you equate thought with reason, and even more complications because of the use of liberal use of reason and rationalism.

We can put two and two together without embarking on some quest for logical coherency. We can reason without being rational. I might determine that no one likes me because the last person I spoke to was mad at me.

Thinking doesn't require rationalism. Reflecting on experience does not require rationalism.

We've only established that the mind is involved - not the that mind is the only factor. Besides, who is to say that God is not, in some way or another, mind, or mind not God?

The movie did not depict any sort of religious experience.

No one suggests giving up reason. It's the adherence to rationalism (Rationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that is questionable.

I mean rationalism exists in a more mild sense, even to the point of intuitive thought, not necessarily critical Aristotelian stuff.

Yeah I know that but thought, as to depicting the truth of something, relies heavily on rationalism.

Yeah it comes with being a high school student . When it comes to finding the truth you seem to feel for it in this case, not judge for it. I just happen to find potential in reason and you in emotion, its a matter of opinion in this case. Reasoning is acting or concluding upon premises and facts. Thinking does not imply the need for facts, is that what this is inferring to?
I mean if we looked at it that way then I really could accept that the Hindu god really is the true God without pondering the irrational implications of what kind of appearance is that. They got it wrong when they gave their God an appearance, which is a reflection of the mind, which through real thinking does not equate to me very well.

Yes but if you want to waste your time just accepting God without reason then fine. It seems kind of useless to me though.

I mean what do you consider in introspective terms the difference between believing in God and not believing in God.

No but it needs a cognitive process right?, of some sort.

Well I doubt God would have a mind if it existed. Any approach to what God is exactly would be metaphysical speculation, and unless God is everything you speculate it to be then odds are metaphysics is not going to be very truthful in augmenting your opinion.

That's just the point. A mind can produce its own divine experiences.

What's the difference between reasoning and rationalism? I mean what you are displaying of God is not even reasoning because you are not applying truth to God and is therefore not very credible.

\

It takes faith to be a atheist and there is more to it then lack of belief of god. Followers of atheism often try to convert people like other religions it hates other religions like other religions do. It holds many of the same characteristics of a religion "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." In the quotes is the definition of religion. Atheism concerns the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. It also has a moral code. It states no god which still falls under the second point of the definition as well. This is because ones disbelief in any god has identical effect on someone that might believe in a number of other "gods". And that effect is that it changes there way of living, thinking and their view on life.

I'm not familiar with any theologian who promoted such an idea.

Although I was raised athiest, I choose to be religious. In my opinion, there isn't sufficient evidence to support the existence of that which cannot be verified. In other words, you cannot say God does not exist even though you haven't seen God. I've never seen a million dollers before. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I accept that a million dollers exists, then I am only accepting the word of the few that have seen a million dollers and the belief that others have claimed to understand how a million dollers can exist. Same principle applies for God, but with God we must verify what God does if anything. The problem with verifying Gods existence, is not so much the proving, but what religion to follow. Surely if God existed, then he'd make the true religion hugely evidential and without contridiction. Thats why, dispite my family and friends disaproval, I choose to be muslim, based on the scientific evidence I believe the quran to present

But you have seen one dollar, which could imply the existence of million dollar's

So would this apply to "god"?

If so, in what way's would it, and in what way's would it not

the religion I follow (islam) seems to be highly scientifically applicable and does not have contradiction in itself.

I believe in God because my teacher explained to me how darwin evolition is wrong, so there must be a god.

I don't know any atheists where I live. We al seem to understand that god exists. At my church there aren't any atheists that I know of. I mean, the minister isn't, and the minister knows more about God I think than you would, because he's the minister.