Things That Don't Exist?

[Magnanimae 18]

 

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 119]

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 1,210]

 

 

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 119]

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 454]

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 354]

Mike Summers - do you believe vampires exist?

[Goku 889]

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 454]

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 1,210]

 

 

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 1,210]

 

 

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://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/invisible-pin-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)

[Mike Summers 454]

 

Jambo said:

Mike Summers - do you believe vampires exist?

Yes, I do (as creations of intelligent beings for for their entertainment value).

[Goku 889]

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.

 

I know that statement was tongue in cheek. I don't think my experience was merely chruchianity. I have several times before made the distinction between people who merely say they believe and perhaps even give lip service Sunday morning or become hostile at a foul word thrown at Christianity, what I call cultural Christians, and those who delve into the Word and do their best to live by those principles.

 

If God exists I agree such churchianity is a deceptive tool of the Devil or whatnot, but it does beg the question of why God would let the paradigm centered around his holy book (the rest of us call it "religion") devolve from a personal relationship to a combination of corruption and lip service? Remember when you argued that if God exists we would expect God to come up with a book that would have an incredible impact on society, and clearly the Bible and Christianity has had a major impact on society. While true, when you look at what exactly Christianity (the human expression of reading and believing said book) has done over the past two thousand years to impact society it has often not been very Christ-like. For example a major impact still felt today is antisemitism; in the Bible the Jews killed Jesus and in Matthew 27:25 those Jews stated that his blood be on our hands and on our children's hands. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the time when Catholics would go out during religious holidays and beat, torture, and sometimes kill innocent Jews because of what their ancestors did to Jesus. The impact of Christianity at the time forbidding adherents from collecting interest on debts and loans, which was not prohibited by Judaism, further exacerbated antisemitism and led to the stereotype of Jews being immoral money-grabbers which is still with us today. Before you go off on how that is not Christ-like and an affront to true Christian values, the point is that if God exists and the Bible is God's book (which you argued should have a major impact on society, I presume both in a good way and that God has the power to ensure such an impact is to his liking), why would God let such an adulterated view impact society in such a way? Needless to say this is one out of innumerable examples of the negative impacts the Bible, and subsequently belief in the Bible, has had on society. If you are going to look at the impact the Bible has had you can't only recognize the good while ignoring the bad. Just something to think about.

 

I have never really tied God to religion in the way you think I am. On the contrary I went through a theological phase where I believed God was real and all religions were human expressions of the God experience; no religion was a perfect emulation of God's will as God was too big for a single religion to dogmatically pontificate.

 

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.

 

I don't acknowledge MS's rants on the subject because I simply do not do the things he says I do; he just makes up stuff about what I say and believe and dogmatically proclaims it as fact. I don't think he has said one accurate thing about what I have said in this thread beyond that I identify as an atheist. Responding to his multiple posts would take a lot of time as I would have to correct nearly every sentence he says, and I know he doesn't care what I actually have to say on the matter. It doesn't matter what I actually say or believe; all that maters to him is that he can spin whatever I say or believe into his asinine paradigm about reality. This is coming from multiple experiences of me trying to correct him about what I believe on multiple issues with zero results (as in he still peddles "Goku says X" despite that I said I do not believe in X as I was trying to convey idea Y), and eventually he all but explicitly admitted that he twists what I say on purpose to fit his agenda (and I've seen him do it to other posters too; I recall one time he even made up a direct quote with the quote function and attributed it to Schera Do who did not make such a statement nor implied such a statement, and no it wasn't some odd mix-up with the quote function as MS responded to the quote he made up as if Schera Do made it), and at that point I was done wasting my time on that troll. It is clear to me that this is more than a difference of opinion or interpretation of things that you and I may argue about, but a deliberate obfuscation and deception. If he wants to make a reasonable point that isn't made out of straw I'll consider it, and at times he does stray from trolling, and if it isn't trolling then he needs some serious professional help.

 

Again I have never lost sight of the scope and limitations on the idea of the "individual" and the "group", and I have never once at all my time on EFF lumped the entirety of a group (as in each individual of a group) based on the actions of a single individual. Again MS gets his ideas by constantly twisting everything I say, and you are starting to superimpose his false interpretations onto my writings by listening to him and taking what he says seriously.

 

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.

 

I should have clarified; people can and do go from believer to non-believer back to believer, but usually this happens to people that had no more than a surface understanding and expression of their faith the first time around (churchianity as you call it). However, rarely does one have a deep connection to their faith who goes back to it once it has been fractally shattered by the blunt force of atheism.

 

Recall that many pastors who have devoted their adult life to serving God out of devotion have turned atheist as well. I know you didn't make the argument that once a true believer always a true believer, but you came close when you said if you were a true believer than you would say that such an experience was "reality". Well, it was reality to me, and reality to many other devout believers, but as our knowledge and experience grew we could not ignore the conclusion that God does not exist. I think any serious atheist will tell you that no one can disprove the existence of God, and technically we almost unanimously believe that the evidence is not strong enough to overturn the null hypothesis (i.e. claims without proportional evidence can be dismissed as tentatively false), but to simplify all the technicalities and jargon we simply say 'God does not exist'.

[Mike Summers 454]

Mike the wiz,
I have been on EFF for nearly six years. I've seen alleged atheists come and go. Two that have stayed around the longest are Fjuri and Goku (and still actievely post on the froum from time to time).

Considering all the abuse I (we?) have given them, I wonder why they are still here? Do you think they are massochists? lol

I apologized to Scehado privately as I recall. It was a senior .citizen moment.

Mike, don't you wonder why they are still here? Do you have any theories?
I'd ask them personally but I think I am on ignore again. LOL I just can't keep my foot out of my mouth. What knd of Chrristia am I "offending" so many as I do?

Most of the alleged atheists/ evolutionists that come here try for a while to "convert" us, give up and then move on.

Mike what was the pattern of the other forum you were on? Were they as transient as they are here?

Have you any idea what gives wth the mentioned guys? Both these guys seem in a loop (I think I might be in one too LOL) as their agruments repeat.

Remember snyder and the young guy from South America (columbia?)? We also had a guy that was a former JW.
He was an anger champ!

Goku is right about me. I mainly ignore what he thinks he says and take it to the next step which is what happens when you implement his nonsensical philosophical concepts. They don't prmote peace, sanity and harmony.

[Goku 889]

MS,

 

I am glad you apologized to Schera Do.

 

I am here because I find the topic interesting. I have been to several forums before, but as a general rule the level of knowledge is high among creationists on EFF. I got tired of debating creationists who didn't accept speciation, or claimed high level academic degrees which they obviously did not have - or at least not earned.

 

I'm sure you see your method of madness as a clever tactic, but you don't seem to be applying my philosophy correctly; instead you are applying what you think my philosophy is to my statements.

 

For example you try to conflate my model of reality with reality itself  (i.e. 'try to think away someone's existence'), but my philosophy makes a clear distinction between my model of reality and reality itself, making the whole "taking it to the next step" a non sequitur as you are not adhering to my philosophy.

 

As for individuals and groups, I have never said or implied that because a member of a group did X that everyone in that group was automatically culpable. I shouldn't have to explain this but here it goes, certain groups - specifically groups based on ideology, are going to promote certain ideologies and actions. And within those promoted ideologies and actions, we can associate those things with the group as a whole (you have no trouble associating "love" with the "group" "Christian" do you?) while also practicing good statistics recognizing that there may be (and often is) individual differences. This "next step" appears to be either a misunderstanding of how you can properly glean information about a group, or assuming that I have a weird caricature of what a group is.

 

In a sense we are all on a loop; we all have specific arguments and ideas that we highlight as prime examples. You will inevitably talk about evolution murdering people, MW will talk about the elements of design and how the law of non-contradiction will prove that life is designed by God, and I will inevitably bring up the horrors of the Bible and theism at some point.

[Jambobskiwobski 354]

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://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/invisible-pin-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)

Mike,

Thanks for your response, however at the moment I just want to speak to Mike Summers on this issue.  I think he sees things a little different to you and it's his views that I want to address.  I hope this will become clearer over forthcoming posts. I may come back to your post later (depending on time and what else happens in this thread)

Jambob

[Jambobskiwobski 354]

Jambo said:

Yes, I do (as creations of intelligent beings for for their entertainment value).

Ok.

Do you believe vampires exist as real, living (well, undead), beings that need to drink the blood of living beings in order to survive and die (not twinkle) if they are exposed to sunlight?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Mike Summers: Mike what was the pattern of the other forum you were on? Were they as transient as they are here?

 

Have you any idea what gives wth the mentioned guys? Both these guys seem in a loop (I think I might be in one too LOL) as their agruments repeat.

 

 

It's more of the same Mike. A lot of the atheists at EvC forum were anti-theist. Some still are there. The anti-theists are just more aggressive versions, that are more overt in their condescending behaviour, which is a behaviour I find to be pretty close to widespread, in all evolutionists.

 

When you have to float a turd like evolution, you have to get creative with your tactics. Unfortunately this usually comes in the form of some type of diversionary, personal attack.

 

They're here to convert us, but when they find out what a pounding evolution takes, that turns them stubborn and passive-aggressive. Some cling on out of sheer spite, as they thought evo would win easily, and are annoyed with us, for how easily we can win the debate.

 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

Jambob: Ok.

Do you believe vampires exist as real, living (well, undead), beings that need to drink the blood of living beings in order to survive and die (not twinkle) if they are exposed to sunlight?

 

He doesn't believe in santa, vampires, invisible pink unicorns, fairies or Dawkins' "teapots orbiting Saturn".

 

I've been there and done it all and heard it all Jambob. You are as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow morning, in where you are leading Mike with this.

 

The real question is this; does Mike believe in the higgs boson? I would say he probably does, given the recent scientific discovery of it, or at least he would accept it's possible existence.

 

The difference being that an intelligent adult knows the difference between something that we KNOW is invented (pink unicorns), and something that we don't know is invented. (God).

 

Your argument is condescending, because it presumes that when we believe in God, we do so in the same way we would believe in vampires or pink unicorns. But the fact that we don't believe in those things, is strong evidence that we are not crackpots just because we believe in an invisible God.

 

The logical error is thus shown;

 

"If it is invisible and undetectable, we can conclude it is not there." (argumentum ad ignorantiam. In fact we could not detect or see the higgs boson for decades.)

 

Jambob, why should we believe God can be equated to a pink unicorn rather than a higgs boson or a multi-universe?

 

I have a right to show the readers your begging-the-question fallacy. You have asked if Mike believes in vampires without proving vampires are equivalent as a belief, to God.

 

I would ask Mike, "Mike do you believe in the higgs boson, or in things that could exist beyond human scope?"

 

He will say, "of course those things are possible".

 

So then, what do vampires have to do with anything? They have nothing to do with anything. We know they are false, we know the invisible pink unicorn has no reason to exist and is invented, therefore why would we believe in God if God was equal to these concepts?

 

At any time I can give a dissertation as to why vampires, pink unicorns and santa don't exist. I can't give a dissertation as to why God doesn't exist, because those silly things are easily dismissed, and God isn't silly and dismissable just because atheists associate Him with silly things, without proving He can be equated with them.

 

First show me He is equatable with silly, invented things.

 

READERS BEWARE of these things I have expounded, for they are precisely correct, with no possibility of error.

[Jambobskiwobski 354]

Mike he Wiz

 

Thank you for your input.

As mentioned previously, I may come back to your comments after discussing things with Mike Summers.

 

Jambob

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Interestingly Mike, people called the higgs boson, the, "God particle" because it is invisible, at the time could not be detected for very many years, yet was required to explain mass. 

 

When they found it, this proved why argumentum ad ignorantiam is such a fallacious argument, because the higgs boson turned out to be true, at least provisionally.

 

If anything this shows that just because people don't know something, doesn't mean that something is a ludicrously false thing. Who would have entertained the notion of a squid, before uncovering it's existence? many people before it was found, would have concluded that it was a ludicrously absurd fictional monster from some kind of cheap horror movie.

 

Jambob, I am expounding the reasons against the I.P.U argument for the readers, I appreciate that you are not necessarily arguing those atheist arguments, so you don't have to take responsibility for my posts, by saying, "I don't want to discuss this with you", for you are not obliged to discuss anything with me, as a freewill agent. Nor am I attempting to force you to, I am simply providing the information I have found from my studies, as it is a forum and if I want to say something despite your determination to not discuss things with me, then I am still free to make my comments for the sake of the readers.

 

(i.e. I am not asking you to take responsibility for all of the shoddy atheist arguments that are so popularly spread over the internet as though they are golden wisdoms from solomon's bosom when in reality they are more like brass-turds resultant from the digestive bowel processes of rhetorical propaganda. Nobody can be blamed for not wanting to exorcise those satanic grapes in a court of law!)

 

[Goku 889]

I could be wrong, but I think Jambobskiwobski is making a completely different argument than you think Mike the Wiz. I don't want to reveal anything, especially if I'm wrong, so I'll let the two converse it out for a while.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

That's fine Goku. It's still important for me to give the information because obviously there is some comparison.

 

I suspect you mean that Jambob is trying to say that Mike wouldn't entertain the notion of a vampire despite his argument that we don't have the power to assume what beings don't exist, or uncreate them, or some such thing?

 

I think it depends on the type of being though. The problem will always be that we can create beings and say they exist. But what is external reality saying? If it shows intelligent design, then reasonably an intelligent designer, whatever or whoever it is, is implied not by the creative imagination but by the clear facts themselves.

[Magnanimae 18]

Mike, calm down bud.

 

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. 

 

Absolutely man. I will even use your quote button and delete most of it just so I could say I agree to this one specific paragraph. Just one thing, it is hard to prove miracles occured, but not impossible. We would need strong evidence that the miracle happened. We should also make sure we are ready for the possibity of an infringement on our values. A compleyely value-changing event that happens in a person, like an alien invasion, then we should be ready to accept we may not be accepting towards the truth, denying and insulting such a strong change to their ideals.

 

 

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.

Thank you for sharing with me. I was never raised a Christian. My dad was but he never took me to Church nor did he even want to go. I had to build my belief in God through research.

 

Just a few points. There seems to be a logical disconnect between the question of whether God exists and which representation is most accurate. The first one is an overall analysis. You believe God exists or not depending on uour answer. The second one is more specific. Even if you find all representations inaccurate in your eyes there still is room for belief in God; you just have yo find Him. It looks lime you took a little jump. May I ask why?

 

As for your spiritual journey I don't think I can connect with you very well. I barely started mine a few years ago and I've been down most of it. I would just ask a few questions. What was the disconnect? Was it a feeling more than anything?

[Fjuri 119]

Just a few points. There seems to be a logical disconnect between the question of whether God exists and which representation is most accurate. The first one is an overall analysis. You believe God exists or not depending on uour answer. The second one is more specific. Even if you find all representations inaccurate in your eyes there still is room for belief in God; you just have yo find Him. It looks lime you took a little jump. May I ask why?

I'm not sure I agree on there being a logical disconnect between the question of whether God exists and which representation is most accurate. Aren't most arguments for God based upon a representation of him?

 

example: the ontological argument defines God as the greatest being in the mind and in reality. But this already uses a specific representation, namely the greatest being in mind and in reality.. 

 

Am I missing something about your "argument"?

[Mike Summers 454]

I have said on several occaaions relationshipe come in pairs. For example, I have a relationship with Mike the wiz. I also have a relationship with individuals Mike does not know. But If i told Mike I had a sister that I have a relationship with he probably woluld beleve me. Who ever he tells me He has a relationshp with I will believe him--same with others on this site also.

Moreover, if Jambo has a relationship with a vampire that's fine with me. He is not obligated to prove to me vampires exist or don't. I don't have a relationship with any vampires that I know of. But then there are 7 billon beings on the planet I don't have a relationship either. I have similar thoughts about any gods and any beings others may want to believe in! Who individuals believe in is between them and the being or beings they have a relationship with.

I don't have to explain my belief in God to anyone. If you don't want to believe in God that's your choice. i give up trying to prove God exists to others.

I have had a relationshp with God for over 50 years. I am quite confortable with that relationship and not the least intimidated by what someone else believes about my creator, father and friend.

I don't support the philosophical
concepts atheisicism or agnosticism. I think it is stretching credibility to calim knowledge of who can or can't exist in a universe as big as this one without having explored it thoroughly. Likewise agnosticism for a specific being that may or may not exist sounds ridiculous to me. Who among us doubts specifically and gives a name to others before we meet them? That's plain bigotry. "I doubt whether ther can be a Mike Summers or not?"

What I do is accept the existence of other beings when I meet them. i think it's silly to doubt the existence of beings before I meet them.