If there were a god, and this god interacted with us (if it does not it is merely a dragon in my garage) and wished us to know of its existence, we would expect there to be a way to determine whether it exists in a way that is not ambiguous and heavily rooted in personal interpretation. The diversity of theistic religion and belief alone precludes this, as there are gods who claim to be the sole god, pantheons who claim to be the sole pantheon, and so on; by the definitions of these religions only a limited number — if any — other religions can be true, and a lack of a test for any of the exclusive gods, or any at all, means that any speculation about these gods is as valid as an alien abduction story or so-called hauntings. If one is to speak of an objective reality, these gods must be considered as dismissed and not considered until such time as evidence arises to cause our model of reality to require consideration of these gods. Anecdotal testimony of vague ‘experiences’ is insufficient given its unreliable nature, furthermore, if these experiences can be replicated then one should be able to monitor brain activity and study the experience based on that. Theism is in and of itself not a believable claim and the only way you can get away with claiming it is is by saying “my evidence is not your evidence”, but what justifies your standard? Why, furthermore, is the belief based on blind chance — it seems that faith is substituted for the experience; one is no longer blindly guessing, one is lucky enough to have such an experience. Oh, yeah, they have to also pick a god, unfortunately, most won’t even submit the ‘experience’ for analysis, claiming either “you wouldn’t believe it” or “it’s too personal”. The former is a presupposition requiring explanation, and the latter is simply bullshit because we all know how to redact personal references or even just construct it as a hypothetical. Furthermore, on one occasion I have been told that such experiences (as I’ve heard them termed, ‘personal gnosis’) can be considered ‘verified’ if you managed to find people who have the same experience, but how do you determine who’s had the same experience with you? And then we get back to the second question as well, how do you know which god? I haven’t been able to get more than “I just know” out of them…wait a second…this sounds familiar…
Oh, right. That’s because it’s what I hear all the time. “I just know”. “I just believe”. This stench…so familiar, so horrible.
So this whole time I’m being led on this chase for an ‘experience’ and when we get down to it you only know what god it was because of FAITH? You told me you had evidence! You told me you knew for sure, that your experience, which you refused to share with me in any sort of detail, confirmed the existence of whatever gods you believe in! Jesus mother fucking Christ screwing Mohammed with Buddha’s dildo…
Oh, speaking of Buddha, atheistic religions and the claims they make about reality. Those claims, as well as claims made by theistic religions not relating to god (though most of those claims fall apart without the specific god anyway), must also be verified. If they are untestable, they are as worthless as god and we can invoke Hitchens’ Razor: what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But, seriously. Theists and religious, put up or shut up. If you just want to believe it go ahead, but don’t come into, say, a discussion forum, say you had some experience, then refuse to talk about that experience (and possibly berate me for being such a mean gnu atheist) when I ask out of curiosity. It’s getting really sickening, and after all this time it absolutely reeks of pure, A-grade bullshit.
Oh, wait. I wasn’t done, because you’re probably about to tell me that you just interpret things differently, or go back to your whole “my evidence is not your evidence” gambit. If your evidence isn’t my evidence in the case of god you’re making a claim about reality that I’m not. Your model of reality is fundamentally different from mine in that you require a ‘supernatural’ force to exist where I do not; no explanation exists as to why this supernatural force would exist or how it would interact with us, but that doesn’t seem to stop you from claiming that it does and that you know it does. Effectively, if you claim validity based on a different standard of evidence or some fundamentally irreconcilable difference, you are saying that your reality is not my reality. You are telling me that your reality differs because of your point of view and nothing more. You are, effectively, telling me that it is possible to alter reality by altering one’s thoughts.
So what is it. Is reality constantly in flux? Doesn’t seem like it. Your computer works, my computer works, your TV works, my TV works, you need to sleep, eat, drink and excrete, as do I. We’re both human, we have markedly similar physiology that is well understood and alterable in ways that are testable and measurable that can be known to help or harm us, we have the same relative physiological limits, our technology can be disassembled and its most basic functions explained in much more detail than is needed to make it work, you can indicate the presence of something nearby with a gesture and I will confirm it with a look. Seems like our realities aren’t really that different at all, actually.
So why are they? Why does yours have this ‘supernatural’? I can describe the same reality as you perceive without invoking it…so why do you invoke it? Why can you say that your reality is not my reality?
You can’t. Because your claims about your reality being different from mine are pure bullshit, the purest form possible. Your claim of a subjective reality has absolutely no regard for the truth, or for that matter any truth. By claiming that whatever god you believe in exists you in one sentence release a level of bullshit so toxic that it can only be compared to watching Fox News for a year due to its concentration. You are telling me not that your truth is truth, but that there is no such thing as truth. You’re telling me that you can make whatever claim you want and it is correct because that is what you view reality as.
And, really…how can you get more self-centered and haughty than that?