Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fascinating. Do please explain to us what our 'mold and definition of who or what God is' is. This is simply shifting the argument to us. If this god of yours goes way beyond our understanding, how do you know it is there at all? How do you know it isn't all in your head? How do you know it is a 'he' in any case? You are the one making all these claims and you have the sauce to suggest that we have some sort of half -assed concept of definition of God which enables you to dishonestly imply that we atheists have some sort of faith in the non -existence of some God -definition of our own.
To logical incorrectness, you have added intellectual dishonesty. Don't let it bother you - you ain't alone.
The same way I am certain I am speaking with another being on this forum, I am certain that I've had an experience with Him. I know. Because when it happened, there was no mistaking. The energy I felt was unconditionally loving, all powerful and yet gentle, and all things good, pure and perfect and I knew that He existed within me and in all things but that He had a part all His own and it is that part that I know I will never be able to understand. God, from what I experienced, goes far beyond my own comprehension and nothing can fully capture his essence.
I have no reason to lie to you or even try to prove my claim to you. I don't even know you and your judgement has no bearing on my life whatsoever. I'm only telling you my experience.
Nozz's rule strikes again Told you you would post again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalite
It's been a very personal experience and my experience with God is that he manifests in people's lives in personal ways, but I've found is that those who have had encounters with him report that is nature is unconditionally loving and that's one theme that remains to me.
Well given wishful thinking makes up much of the motivation for people thinking there is a god, I have no doubt that imagining it has pretty attributes is going to be near universal. There is little motivation to create and imagine an unconditionally cruel and malignant god for example. Except those religions who invent devils and the like to curse other people to/with.
But certainly universality in imagining these attributes does not constitute evidence the actual entity exists. Quite the opposite in fact. Such shared themes belie the shared motivations for the fantasies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalite
My posts are for people already seeking, who already are open to the possibility of these things happening.
I think you unjustly and disingenuously conflate "I do not believe what you are saying" with "I am not open to the possibility that what you are saying could be true". They are massively different positions to hold indeed. I hold the first one, not the latter one. I am perfectly open to the possibility there is a god. But it does not matter how open a box is if you have nothing to put in it.
I can be open and open and open to the POSSIBILITY there is a god... but this does not change the fact that no one, much less yourself, are offering me even a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there actually IS.
All you are saying in other words is "You will believe me if you believe me otherwise you wont". Which is essentially saying nothing.
I look forward to the next post you wont be making but actually will be. It seems when you "walk away" you walk in a complete circle back again. One wonders how you expect anyone to find truth in your words when you can not even be true to yourself.
Oh goodie, another chance to apply "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forum posting" which states "the probability of any user posting again on a thread actually increases in proportion to the number of times they indicate they won't be."
More evidence comes forth to support your "first law."
Nozz's rule strikes again Told you you would post again.
Well given wishful thinking makes up much of the motivation for people thinking there is a god, I have no doubt that imagining it has pretty attributes is going to be near universal. There is little motivation to create and imagine an unconditionally cruel and malignant god for example. Except those religions who invent devils and the like to curse other people to/with.
But certainly universality in imagining these attributes does not constitute evidence the actual entity exists. Quite the opposite in fact. Such shared themes belie the shared motivations for the fantasies.
I think you unjustly and disingenuously conflate "I do not believe what you are saying" with "I am not open to the possibility that what you are saying could be true". They are massively different positions to hold indeed. I hold the first one, not the latter one. I am perfectly open to the possibility there is a god. But it does not matter how open a box is if you have nothing to put in it.
I can be open and open and open to the POSSIBILITY there is a god... but this does not change the fact that no one, much less yourself, are offering me even a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there actually IS.
All you are saying in other words is "You will believe me if you believe me otherwise you wont". Which is essentially saying nothing.
I look forward to the next post you wont be making but actually will be. It seems when you "walk away" you walk in a complete circle back again. One wonders how you expect anyone to find truth in your words when you can not even be true to yourself.
But I am being true to myself. I'm just a little taken aback that people can be so flat. It all seems so open and obvious to me, like drinking water or walking with the lights on, but I'm being asked for proof of things that to me is as obvious as looking at an elephant and when I point out the elephant, I'm being told the elephant isn't there. It's a little puzzling to me and the reason why i keep saying we'd have to just agree to disagree is because I'm getting a lesson in how perception shapes reality. It's basically my way of saying that I'm realizing that some things are better not getting into if you know there's really no hope there. What else is there to say? We'd end up running in circles.
The same way I am certain I am speaking with another being on this forum, I am certain that I've had an experience with Him. I know. Because when it happened, there was no mistaking. The energy I felt was unconditionally loving, all powerful and yet gentle, and all things good, pure and perfect and I knew that He existed within me and in all things but that He had a part all His own and it is that part that I know I will never be able to understand. God, from what I experienced, goes far beyond my own comprehension and nothing can fully capture his essence.
I have no reason to lie to you or even try to prove my claim to you. I don't even know you and your judgement has no bearing on my life whatsoever. I'm only telling you my experience.
No matter how realistic or convincing your experience with god, it is a personal subjective experience that cannot impact others except to the extent they might have a similar personal subjective experience. The key thing is: no experience, nothing to talk about. I think you realize this.
However, even if you and I had similar personal subjective experiences, neither of us can produce actual proof or evidence of the validity of our interpretation of that experience that would be accepted by any and all random objective persons. As such, no matter how emotionally satisfying or comforting or impressive or positive the experience, it's still just a personal subjective experience. It is no different than me commenting on the wonderful pink elephants cavorting in the sky, and you squinting up and not seeing them. Even if the pink elephants transform my life, save me from myself and turn me into a better person, they have no independent reality to confirm them. On the other hand, you and I can agree that a cloudless and unpolluted sky is blue at mid-day, that Obama is the name of the current US President, what today's date is, etc., because everyone on the planet who is sane has an identical experience of those things.
We rightly raise our eyebrow at the late Hugo Chavez's assertion that the US moon landing was staged in Hollywood and that the 9/11 attacks were a US government conspiracy because these things are established historic fact with millions of people sharing those experiences substantially as history represents them. Chavez's need for these things to be true because of his hatred of the US government is a much more plausible explanation for him adhering to these ideas, than that they have any actual validity. So even with respect to the historic record, there has to be commonality of experience.
I submit, with all due respect, that your need to believe certain things about how the universe works, and how you fit into it, are a better explanation for how you receive personal subjective experience that seems to reinforce those ideas, than your explanation. The unique things about religious ideation, particularly those of the major faiths, is that large numbers of people buy into particular interpretations simply because it scratches an itch. This does not make it so, however.
If I had the equipment and expertise to do so, I guarantee that I could hook you up to some equipment, throw a switch and create instant feelings of transcendance, love, non-duality and an absolutely convincing presence of a loving, benign Presence permeating all (or, if my electrodes were a little off, a similarly convincing presence of a malevolent, malignant presence permeating all). That you can do this for yourself and are convinced by it says much about you and little about any hypothetical god, particularly some specific god like the Christian god.
I honestly don't mean any disrespect, I'm not suggesting you are an idiot. I am a former theist and if you're an idiot, so was I. That's not the point. I'm just saying that accepting personal subjective experience as evidence for a particular backstory is not a valid proof of anything.
Your definition of atheism is a faith. It's a faith that no higher power exists. BUt you attempt to rationalize it by claiming there is no evidence for his existence. People of other faiths also do the same. Just look up the definition of faith and all things point to exactly what we both are saying, nevertheless we come to different conclusions. The staunchness of any position is a leap of faith in this life. All things are not set in stone.
You'll despise this, but some things need to be believed to be seen. But you do not believe in the existence of a God and therefore you do not see him, even though He is ever present in your midsts, within you and without.
But I've come to see that some people will refuse something, if only for pride and fear, and take it to their graves. I'm an ever changing being and I see the effects of God even in this conversation.
Good day to you, sanspeur. I think we'd just have to agree to disagree.
Oh silly me, I really thought we were discussing religious faith....You know strong belief and conviction that things unseen and with not a shred of evidence are true....I have no such faith, but what I do have is reasonable expectations that that for which there is evidence are true...For instance, since science has figured out the precise timing of the sunrise, I fully expect the sun to rise tomorrow according to those predictions....This is NOT faith....Not believing in god is NOT faith....It is the absence of faith.
Despite what many claim, it's absolutely a faith! It's a clinging many times to science and what can be seen or proven as fact. But for many of it's followers it leaves very little room for what can't be seen. I'm not saying that's for everyone. With all things there's exceptions (spiritual atheism as an example). But it's a faith imo.
Clinging to Science? Actually, this post shows your remarkable personal lack of understanding of The Scientific Method, which is simply a process (<sigh> you have no idea how tiring it's becoming to have to continuously repeat this, but then, when dealing with the established intransigentiá, what can we expect, really?)
A truly ethical scientist (which is literally every one that I have met during my >> 45 yr profesional science career. Unlike the dire but totally irresponsible picture which fundies like to post about us, as if they actually knew anything about how science works, that we're a bunch of conspiratorial buffoons who just go with anything that is anti-Christian. How insulting, not to mention a big FAT lie! Good on yah, laddie!)...
Anyhow... those ethical scientists are limited to investigating hypothetical ideas & statements or supposed facts through the established logic of that SM. Can you perhaps show us,via yur vast persuhnuhl gnaw-ludg on the subject, by outlining, in simple point form, the first, let's say, 4 points of that process?
Otherwise, how on earth can you criticize or debunk something you seem to have a pathologically inept understanding of?
I mean, does the SM and it's process and indisputable outcomes frighten those of the Christian faith that much?
After all, when done as per the correct terms and conditions (mostly assured by the subsequent peer review process before any publication), it also provides all the tools and methods so that you can go ahead and use to check it out yourself.
So tell me why Christians never choose to take up this utterly simple challenge. As in: test it yourself to show us where we went so terribly wrong, or where we added in some bias or where we lied.
Science takes on any challenge. Any hypothesis. It's just that Christians never EVER offer up any rational hypotheses to show the unquestionable aspects of their chosen faith. Why not, for god's sake? Fear is the obvious answer. Show us why and where your faith-based story is well supported. Just one situation from the bible would provide us some need to test further. But nope. NEVER. Hmmm...
Scientists, it seems, are born curious and generally seem to have an intrinsic need to question the less likely, such as the timeless but increasingly illogical and easily disproven claims of the bible.
As an alternate, you seem to be ready to take, on principle alone, and without any validating tests whatsoever, any biblical claim as being unquestionably absolute, just because God or Jesus said so. Well, I call "Bloviation" on it all, since you seem to want to deny us logisticians(another demonstrable definition for "scientist" btw...) the option of simply testing such things.
What is so wrong, pray tell, with a simple test of a biblical claim? Why reduce the results to, for example, simple approval where we're told that Noah took all the dinosaur species (3000+ so far...) onto the Ark in sufficient numbers to ensure their ecologically possible reproductible survival post disembarkation?
Of course, you DO understand that it always takes several hundred, if not thousands, of each species, times two (To Wit: a male & a female. You also understand that principle too I'd hope...) and placement in the correct ecological niche/habitat in order for them to even have the slightest possible hint of survival. Not on the top of an ice-encrusted mountain in Europe. Thousands of miles from their original homes? Riiigghhhttt. You got it.
But nope. They confidently tell me, for example, that none of any of the earth's plants had to be on board (so all terrestrial plants can endure 18 mo under salt water?)
WOW! I had NO IDEA! Must be that silly scientist's blind faith, eh?. Then they go on to tell us that obviously any fish, be lt marine or fresh water species, tropical or Arctic, would obviously be just fine in a mixed saline/fresh water environment during that fludd. You know, when God just fludds it all to well over 28,000 ft in order to cover Mt. Everest, all within 40 days... (<sigh>), mixing the warm Amazon River and it's tropical fishies, deep into the cold Pacific and Atlantic oceans? With nary any consequences.
Again, I HAD NO IDEA! I best get my uselessly educated hide back to skoohl, yah?
You can see where we biologist & engineering types might just hold your insistent but blitheratious claims in some slight disregard, yes? But... uhmmm... if not, tell me/us why on earth we should just go with your claims of our "blind" faith.
Enough. Your turn. I await your enlightening response.
It's been a very personal experience and my experience with God is that he manifests in people's lives in personal ways, but I've found is that those who have had encounters with him report that is nature is unconditionally loving and that's one theme that remains to me. The aim is not to isolate you when I say these things, not even to offend you, it's just that you haven't experienced it for yourself and it's almost impossible to take my word on it, nor do I even want you to. My posts are for people already seeking, who already are open to the possibility of these things happening. Beyond that, there's no hope of me imparting any of this information to you because we see it from different eyes. I only share with you what my experience has been. Subjective though it may be, it does not discredit the validity of the experience. It is enough for me, though it may not be for you. And I'm perfectly fine with that. You, I see, are not.
Why in the world would you post stuff like this in a forum for Atheism and Agnosticism? That makes absolutely no sense to me, and seems to possibly open yourself up to moderator action since proselytizing is strictly forbidden in this forum. http://www.city-data.com/forum/athei...sub-forum.html
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Told you you would post again. 
Oh my. Again? Do we have to do it all again?
