156 replies to this topic

[Mike Summers]

(edited by ms)

Posted 27 July 2016 - 05:30 PM

Mike the wiz said:

I have noticed that, it's a subtle begging-the-question, because it gets the atheist into the, "no ideological position" category, or, "no belief system", as though the atheist position is somehow excluded from discussion as some type of objectively correct position.

Absolutely. Atheism is only one belief of a multi-belief indidual. That's one of the points I've been tring to make since I've been here. They fail to acknowledge that disbelief in God does not change the rest of their dysfunctional ideas. We're not treated usually to the rest of the alleged atheists beleifs. They are a mystery.

Mike the wi: Goku says, "why is your God the correct on". I believe I can give some good reasons. But why is his none-God ideology the correct one? that leas some to think they hae some sort neutal or as ou said are ieolog free. Hardly!

Mike s: Apparently because he sees himself as an authority figure. Therefore, only what he decides is true can be true.

Mike the wiz: Can you see the problem, he expects us to believe that macro-evolution is a fact and abiogenesis is inevitable and that it actually happened, along with the big-bang tornado-in-a-junkyard, that created a 747 jet. Why is that the correct position?

I know you can guess my position on this one. But I will say it for our readers sake. Bottom line is intelligence and intelligence can create works of fiction I.E. Star Trek, Star Wars etc. Darwin was intelligent so he conceived and wrote a story. All he had to do was call it a theory and let a bunch of gullible people read it. As for my part, bottom line if I wanted universe I would create it.
I know of no other way than to start anthing than with intelligence. It's the main ingredient to knowing anything.

Mike the wiz: I think the strongest implication that the bible is the correct word from God, is that it's influence on the world has been more powerful than any other book, if we look across history. Meaning that if God is NOT the God of the bible, then most people would agree that He has at least made it look like the bible is the correct message. It gives good answers to why people behave the way they do, and why the world is the way it is, it gives a meaningful and amazing message about Christ, and provides incredible wisdom from His words that a fictional writer would struggle to match. Simply put, the first thing "God" should have done, is not allow the bible's existence, because the other holy books, if one of them is true, or some other religion is true, are in second place by a long, long way. A metaphorical country mile. The deep questions of the human heart need answers, and the bible gives satisfying ones that actually mean something.

Mike S: The opening of the book of Genesis tells us in a nutshell what man's problem is. Man has taken to himself the knowledge of good and evil. Since I have given up gorging myself on the tree of good and evil I am the happiest I've ever been in my life.

As Scripture says, "See that you be not troubled for these things must come to pass." Now, that's good advice

[Mike Summers]

Mike the wiz,

Mike S: Apparently because he sees himself as an authority figure. Therefore, only what he decides is true can be true.

Mike the wiz: That's what I see a lot in these debates Mike, it seems to me Goku always assumes that his morality is the correct one.

Yes. That's it, Mike. All the rhetoric about there being no morality external to his mind is a ruse. It's smoke and mirrors. His morality is indicated by the things he says and does! Behavior is always inndicative of our morality! "By their fruit you will know them." To claim there is no obective morality is self-deception. It's nonsense. "I am not doing what I am doing."

 

Consider his "view" of us? We are guilty of bashing even when we make the claim we have not done such things. So, in application he forgives only the people he thinks (practicing his morality) deserves it. That's not love for everone but just the ones he thinks deserve it (his morality in action once again).

He doesn't seem to understand that when he reasons to us, why he is correct, he is simply giving us some relative statements. Example; "I see no harm therefore there isn't any morality".

This is a part of his self deception
his behavior shows and demonstrates his "morals" (another name for beliefs) he uses.

Until Goku realises his own mistakes, (such as the exampled argumentum ad ignorantiam), then unfortunately he will put sophistry ahead of sound reasoning, IMHO. He seems to think that common atheist arguments are something special we haven't heard of before and we don't understand. He seems to think the usual, old-canard criticisms of scripture, are something hard and new we have to deal with, not realising that thousands have had the same thoughts "occur" to them before him.

While Goku is a lovable troll, nevertheless his tactics are evasion, IMHO. "evasive manoeuvres Mr Scott"

I hope Goku doesn't see this as a personal attack, it's not meant to be. I just think that he presumes that we have never done any homework and are unaware of the arguments he poses, but believe it or not Mike, I could actually tell him what he will argue and write it on a piece of paper, before he argues it.

Its not an attack just our effort to play a part in undeceiving him. Apparently, we are not doinnng to well. LOL

Mike. After 35 year of practicing therapy a pattern emerges. LOL

None of the reasons he has given actually change anything. Morality is also about motive, and atheists' motives in attacking the bible, are not moral. They purposefully search for scriptures and do not consciously acknowledge any unity-of-scripture, meaning they will cherry-pick verses without letting the rest of the bible interpret how those scriptures should apply to us. I.e. Goku assumes atheism on our behalf then proceeds as though we have agreed that each scripture is a disjointed, disparate dictum. In fact some scriptures don't teach us much of anything, they just pronounce or are a recording of events, they do not necessarily say anything about how we should behave like the atheist seems to presume.

For example, if God says something about the G*y-act, that can in no way change the scriptures about how we should behave towards people anyway. Christ our example, befriended sinners, prostitutes, etc....

One of the core ideas Jesus explained was, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Forgvenss is readily available, we are equals and no one is any better than anyone else. Focusing on g*ys as sinners above all blinds us and we then fail to examine ourself to acknowledge the many sins "we" commit. Goku seems to realise this but doesen't apply it evenly. He has sustituded us for what he thinks we feel towrds g*ys. Now, we are the the miscreants. He has now aimed the hostility he thinks he has given up towards us. Hate is hate. All he has done is redirected it at insteaad of g*ys. W are have become his unrepentant unforgiven sinners.

God, whom I totally agree with, suggest we give up the idea of hate (evil) altogether!

From reading his prose, I get the impression that Goku thinks he left a dysfunctional religion (Christianity) when he has only added a new belief (disbelief in God) to his religion (his philosophy of life).

What he seems to fail to realize is that God is only one of many beings. Currently, there are 7 billion beings on on our planet. Minusing one being from his belief system doesn't really mean much.

God is not the problem any more than you or I are. Goku is still left with Goku at the end of the day--along with the same core idea Adam & Eve accepted from the fallen Angel--externals and what others say and do cause his intenal turmiol and not his stinking thinking. He does not accept the sovereignty of himself as an individual. Nor that of others. His name could be legion.

At least to their credit g*ys have acepted forgiveness for themsellves and learned not to bother themselves over what others think. LOL Look at all the victims on the planet. Goku is in good company.

Relationships alway ocur in two's, father & son, dad & mom, mom & son, goku & you, Goku & me, you & me, etc. This componet is dimisihed when Goku et al perpetuates the neurotic agreement "'group" we are supposed to belong to.

I see myself as an individual responsible for how I treat other idividuals. I have not created hate for him or anyone else in quitte awhite. LOL However, I can't say from reading his prose he does not do the same for us. LOL He is very definitely "us vs them" in his thinking--one of many ideas we don't share. I am not against anyone. I don't do us vs. them's. LOL

Goku thinks we are the problem. Yet, like all of us he is a victim of his own mind. As I have said on numeous occasions, "We are doing it to ourselce and the only way to stop is to quit."

Again, from his rhetoric the core dysfunctional idea that remains in Goku's belief is that others thinking and emotions somehow have a profound effect on him and our fellow human beings. This is the core idea--the deception that Satan fostered off on mankind in the Garden of Eden.

Lets see how this deception played off in Dallas Texas. One young man formed a neurotic agreement to belonging to a group. Keep in mind I am claiming a group has no controlling brain. The young guman created another neurotic agreement in his mind that others because of their different skin color belong to a different group. The error that the young man made is that he is abusing the concept "group" subtly concluding that there is somehw a connecetion between people that isn't there. Each of us are in connntrol of ourselves. There is no "group" brain that can conntrol individuals. With his illusion of fusion in place--his neurotic agreements in place he personalizes perhaps a wrong comitted by a member of an "offending" group and then decided to kill innocent individuals that hadn't done anything to him.

When we fail to see ourselves and others as individuals we can indulge ourseles in some extremly pernicious reasoning.

Person A kills person B and so person C kills persons, D,E,and F and no doubt would have continued killing had not person G killed person A to end A's mudering spree.

[mike the wiz]

I deleted that post Mike responded to because I didn't want to personally attack Goku. I said, "lovable troll", which was only mischief but I wouldn't class Goku as a troll. Perhaps my post was a little ad-hominem Mike, so I have obeyed my own rules and deleted it, but I don't mind if Goku wants to take revenge upon me.

 

 

I agree Mike, I originally only used the G*y act as one example, I wasn't picking on G*y people. The world is a mess for many reasons. One thing I would say I perhaps might not agree with you on is that the Goku-guru hates us. I don't really get that sense when we converse, I get the sense I am talking to a cordial Christian in denial of Christianity, not saying what he is saying. Lol.

 

We mean to have you guru! You'll be a full Christian this time next year, my lad!

[Mike Summers]

Mike the wiz said:

I deleted that post Mike responded to because I didn't want to personally attack Goku. I said, "lovable troll", which was only mischief but I wouldn't class Goku as a troll. Perhaps my post was a little ad-hominem Mike, so I have obeyed my own rules and deleted it, but I don't mind if Goku wants to take revenge upon me...

It takes very thick skin to tell people the truth about how they come across to others--to try and undeceive them. The biggest threat I can get is usually their rejection. Rejection is not a pleasant experience. As you noticed I have been rejected and ignored several times.

I too see Gokut and others as sheep that havee gone astray--worth saving. Goku claims by His atheism our God does not exist whih is deeply disrespectful of both God and us. If he can dish it out the least I can do is reflect back his ad homien attack on God he wears like a badge of honor!

It is indeed an upleasant experience to be rejected--to be patted on my pointed head and patronied as an imbecille. But, I would gladly risk being rejected to blast through someone's nonsense for their sake--because God did that for me. I am not attacking Goku but the nonsense he keeps spouting off. If I am going to do the "job" I promissed God I would do when He told me the truth about human dsturbance, I have to treat him like myself.

I agree Mike, I originally only used the G*y act as one example, I wasn't picking on G*y people. The world is a mess for many reasons. One thing I would say I perhaps might not agree with you on is that the Goku-guru hates us.

I am not talking about "hate" in the typical sense but hate in the sense that he does not see us as his equal. As you know the bible says "faithful" are the wounds of a friend. A friend will tell us the truth about ourselves--even if it is unpopular and appears to "hurt" our feelings.

I don't really get that sense when we converse, I get the sense I am talking to a cordial Christian in denial of Christianity, not saying what he is saying. Lol.

No of course not. He stays here for some reason to recieve all the rebuttal we give him. I have to give him credit for that. LOL I can not go as far as God went to break through Job's self righteousness but, I try to come close. LOL

 

[mike the wiz]

 

 

Mike: I am not attacking Goku but the nonsense he keeps spouting off

 

Fair enough Mike. 

[Mike Summers]

Mike the wiz, I dcided to revisit some of Goku's prose.

What we are trying to say is that the morality you think is coming from God, is in fact the relative morality of a sect of people some two to three thousand years ago.

We have a choice of morals we choose to apply. We can also create our own. This is nonsense because it blames a buncf dead people for whar we choose to do or not do today (our contemporary personal morality).
Source is insignficant. the effect of the morals we choos to apply is the real issue.

It's like saying because someone 2,000 years ago killed someone, I have the right to do the same. Goku avoids making himselllf and us individually responsible for what we say and do. He blames the non- existant entity "group" hoping we will deem ourselves guilt by assocation witht the group. Not!

The individuals in the Nazi group killed 9 million people. Therfore, because you are a German. you are responsible for what the individual Nazi Germans did! Can we see how distorted this reasoning is?

Personally, the morals that I have decided to create and use in interfacng with others do no includde killing other beings--nor bashing them. It's not guilt by association.

Once again we are treated to a view of Goku's distorted thinking.
He keeps failing to see humans as individuals. Instead he resorts to the neurotic agreement "group", and then blames the "group" he created as if belonging to a group means there is some kind of group mind that controls its members. The fact that individual memebers of a so called group act other than he seems to infer they must is ignored. Your reasoning is not very precision or scienntific. Too bad Goku! All 7 billion people on the earth are indviduals. Treat them thusly.

We are warned in the bible not to give our power (our free choice) to the beast (a leader telling us to do wrong to others).
 

[Goku]

I deleted that post Mike responded to because I didn't want to personally attack Goku. I said, "lovable troll", which was only mischief but I wouldn't class Goku as a troll. Perhaps my post was a little ad-hominem Mike, so I have obeyed my own rules and deleted it, but I don't mind if Goku wants to take revenge upon me.

 

 

I agree Mike, I originally only used the G*y act as one example, I wasn't picking on G*y people. The world is a mess for many reasons. One thing I would say I perhaps might not agree with you on is that the Goku-guru hates us. I don't really get that sense when we converse, I get the sense I am talking to a cordial Christian in denial of Christianity, not saying what he is saying. Lol.

 

We mean to have you guru! You'll be a full Christian this time next year, my lad!

 

I won't seek revenge lol.

 

Good luck converting me though; rarely does one go back to religion once they have left it.

[Mike Summers]

Goku said:

Good luck converting me though; rarely does one go back to religion once they have left it.

Now, this demonstrates the level of unawareness of yourself you function under. You have never followed a love only regime. And you don't now, based of the rhetoric coming from you.

All you did, gleaned from what I read you write, is minused the concept God from your philosophy (religion by another name) and substituted yourself as a god. That wouldn't be all bad if you were a truly nice god. LOL

In actuality you never gave up hate & blame just changed who you mainly aim it at! You even aim it at yourself and seem blissfully unaware of that.

I was just like you years ago before I had a Job experience--when I turned the corner and ran into myself! Thus, I gave up hating and blaming others for what I was deceived into creating for myself--my internal self abuse. I had-diagnosed it as being caused by externals.

We as humans are largely self punishing beings. If we trigger anger at another it is us that feels that anger--not the being or thing we are angry at. When we trigger anger, it's foolish to blame another. That's a miss-diagnosis as we control our thinking which triggers our emotions-- not others. Others most likely believe we cause their anger. Two wrongs don't cause a right! LOL If I were to create hate for you, I would feel that hate not you!

If I don't like the emotion hate, why should I think the thoughts that would trigger it? Doing that sounds dumb to me! That's why I chose to not do it as little as possible.

I have not taken it upon myself to convert you! One can't win a power struggle with an equal. All I am doing is telling you my story. I think you have the right to know what you are dong to yourself. It's your job to rule you. You have never done anything to offend me or make me "mad" at you. As a rule I do not ignore other beings. Howevee when the choose to use violelnce I try to distannce mself as much as possile. LOL

You can't offend me because "I" control the processing of anything you say or do to me. "I" don't like feeling negative emotions. So, I choose not to trigger them by telling my self stupd stuff like, "You shouldn't have said those things to poor innocent little ole me." Baloney.
Deceived people always do what they should and never do what they shouldn't!

I think you have the same power as I do. I'd lke to see you use it to create peace for yoursellf as well as export it for sale to others!

In reality, the vast majority of mankind are their own enemies. That's the nature of autonomy. But, we don't have to be mean, cruel and unforgiving to ourselves and others. We can be kind, merciful and forgiving (acceptors of reality). We can give up the role of adversary and victim which seems to permeate your prose--your "us vs them" headset--your neurotic "group" controls us concepts. You can then view and treat yourslf and all of us as individuals-- instead of your, "You belong to that group so, if one of "your" members does something you (Goku) thinks they shouldn't, the whole "group" is guilty of the same wrong." Surely, you can see the folly of this kind of reasoning!

Just because you gave up the belief in one being (God) does not mean the rest us will disappear. I am not arguing you don't believe we don't exist but would like you to give up your "us vs. them" headset. All I have created for you is affection. What have you created for Mike, and me et al? Do you feel confortable telling us you like us especially that totally lovable guy that has such an enjoyable sense of hunor, Mike the wiz?

The hole may very well be on my side of the boat but that matters little for if you don't help me bale we will all sink as we are all in the same boat--commonly called planet earth.

You need to give up doing it to yourself and blaming it on all things external. Teach others no to do that also. You gave up religion? Indeed? If you believe that, the joke is on you!

These words are not aimed at punishing you (all of us do that so well ourselves) but at everyone that reads this! Accept responsibility for yourself and rule yourself with kindness, love and mercy employing lots of forgiveness for yourself and others. Even Shakespeare had insight enough to say and hopefully believe, "This above all, to thine own self be true then thou cans't not be false to any man."

We all belong to the same human race (as individuals). Even if you don't believe in one being that hardly means the rest of us will cease to exist and aren't made in each others image! Even evo scientists realize that. "I am not like others." Oh yes, we are!

[mike the wiz]

 

 

Goku: Good luck converting me though; rarely does one go back to religion once they have left it.

 

Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek, Goku. I don't realistically think I or anyone else could influence you to become a genuine Christian. I know you have had experience of churchianity, and that's a shame really, because that makes it even more unlikely you will, "return", because from your perspective, you have, "been there done that, got the t-shirt". That's the semantic-trick such a broad category gives you the luxury of. (figure it out). 

 

That's the worst thing in a way, because I think you've only ever had experience of religion, I don't believe you have ever known the Lord's presence or had genuine fellowship with Him.

 

If God exists, then He is not only, "religion" He is also, "reality", meaning having a genuine fellowship with Him, is an actual reality, a true experience. That is what we have, and you never had. How do I know? because had you had that experience you would be forced to say, it wasn't just the group, religion, it was reality also.

 

So I think your past was coloured by the group, "religion", and now to become born again, to your mind, would be to go back to, "religion", the very error we have been trying to show you for the length of this thread. (generalisation, guilt-by-association).

 

We are telling you that God is genuinely there, but is a matter of freewill. Nobody can force you to drop a false opinion that God is just, the group "religion" which means to you, "made up beliefs in supernatural magic" you can lump every belief into except atheism. Lol!

 

It's a matter of freewill.

 

 

 

Mike:You can then view and treat yourself and all of us as individuals-- instead of your, "You belong to that group so if one of "your" members does something you think they shouldn't, the whole "group" is guilty of the same wrong." Surely, you can see the folly of this kind of reasoning!

 

But can he see it? No offense Goku, but do you even "do" reason? I seldom see any evidence that you acknowledge it when you are confronted with it, as though it is a trifle, and your opinion is more important.

[mike the wiz]

 

 

Goku: rarely does one go back to religion once they have left it.

 

That's a bit of a misconception by those who want to promulgate the belief that atheism is the truth and once you realise it there is no going back. It is kind of a false belief that especially anti-theists like to SPREAD, as a bit of an ad-nauseam p.r.a.t.t. In fact I can provide empirical evidence that in the year 2006 I left belief in God, basically. I reasoned like an evolutionists, used their arguments, thought I had given up on God.

 

There are also people that are raised catholic become atheist, then become genuinely Christian like I did. 

 

There isn't this false eureka-moment atheists want us to believe, as though atheism is some sort of undeniable truth and once someone knows it there is no going back. You also have to know what "religion" you have left. Arguably, I left belief in santa behind, but how would that be related to a totally different belief system? 

 

This argument presumes God is like santa, and one inevitably when he becomes atheist, realises this.

 

Yawn. In actual fact, this is simply what the atheist tells him/herself. That's all.

[Magnanimae]

 
Islam does not deny that Christ lived and performed miracles; Christ is considered a prophet of Allah, just not the messiah (recall that the Bible is considered to be corrupted in Islam). Why would you expect a book about Muhammad to feature the wisdom of Jesus? That doesn't make any sense.
 
Those two stories in the Bible are nice, but I think if you are honest you have to admit that you must accept that those stories happened on faith. Why couldn't I go pick out any miracle from any other holy text as evidence of its truth? IIRC there are Hindu stories about God raising people from the dead as well.
 

You are right. I would not expect Jesus' wisdom in the Koran.

I agree that I take those miracles on faith. However, I believe in the Bible for different reasons than miracles. I think when trying to discern the truth about something we should let things be judged on their merits.

We could go pick out miracles from other holy texts, but that would lead us no closer to proving them true.

The point of bringing up Islam, I could have chosen any religion, is that merely asserting that your religion is right, or using the miracles of a given holy text to justify belief (circular reasoning), only works if you presuppose the truth of that religion to begin with. You do not accept the assertions of the Qur'an or Islam unquestioningly, and similarly we do not accept the assertions of the Bible or Christianity unquestioningly.
 

I agree Goku; we should not assume the validity of any religion and blindly believe what they have to offer. All this said, I bear witness to myself that before I became a Christian I did plenty of research into many beliefs and philisophical ideas. I even took college courses in different subjects to expand my knowledge and test Christianity. My point is that you don't need to believe in anything theological/philisophical without looking into it first, but I'm sure you know this and feel the same way towards atheism.

[Fjuri]

That's a bit of a misconception by those who want to promulgate the belief that atheism is the truth and once you realise it there is no going back. It is kind of a false belief that especially anti-theists like to SPREAD, as a bit of an ad-nauseam p.r.a.t.t. In fact I can provide empirical evidence that in the year 2006 I left belief in God, basically. I reasoned like an evolutionists, used their arguments, thought I had given up on God.

 

There are also people that are raised catholic become atheist, then become genuinely Christian like I did. 

 

There isn't this false eureka-moment atheists want us to believe, as though atheism is some sort of undeniable truth and once someone knows it there is no going back. You also have to know what "religion" you have left. Arguably, I left belief in santa behind, but how would that be related to a totally different belief system? 

 

This argument presumes God is like santa, and one inevitably when he becomes atheist, realises this.

 

Yawn. In actual fact, this is simply what the atheist tells him/herself. That's all.

You seem to be under the impression that atheism is the belief that there is no God. That is not the case. Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. Having realized this can be one of the causes why atheists who were theists rarely return to being theists. They've realized they did not believe for any good reason and would not believe unless there was a good reason. This requires new information which they rarely receive.

 

A sample size of 1 is never a good indication, though honestly, I don't think you were really an atheist and more of an evolutionist. You strongly link atheism and evolutionism and therefor didn't make the distinction between the two (my impression anyway).

[mike the wiz]

 

 

Fjuri:  They've realized they did not believe for any good reason

 

But that's a personal, relative position. Obviously the facts themselves do not point to "not God". You can argue there is no good reason to believe God is there but obviously it is only atheists that argue that, from their own point of view, which is ultimately an opinion.

 

With Goku, his belief was predicated not on an encounter with God but with an encounter with religion. A belief in God must be predicated on an encounter with God, not dismissed because of an encounter with religion. But to the atheist-mind there is no difference. That's unfortunate because like you say, you are going from ignorance, when you tacitly admit the following;

 

 

 

Fjuri: This requires new information which they rarely receive.

 

See? How can you dismiss God based on a lack of information. (argument from ignorance).

 

What we are saying is that we have the information, which means you have a lack of information.

 

An innocent man in prison knows he is innocent. He has the information, those who simply say he is guilty by their opinion, are only going from an ignorant opinion and a coloured view of the available data.

 

 

 

Fjuri: You seem to be under the impression that atheism is the belief that there is no God

 

Individual people are different. Some atheists simply lack belief in God but some not only disbelieve in God but are antagonistic towards those who believe in God. (anti-theists). I was referring to my experience of atheist people, not to the definition itself. Sure, a lot of those people were more towards anti-theist, I would concede that. 

 

Reason to believe something, could be regarded as confirmation evidence, and there is plenty of that for God's existence. Obviously some atheists would argue that the evidence itself is insufficient for them personally, but again, that is only a relative opinion. They are stating something about themselves.

 

There are objective reasons that support God existing, and there is personal revelation. The bible says that those who are born of God, have a spiritual revelation. That is true from our perspective. Because you don't have that revelation, we can only testify that you are wrong to think that a true encounter with God is nothing more, than, "religion" given everything else in the group, "religion" would be mutually excluded as false but God is not false, therefore He must be more than just, "religion", if He is also, "reality".

 

We are testifying to you, that there is more to God than, "religion", we are saying you can have an actual encounter with God and know Him personally, and be as assured as we are that we have known His presence. Which is a reality that we know from experience, isn't just, "religion". If we had not had the experience, then we could not know, but we know, having experienced both religion and a genuine encounter, the difference is the difference between night and day. So then, should the Guru dismiss daylight because of his experience of night-time?

[Fjuri]

See? How can you dismiss God based on a lack of information. (argument from ignorance).

 

What we are saying is that we have the information, which means you have a lack of information.

You (and any other theist) have so far been unable to provide the information.

Should you believe something simply because another person claims it?

 

I do not "dismiss God", I do not "accept your claim of God". Do you note the distinction between the two?

 

Reason to believe something, could be regarded as confirmation evidence, and there is plenty of that for God's existence. Obviously some atheists would argue that the evidence itself is insufficient for them personally, but again, that is only a relative opinion. They are stating something about themselves.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to atheism. When I label myself, I indeed only state something about myself.

 

There are objective reasons that support God existing, and there is personal revelation. The bible says that those who are born of God, have a spiritual revelation. That is true from our perspective. Because you don't have that revelation, we can only testify that you are wrong to think that a true encounter with God is nothing more, than, "religion" given everything else in the group, "religion" would be mutually excluded as false but God is not false, therefore He must be more than just, "religion", if He is also, "reality".

Yet no objective reasons that support God existing have been provided, ever. Attempts are made, I'll concede that.

Personal revelation is just that, personal. Obviously some theists would argue that this evidence itself is sufficient for them personally, but again, that is only a relative opinion. They are stating something about themselves.

 

We are testifying to you, that there is more to God than, "religion", we are saying you can have an actual encounter with God and know Him personally, and be as assured as we are that we have known His presence. Which is a reality that we know from experience, isn't just, "religion". If we had not had the experience, then we could not know, but we know, having experienced both religion and a genuine encounter, the difference is the difference between night and day. So then, should the Guru dismiss daylight because of his experience of night-time?

So far, any "encounter with God" as described to me can be replicated using a scientific methodology, in a non divine setting. That makes it very hard to define a "genuine encounter".

[Mike Summers]

Fjuri said:

 

Fjuri: They've realized they did not believe for any good reason.

So, do they now believe God does not exst for for an "evil" reason? LOL Reducng it to a core idea, existence of beings we currently don't know is possible! There are 7 billion beings external to you allegedly on this planet! What percentage of them do you know (approxiately only 2500). That's far less than 1%. That's a lot of beings to not know. I know beings  you don't know and its the same for you. What that menas is that our mind is a finite source of information. So, when you claim there is no God you are exceeding your information base and resorting to a creative act to make that statement.

It would be honest to say, as far as you know there is no God. But you don't know everything do you? I don't know everything either.

Why don't you camp out in fornt of The Magic Kingdom and protest the non existence of Mickey Mouse? LOL
Why the bias fo gods only? LOL

 

You seem to be under the impression that atheism is the belief that there is no God. That is not the case. Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods.

This is a tired classic tautological argument." "I am not saying what I am saying!" "I am not saying my father is blind but he can't see." LOL 'I am not syaing she is a theief but she took something and it doesen't belong to her." Pure nonsense.

Face it, you decided to "create" the belief that there is no God. Lack of belief is a belief. It's not a good idea to believe your own PR (public relations).

[Jambobskiwobski]

Mike Summers - do you believe vampires exist?

[Goku]

You are right. I would not expect Jesus' wisdom in the Koran.

I agree that I take those miracles on faith. However, I believe in the Bible for different reasons than miracles. I think when trying to discern the truth about something we should let things be judged on their merits.

We could go pick out miracles from other holy texts, but that would lead us no closer to proving them true.

 

It is extremely hard to use miracles in a holy text as evidence of that holy text for reasons which I'm sure you're aware of. I agree we should evaluate ideas and belief systems based on the evidence and argumentation for and against those things. 

 

I agree Goku; we should not assume the validity of any religion and blindly believe what they have to offer. All this said, I bear witness to myself that before I became a Christian I did plenty of research into many beliefs and philisophical ideas. I even took college courses in different subjects to expand my knowledge and test Christianity. My point is that you don't need to believe in anything theological/philisophical without looking into it first, but I'm sure you know this and feel the same way towards atheism.

 

Indeed, I did not become an atheist on a whim. I would say it took three to four years of pondering and looking into stuff before I decidedly became an atheist. At first the idea of atheism wasn't even on my radar really; I knew people were atheists but I largely dismissed the notion out of hand due to my background. When I truly started my spiritual journey the question I asked myself was not "does God exist", rather "what conception of God/religion was the most accurate". After all almost every adult that I looked up to and respected growing up was Christian (or Jewish) as far as I knew, different denominations and whatnot but still Christian. When I went to university I had many professors express their belief in God, always Christian if they were explicit in what religion they believed; even my religion professor was a professed Christian and I figured he must know what he is talking about.

 

Of course I had my own experiences as a believer to fall back on, and I took it upon myself to read the Bible and commune with devout believers in study, prayer, community service, and retreats. For a time my faith grew, and I could feel the presence of God surround, penetrate, and bind me to the ground of all being. At the time I was convinced God has communicated to me through a dream, but that's another story. The point is that my faith wasn't merely a Sunday morning ordeal, but an integral part of my life.

 

As fate would have it, the more I delved into the theology, history, and sciences the more I felt a disconnect between reality and this God-centered paradigm that I had developed. Naturally I tweaked my beliefs to accurately reflect reality as I saw it, but before I knew it I had tweaked my beliefs to the point where I was faced with a serious question about the very existence of God. In the end I could not, with good conscience, accept the existence of a theistic God, and thus a new atheist was born.

[Mike Summers]

Goku said:

Indeed, I did not become an atheist on a whim. I would say it took three to four years of pondering and looking into stuff before I decidedly became an atheist. At first the idea of atheism wasn't even on my radar really; I knew people were atheists but I largely dismissed the notion out of hand due to my background. When I truly started my spiritual journey the question I asked myself was not "does God exist", rather "what conception of God/religion was the most accurate". After all almost every adult that I looked up to and respected growing up was Christian (or Jewish) as far as I knew, different denominations and whatnot but still Christian. When I went to university I had many professors express their belief in God, always Christian if they were explicit in what religion they believed; even my religion professor was a professed Christian and I figured he must know what he is talking about.

Of course I had my own experiences as a believer to fall back on, and I took it upon myself to read the Bible and commune with devout believers in study, prayer, community service, and retreats. For a time my faith grew, and I could feel the presence of God surround, penetrate, and bind me to the ground of all being. At the time I was convinced God has communicated to me through a dream, but that's another story. The point is that my faith wasn't merely a Sunday morning ordeal, but an integral part of my life.

As fate would have it, the more I delved into the theology, history, and sciences the more I felt a disconnect between reality and this God-centered paradigm that I had developed. Naturally I tweaked my beliefs to accurately reflect reality as I saw it, but before I knew it I had tweaked my beliefs to the point where I was faced with a serious question about the very existence of God. In the end I could not, with good conscience, accept the existence of a theistic God, and thus a new atheist was born.

Fate? Is that some magical power?
Sounuds lke a god to me

The key word is "decide".
Others have decided differently!

We can think and think about our thinking. I don't think our thinking is sacrosnact. We can test ourselves if we want to see if we can cause beings to come into existence or dissapear by thinking them in or out of existence. If you do such an experiment you will probably realize that like I've found, who you think does or does not exist has nothing to do with who does or does not exist. What's left? What you choose to believe one way or the other.

The human mind is so creative that it will basically attempt to create anything you tell it That makes it as a source of "truth" dubious.

Look arround you! Some people believe in God Some people don't! What does that prove? It proves that the huaman mind is not set up for the concept "truth" in the form we may want it be. Even the bible says. lean not to thine own undertanding.

People can have the same experience and respond in totally different ways. The variable is the "view" of the indiviual which you seem to not want to believe in. Open your eyes! You believe what you tell yourelf to believe!

We are all "nutty" belief makers! You feel trruth is what you tell yourself is true. Duh! So does everybody else.Your hang up seems to be that you think your opinion is "the truth"!!! I thnk what is happening is "your truth" is clashing with your innate creativity. The universe is set up for creativity! So, nothinh "has" to be!

[mike the wiz]

 

 

Fjuri: So far, any "encounter with God" as described to me can be replicated using a scientific methodology, in a non divine setting. That makes it very hard to define a "genuine encounter".

 

The things that have happened to me, can't be replicated, which isn't an opinion, it is 100% fact. You can't replicate the birth of the messiah for example, or replicate a Christian being healed or Christ's resurrection. God's miracles in our lives are specifically designed for our unique personal paths. Nor can you replicate the gospels and their message, and all of the prophecies of the bible. 

 

That is what you fail to understand, the person in prison knows he is innocent, it is not an opinion because you can say, "anyone can claim innocence".

 

This is a deductive proof, that someone with an internal-knowledge, can know something that is true, that people that examine the evidence objectively, can't know.

 

It won't change the fact he is innocent, if you don't accept his claim of innocence because everyone else claiming to be innocence says the same things.

 

Sure - you can't tell my claim is true, should you then be confident if you are not even able to determine the truth? If anything you should conclude this; "if I can't even tell your experience of God is true, that hardly puts me in a position of authority on the matter?"

 

This should lead to humility, not pride. But it is very evident that a lot of atheists are characterised by pride, ego and condescension. "God resists the proud".

 

If you really are proud, how can God come to you? 

 

 

 

 

Mike Summers: Look arround you! Some people believe in God Some people don't! What does that prove? It proves that the huaman mind is not set up for the concept "truth" in the form we may want it be. Even the bible says. lean not to thine own undertanding.

People can have the same experience and respond in totally different ways. The variable is the "view" of the indiviual which you seem to not want to believe in.

 

Mike's done his logic. Because this quote is the whole deal on a plate, better than I can explain it. That is exactly true, I believe many atheists had they had my spiritual experiences, would not even count them as evidence, because of their attitude-problem, which of course, is why God did not give them any such experiences, because He knew they would reject those experiences in their pride.

 

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7.

 

Fjuri, all you have done is give a relative statement about yourself when you say;

 

 

 

Fjuri: "I do not "dismiss God", I do not "accept your claim of God". Do you note the distinction between the two?"

 

 No offense, but if you don't accept my claim is that going to make it false or change anything I have said? Answer: no. Your refusal to accept it is a relative opinion based on ignorance. Why should I value it?

 

When you compare my experiences you have no knowledge of to some other religious experience, obviously you can only do that from a position of total ignorance, for you have had neither experience.

 

Analogy: you have never eaten before in your life. One man claims you see eating bananas, another man you see eating a pie. You conclude that the man that lies and says pie tastes like chocolate, has an equal claim to the man that claims banana tastes like banana.

 

Okay - what does this teach us? It teaches us that from your perspective, you are not qualified to judge the matter, meaning your opinion isn't even relevant, for how silly it would be to value your opinion that, "I am not impressed by your claim banana tastes of banana".

 

No offense, but that won't stop banana from tasting of banana.

 

In other words, what you think about my claims of God, is particularly irrelevant logically.

 

Now what utter idiot would have an encounter with God but think it equal to some phoney religious, shallow and vaguely similar claim because an atheist says it's the same? A person only a few days from being taken away by the men in white, I suspect.  

 

(prediction of response: "I am not saying you should reject your own experience I am saying I have no reason to accept it.") Y A W N. then why can't you stop your lips from flapping about? Why do you follow Christians and hound them to argue every little thing they say? Oh no, that's not evidence of prejudice hanging around Christian forums for year after year trying to oppose everything they say. You are not at all biased, we can sure trust your judgement, for you definitely would accept any evidence to favour Christianity!   

[mike the wiz]

 

 

Jambob: Mike Summers - do you believe vampires exist?

 

Ahh the false- comparison game. The problem with this argument, logically is that it presumes that God can be equated with something that is clearly false.

 

Notice the atheist never says, "mike do you believe the Higgs boson exists?" or, "do yo believe multi-verses exist?"

 

Which highlights the fallacy. 

 

The problem with the inivisible-pink-unicorn argument is that Christians also do not accept things that are blatantly false, meaning that if God was blatantly false, Christians wouldn't believe in Him. (because they don't believe in vampires, santa clause or invisible pink unicorns)

 

That's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum, meaning it is a deductive proof, that God can't really be comparable to blatantly-false things, nor be equivalent to them.

 

Ultimately these types of popular atheist rhetorical devices, are question-begging, because your argument assumes you can automatically compare God to something everyone agrees is blatantly false, including Christians.

 

Obviously Christians don't believe in vampires or invisible pink unicorns or santa claus, which is evidence that Christians must have better reasons to believe in God, meaning that there must be a very important difference between God and these blatantly silly and shallow concepts.

 

If you want to read more about this common atheist-error, here is my blog entry I wrote about the issue in Feb 2011., many years back: (though obviously a deeper and more technical knowledge of logic, is required to fully understand it.)

http://creationworld...n-unicorns.html

 

To reverse your argument I could reveal it's weakness by asking you this: "Jambob, do you believe in cars that design themselves?" (because obviously atheists believe the ludicrous belief that intelligently designed things can create themselves.)

 

So what is your answer? Would you ordinarily believe that a car could construct itself? ( a car has less specified complexity than a lifeform, less contingency plans, less energy efficiency, etc.. is less sophisticated as a design)