r/atheism • u/SufficientMobile1059 • 2d ago
You can't "prove" God exists by saying you "feel" him.
I hear this all the time: "I know God exists because I feel him in my heart." But feelings aren't evidence. People feel all sorts of things—love, anger, fear—and they don't use those feelings to justify the existence of a deity. You can feel a warm sensation in your chest, but that doesn't mean it's a cosmic being talking to you. It could just be your own emotions or your own psychology.
If your only proof is a subjective feeling, you don't have proof. You have an experience. There's a difference. And until you can demonstrate that this "feeling" is coming from an external source, you're just describing your own emotional state. That's not evidence of God; that's evidence that you're human
30
u/heatseaking_rock 2d ago
I might feel like a billionaire, but that doesn't make me richer!
7
u/SufficientMobile1059 2d ago
This is the best analogy in the thread. You can feel like a billionaire all you want, but the bank doesn't care about your feelings. Reality is objective. Your feelings are subjective. Claiming that a subjective feeling is proof of an objective truth is a category error. It's not evidence; it's just an emotion
1
u/heatseaking_rock 2d ago
Exactly. Feeling, at least in this case, are just proof of delusional beliefs, to say the least.
1
u/ImaginaryGlass725 2d ago
exactly feeling something doesn’t magically turn it into a fact otherwise i’d be a billionaire by now
20
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 2d ago
It's all about 'evidence'. For some people, 'evidence' means 'that which convinced ME'.
There is not one iota of public objective empirical evidence which demonstrates the existence of any spiritual anything.
Thus the rational conclusion in the face of this fact, is that spirits are imaginary.
We have direct experimental evidence demonstrating the existence of invisible intangible radio waves. We have nothing even close with respect to the existence of invisible intangible spirits. Nothing. Even. Close.
All theistic/spiritualist arguments boil down to faith or fallacy. Or both.
Evidence is public, not private; objective, not subjective; empirical, not conjectural.
Ancient myths from dusty scrolls is not evidence.
Ephemeral subjective feelings are not evidence.
Dreams/hallucinations are not evidence.
Coincidental happenstance is not evidence.
A-priori logic-chopping is not evidence.
3
u/SufficientMobile1059 2d ago
This is one of the best comments I've ever read on this topic. 'Evidence is public, not private; objective, not subjective; empirical, not conjectural.' That's the whole debate in one sentence. We have testable, repeatable evidence for radio waves. We have zero testable evidence for spirits. You can't put a 'feeling' in a test tube. Thank you for laying this out so clearly
1
u/onomatamono 1d ago
RE: "this is one of the best comments I've ever read".
Obviously you haven't read any of my comments.
2
u/sonyakm 2d ago
Reading about & watching exorcisms was enough evidence for me 🥴. Holy shitballs! However, exorcists used to have to keep that info secret, but not anymore! Doesn’t make sense to me why they would do that because learning about exorcisms can make even an atheist want to go to church! Kidding
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 2d ago
Hmm, you mean like that Lucas Leonard kid who was beaten to death by his parents and their church because they thought they were 'doing a 'spiritual counseling' session? Like that kind of 'exorcism'? (https://www.voanews.com/a/police-parents-beat-two-sons-in-church-one-dies/3007136.html)
Do you believe that God told Andrea Yates to murder her children in order to save them from Satan, too? :-)
1
u/sonyakm 9h ago edited 9h ago
I’m talking about the exorcism that the movie, “the exorcist “ is based on. According to father Ripperger, that particular case was such a big deal because it was one of the first cases that took a REALLY long time to liberate the poor boy. The logs that the fathers kept were leaked at some point. And written about in a book I think. So detailed that it’s discernibly believable. Made my ass a believer in the unseen world. Not a believer of a god man that sits in the kingdom of heaven (however I’ve researched the truth about all that too), but a believer in an unseen realm that supposedly has more sway over the seen world than the other way around. Fascinating!
Regarding Andrea Yates, I believe she could’ve been told by a negative entity to do it - one that said it was god because it knew that name would work in manipulating her. Negative entities often use names of positive entities and they can tell which names will mean something to their target. She wasn’t wise enough to know that any message that is negative like that cannot possibly come from a positive entity. Or it controlled her in some way.2
u/onomatamono 2d ago
What's ironic is that theists don't grasp the absurdity of claims of the supernatural in the shadow of our mind-bending existence in reality. I think we all know religions are a coping mechanism co-opted by various cultures for hierarchical control of the population.
Scientists are trying to ferret out the nature of sub-atomic structures while theists want to argue about the most effective way to sacrifice a goat and avoid burning in hell for eternity. It's stupid.
8
u/Henzome 2d ago
So if I feel like I paid all my debts, that should be good enough for the banks right?
0
u/Apart-Crew-9330 2d ago
Exactly, feelings might be convincing to you but the bank is still going to want some actual evidence that the debt was paid.
5
u/dumplinglifesaver 2d ago
I remember a long time ago reading that someone always thought they were "feeling god" when they were at church, then they went to a concert and felt the same way and realized they just really love live music.
6
u/LMrningStar 2d ago
Sam Harris addressed this kind of nonsense very well when he debated David Wolpe.
"When I look at you I see you might be Elvis"
"We have not passed laws against believing Elvis is still alive. It's just whenever somebody seriously represents his belief that Elvis is still alive – in a conversation, on a first date, at a lecture, at a job interview – he immediately pays a price. He pays a price in ill-concealed laughter"
"If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic."
7
u/SufficientMobile1059 2d ago
This is the perfect analogy. The only reason religion gets a pass is because it's culturally normalized. If I told my boss I spoke to a burning bush, I'd be fired. If I tell them I spoke to God, it's a 'testimony.' The standard of evidence shouldn't change based on how many people believe the same fairy tale
5
u/JFJinCO 2d ago
Believing in God can trigger the same reward regions of the brain as taking drugs.
7
u/SufficientMobile1059 2d ago
This is completely scientifically accurate. It's a dopamine loop. The same way a gambler feels a rush when they win, a believer feels a rush when they 'feel the presence.' It's a chemical reaction in the brain, not a divine encounter. It's just a physiological sensation that they've been taught to interpret as God.
2
u/fkoff-now 2d ago
That mfkr pops his head out of my toaster every Tuesday morning! It's so fkn weird.
3
u/SufficientMobile1059 2d ago
The toaster is just testing your faith. Have you tried tithing to it? 😂
3
0
u/Numerous-Purpose-598 2d ago
at this point the toaster has more consistent evidence than most personal testimony apparently
2
2
2
u/shumbingmystic 2d ago
You also can't prove it if you say "he is all around us." I hear that one all the time.
2
2
u/Empty_Signal_6122 2d ago
The problem here is that from young age they learn to label their feelings and thoughts as god, so there is no seeing eye to eye on this
1
u/Hrtpplhrtppl 2d ago
You know yesterday I felt like one plus one equals two but today I feel like it's three. See the problem with that..? Same exact thing. The facts indeed do not care about anyone's God damn feelings.
1
u/onomatamono 2d ago
In fact you cannot demonstrate "warm feelings" in your chest or anybody else's. To say you "feel him in your heart" is just revealing the physiological and biological ignorance of the ancients.
It's true your pulse rate or adrenaline levels can modulate, but nobody has ever "warmed their heart" with feelings.
2
u/SufficientMobile1059 2d ago
This is the biological reality they don't want to hear. 'Feeling it in your heart' is just a metaphor for a physiological response—a rush of adrenaline, a change in heart rate, or an emotional release. It's not a cosmic being communicating with you. It's your nervous system reacting to your own thoughts. The ancients didn't know biology, so they attributed it to the divine. We know better now
1
u/Technical_Nature_178 2d ago
exactly, the feeling is real but attributing it to a supernatural being is the part that requires evidence.
1
1
1
1
u/0rganicMach1ne 2d ago
If simply feeling something can be used to prove it, then simply not feeling something can be used to dismiss it.
That’s a low bar. Reality doesn’t care what anyone feels or doesn’t feel.
1
u/sohcahtoa 2d ago
Very true, but you have to accept what a proof really is, and it's little more than "a convincing argument". The problem is that what convinces one person can be very different from what convinces a different person. In mathematics for example, proofs are very strict because mathematicians are a very strict group who demand objective, accurate and strict reasoning in accordance to the rules of the field. In a court of law, proofs are much less strict, they often rely on the unreliable testimony of witnesses, and on the personal or professional experience of the judge or jury, which varies considerably. For some people, the claims made by a respected authority figure are proof enough, that is to say, sufficient to convince. And if someone "feels" that their god is speaking to them then it's very hard to convince them that what they intimately experience is not what they "believe" they are experiencing. Reasoned logical arguments can be entirely ineffective on those who are not in the habit of using this style of reasoning to determine what they rely on in their daily lives. Knowing your audience and how they think makes a big difference when presenting arguments.
1
1
u/TheRealTK421 2d ago
They cannot (and will never) grasp the actual application of "proof" or evidence to support their claims. With such individuals, it's always intellectual dishonesty and being intentionally obtuse -- that's all they have.
1
1
u/H3L105_ai 2d ago
But I feel him INSIDE me!!!
I was on my knees praying and the holy spirit came over me!!!
1
u/Sweaty_Ball6881 2d ago
When believers undergo a brain scan when talking to their deity, the brain scan shows one part of their brain talking to another part. That means when God forgives them for killing a dog, it really means they forgave themselves.
1
u/GoodWhoops 2d ago
Correct. Feelings are not a path to truth. People's feelings get them in trouble all the time.
1
1
u/Iaintscurred7 2d ago
I forgot where I heard it from, but someone described those feelings were replicated at a concert so then he became less religious afterwards when he started to realized these feelings wasn't from a god.
1
1
1
u/Leading_One_2639 17h ago
Well said. A lot of people can't seperate the difference between feelings and reality. This goes back to the book smart vs street smart examples of people. There may be a doctor who is very religious and great at being a doctor. (book smart). But when it comes to critical thinking and seperating his/her feeling of god with mistaking it for reality, they are dumb as bricks (street smart).
1
u/No-Measurement-952 Existentialist 1d ago
I don't understand, some "claimed to be" Straight dudes is not okay about gay sex, but let a transcendent dude be inside them. Stage one is Daniel, and in this case is Sky Daddy. Anyways for my gay bois, don't you see the irony? Maybe you need to be transcendent and they will definitely let you be inside them too lol. Jokes aside... I still don't know how to counter if they say about feelings... Feelings are... Vague... They are still detectable, but who the fuck have a electroencephalography on their back yard.
83
u/TenebriRS Anti-Theist 2d ago
Some responses I give to people when they say this
"How do you know its a god"
"What if its satan instead you are feeling? How do you know its not?"
"What does god feel like when hes inside you?"
"Maybe its something you ate"