I
ItTakesAllKinds
Guest
Athiest: My spiritual beliefs are far too precious to me to argue or debate about them with someone who believes their way is the only right way.
- Status
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
That pretty much sums it up. I am aware that this is what you believe, but there is no evidence that you are correct. The Bible is merely a collection of ancient scripts. The church is just a human institution. There is nothing at all which would point to a divine origin. God most certainly does NOT speak to the non-Christians. No one speaks for God, not the Bible, not the church, not the magisterium, not the pope, nobody. Only God could speak for himself, using our language. And that - unfortunately! - does not happen. It would be rather nice.Last time I checked, the Bible and the Church’s teachings are in English. It’s not “I don’t understand” that’s your complaint – it’s “I don’t like the way you choose to communicate.” World of difference there, VL…
No shunning here – God has communicated with us. You’re just complaining that you don’t like the media or the means.
Huh? I’m not the one who’s upset here… I’m cool with the way my God has communicated with me. You’re the one who seems bent out of shape that God doesn’t accommodate your whims.
God has communicated with his children. You’re the one who says “I don’t like the way he’s done it, and therefore, that proves he hates me.” That just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, outside of teenage angst culture.
Generally, I used to think you are much more rational than the majority of the posters around here. But when you insert such nonsense as: You’re the one who says “I don’t like the way he’s done it, and therefore, that proves he hates me.”. And then you say: You’re just complaining that you don’t like the media or the means. You should realize that I do not recognize it as communication. Honestly, I don’t. And no non-Christian does either.
Due to these problems I have to realize that my assessment of your rationality was incorrect. And that makes me rather sad.
When will you realize that your “method” cannot lead to the Christian God?Thank you. Can we dispose of the tired old “there’s no method” claim, then?
“Purely” spiritual? No more human incarnation? Or maybe that human incarnation was only a figment of the believers’ collective imagination. That would make sense.
Hurting? Why on Earth would I be “hurting”? You really don’t understand anything. And if you want, you can be as sarcastic as you want. I stick to my old maxim: “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”… and I am still here.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A consistent atheist doesn’t believe in spiritual reality of any description!
T
tonyrey
Guest
There’s no heat in the atheist’s kitchen for the simple reason there’s no kitchen, no plan, no organisation, no such thing as “rationality”! In “your” scheme of things everything is supposed to exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever. There’s no “I” or “you”, just fortuitous conglomerations of mindless molecules…
R
Russell_SA
Guest
I’ll try to be more clear next time. Concluding that the argument for the deity’s existence in actual reality makes the deity look no different than a literary figure as well was what I was trying to illustrate there. It was an attempt to point out that the argument presented for why someone believes that their deity actually exists came across as no different than an argument for a deity presented as a literary figure as well. How can their argument distinguish between the two? It’s the logical problem that Premise A leads to conclusion B and C. Which one is it? B or C or something else as well?When you say “the deity seems like a literary figure, not a real being”, it’s not a ‘critique’ so much as a personal conclusion. Sorry for having to point that out, but it seemed obvious to me.
Isn’t that what the religious are claiming though? that their deity exists in some super reality, super nature, super environment or where ever out side of ours?No. But when you close the argument with “cars don’t exist in reality”, we kind of get the idea that this is what you really think, regardless how fervently you claim otherwise. Maybe you mis-spoke; maybe what you claim you believe is what you really believe. I’m gonna take a page out of your book: I can’t reach a conclusion – I can only go by the evidence you provide.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No, no. It was during one of those panel interviews he was so fond of doing during the 2000s and he was very considerate of the question as it pointedly asked him what it would take for conversion.
He essentially described a Damascus Road event, but then qualified with with the notion that he’d likely just dismiss it as a hallucination. I thought it was very honest of him to say that, as he’s the current “pope” for western atheists.
You can find it one Youtube (where I watched it), although I don’t recall the exact title of the panel.
As you’ve mentioned earlier, it appears we do believe what we want, theists and atheists alike.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Can’t say I disagree with you.
You could as you say conclude it was a hallucination. You could conclude you were imagining things. You could conclude you have in fact encountered God, but at later time doubt this.
If one does in fact directly encounter God, in that moment there is no doubt one has encountered God. It seems undeniable. At a later time, one will question if in fact this was the case, or it was imagination, and generated as a result of wanting to believe it.
The one thing I will say for the atheist position is God is somewhat elusive. He is not obvious. As such there is considerable margin for doubt, and according to the philosophy of minkmurph the supernatural is consistently accompanied by a rationale explanation. In defense of God I would say if I wanted someone to believe in me, I would probably play the hand in a similar way.
As an advocate, I need people to believe in me. Telling them I exist will not prompt them to believe in me. Neither will telling them how brilliant I am and what I could potentially do for them. Neither will telling them I can deliver they want and in fact it is more often the case the advocate cannot deliver what the client wants than they can. We more inclined to believe in someone who stays in background, seeks to empower us to make our sound decisions but where we do not, does not condone our bad decisions and seek to make bad things go away but is there for us.
As an independent advocate I have a website and produce a newsletter. If people don’t want to go on my website or receive my newsletter that is there prerogative, but my website and newsletter let people know I am there if they need me. There is nothing I can do for them unless they are willing to initially take a step in my direction, and that first step is up to them. I cannot establish a relationship of trust and confidence with them unless they are prepared to take that first tentative step in terms of a willingness to believe me. So it is with God. The atheist can never expect to generate a believe in God until such times as they are prepared to take that first tentative a step in His direction not in terms of I now have proof God in fact exists, but in terms of I desire a relationship with God. Can’t promise it will work out, but if you never seek to meet someone you will never know whether or not they exist or if there is any benefit in having a relationship with them.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
I don’t get it. Believe IN you? Believe in your existence? Please explain what you mean here.
Unfortunately, God does NOT have a website to visit.
A relationship with someone is impossible if one does not know that the other party exists - beyond any doubt. Can you “desire” to have a relationship with the Easter Bunny?
T
Thom18
Guest
Last time I checked, the Bible and the Church’s teachings are in English. It’s not “I don’t understand” that’s your complaint – it’s “I don’t like the way you choose to communicate.” World of difference there, VL…
No shunning here – God has communicated with us. You’re just complaining that you don’t like the media or the means.
Huh? I’m not the one who’s upset here… I’m cool with the way my God has communicated with me. You’re the one who seems bent out of shape that God doesn’t accommodate your whims.
God has communicated with his children. You’re the one who says “I don’t like the way he’s done it, and therefore, that proves he hates me.” That just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, outside of teenage angst culture.
No. So… why are you claiming that you do?
You’re just not paying attention, then. Besides which, take a look at all the intentions that include the Lord’s Prayer… you know, the one that says “thy will be done”?
Thank you. Can we dispose of the tired old “there’s no method” claim, then?
And there we go. Even after agreeing that empirical methods cannot prove the existence of a purely spiritual God, we’re back to “well, ok… but you need to provide physical proof.” So much for rationality…
If it weren’t obvious that you’re hurting, I’d respond with sarcasm. As it is, I’ll offer my wishes (and prayers) that you find peace.
:clapping:
M
minkymurph
Guest
Believing in someone is a completely different thing to acknowledging they exist. I know lots of people exist but I don’t believe in them in that I do not think they; have my best interest at heart, care about me, would be there when the chips are down, their advice is sound, they are trustworthy, and many other things that constitute believing in someone. You don’t form a close friendship simply because they exist nor purely because they are someone else’s friend. You don’t marry someone simply because they exist or a complete stranger thinks they may be a good catch. People who enter into a relationship with God do not do so simply because they believe He exists.
There is no doubt one can desire a relationship with an Easter Bunny. If one is convinced the Easter Bunny does not exist it is unlikely one would seek a establish a relationship with it. People who believe in God believe they have a relationship with God. If God does not in fact exist then they have a relationship with an imaginary friend.Unfortunately, God does NOT have a website to visit.
B
Bradski
Guest
There was this other website I used to visit regularly. On the weekends. Most of Sunday in fact. I kept logging on but got zero response. Eventually I came to the realisation that there was no-one there.
Your website can only help people if you respond to them.
R
reggieM
Guest
That does seem reasonable, but perhaps website is not the best analogy. It is too mechanistic. Logging in is good and necessary but something more is needed.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Vera_Ljuba never addressed the point about the atheist’s Road to Damascus conversion based on first hand personal experience of evidence who then finds themself unable to convince other skeptics that they aren’t lying/deluded.Sure, but I usually only get this far…
Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “OK great, Jesus physically rose from the dead.”
Atheist: “No He didn’t”
Christian: “Oh, so you actually DONT believe physical evidence”
You see, the irony here is that when the uber-skeptic sees physical evidence with their own eyes and they have that Road-to-Damascus conversion experience, the first thing they want to do is go running to tell their atheist friends - and have a guess what response they receive.
B
Bradski
Guest
A Damascian moment is not evidence. The reiteration of what the person experienced is personal testimony at best (‘Hey, I heard someone talking to me’).
M
minkymurph
Guest
In that case I could correctly conclude there is no one in numerous government departments, and many other establishments.
B
Bradski
Guest
Hi. Your call is important to us. Please note that it may be monitored for training purposes. If you are trying to contact someone already dead, please press 1. If you are requesting an answer to a prayer, please press 2. If you wish to confess, please press 3. If you are an atheist and wish to make a complaint, then please press 4. To hear these options again, press hash. If you are in a life and death situation and require immediate assistance, then please hold and an operator will be with you shortly.In that case I could correctly conclude there is no one in numerous government departments, and many other establishments.
Harp music plays interminably in the backround…
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Thank you. Now I understand what you mean. But the first thing is still the same - to make sure that your existence is beyond any doubt. Only when the are fully convinced that YOU exist, can you build upon that platform, and give them reasons to “believe IN you” or to “trust you”.
Only a very small child can do that. As a matter of fact, my parents saved a letter, that I wrote to the Easter Bunny. It quite cute.
Correct.
Nothing wrong with that either. But to base one’s whole life on an imaginary friend is pretty scary.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yep :yup:
M
minkymurph
Guest
Can’t say I’ve ever heard the, ‘If you are an atheist’ option. Are you sure you don’t just have a chip on your shoulder?
M
minkymurph
Guest
This is what I meant about the entrenched position. If one is convinced God does not exist, they are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise irrespective of what evidence is presented. The same can be said of the believer in the alternative. As such from the outset both sides believe they are right and the other wrong, exchanges focus on proving the other side wrong to a greater extent than bolstering their position, both sides consider the oppositions arguments through a lens of derision with a certain degree of derision if not outright contempt, both sides believe their position is the preferable if not the superior position. A further impediment is lack of common denominator in terms of what constitutes viable evidence.
This is why debates between two opposing sides entrenched in their respective positions characteristically go around in circles and result in stalemate. Although it is not uncommon both sides to believe they have essentially won. The most persuasive advocates are those that present arguments that appeal not to them but the decision maker. A judge once said to me the best advocates are the one’s who write your closing. This is next to impossible when presenting arguments to a party who views the situation through an entrenched position lens. Living in Northern Ireland I have plenty of experience of this.
- Status