Hare Krishna

[Angrboda]

As for my own take on evidence, argument and valid logic for justifying belief in God, it's a work in progress, definitely. I'll want to organize my thoughts before putting them out there to be shredded by an atheists forum. I do believe in God very deeply, and have committed my life very seriously to trying to worship God. I think I'm here, partially, to retrace my philosophical steps to getting where I am.

We learn more from a single mistake than we do from a thousand correct answers.

---

---

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Very few atheists claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

There is no god. There are no gods. I am absolutely certain.

Is that based on a special intuition you have? Or maybe you know absolutely everything about everything? Maybe your priest dropped you when you were a kid?

---

I'm surprised that you place as much importance in the traditional place gods have played in answering questions some people have had. I don't find myself so impressed by history and custom that I require a justification to depart from the norm. Perhaps you are different in that way? That's fine. If you're wondering how can I be so different than you, you just have too much time on your hands for wondering.

I didn't argue that "lots of people believe in God, therefore God exists."

---

4. The only way you could blow my mind is if you actually said something that didn't sound like regurgitated Creationist bullshit

If I ever blow someone's mind, it's not going to be yours.

---

There are also obvious limitations on the theist side of this debate. Certainly direct experiential evidence of God isn't immediately available, at least to most people.

Try no one.

Is that a special feeling you have? Or maybe you've met everyone? How would you know that?

[Darkstar]

I would only like to point out the irony in you asking if we come to our conclusions based on 'special feelings' when many theists use these 'special feelings' as arguments for god. He 'knows' that no one has evidence for god because they use these 'special feelings' as evidence, their personal evidence, which has no real validity as they cannot even prove they have a feeling, let alone provide any reason to think that it isn't just a natural emotion.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I would only like to point out the irony in you asking if we come to our conclusions based on 'special feelings' when many theists use these 'special feelings' as arguments for god. He 'knows' that no one has evidence for god because they use these 'special feelings' as evidence, their personal evidence, which has no real validity as they cannot even prove they have a feeling, let alone provide any reason to think that it isn't just a natural emotion.

So his special feelings that my special feelings are "just a natural emotion" is good enough evidence for you? You should know that my feelings are really, really special, and I think his feelings are "just a natural emotion" and so he's the one that's wrong, not me.

Sorry.

[Whateverist]

I'm surprised that you place as much importance in the traditional place gods have played in answering questions some people have had. I don't find myself so impressed by history and custom that I require a justification to depart from the norm. Perhaps you are different in that way? That's fine. If you're wondering how can I be so different than you, you just have too much time on your hands for wondering.

I didn't argue that "lots of people believe in God, therefore God exists."

I'll give you that. But here is your full response from which I plucked that quote:

Why would someone call themselves an atheist if they don't have an active disbelief in God?

God has, historically, been a really popular answer for answering questions like "Why do I exist?" "Where does everything come from?" "Why can't I have or do whatever the hell I feel like?" "Why do I have to die?" Stuff like that, and more.

As an atheist, it seems to me that the least you're saying is "Well, I know the answer to all those questions isn't God." So then what - do you have a better answer?

It certainly seems as though you're implying that in the absence of a superior response to these existential questions, atheism is somehow untenable. Did I misinterpret that?

What I would say in response isn't that "I know the answer isn't God". Rather, I would say I have no reason to think God is the answer to any of those questions. Unless one is anxious to be rid of the questions I see no reason to settle for an off-the-rack answer involving gods.

I actually enjoy your vibe so don't let anyone chase you away. I get the feeling you aren't hell bent on saving or converting anyone and that is a point in your favor. But you really need to stop trying to push all of us atheists into one box. Tino doesn't speak for me when he says:

There is no god. There are no gods. I am absolutely certain.

But there are others who do agree with him on this, and while I don't I do agree with him completely about free will (from another thread). Frankly I feel I have more in common with an agnostic theist than I do a gnostic atheist. Certainty is a strong attractant but I find I can do without it.

Anyhow, welcome to the forum.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I actually enjoy your vibe so don't let anyone chase you away. I get the feeling you aren't hell bent on saving or converting anyone and that is a point in your favor. But you really need to stop trying to push all of us atheists into one box. Tino doesn't speak for me when he says:

I'm not at all hellbent on converting anyone to anything, promise.

Nor do I think atheists all belong in one box. I respect a humble atheist, even way more than an arrogant, fanatical theist. Someone who's position is "I'm not convinced about God" is being honest, I respect that.

But people who say things like "Every theist that ever lived is wrong, religious experience is all fake, God and religion are a delusion, the world would be better without religion" are making an arrogant philosophical mistake. And I feel like I'd like to help them out by calling bullshit on them.

[Shell B]

You started out by behaving as if all atheists say that, on top of assuming that atheism has something to with "something coming from nothing," which no theory ever said. You can't call bullshit until you stop spewing it. You might think I'm snarky, but I'm being honest. Your evidence it not evidence. Your complaints against atheism thusfar have had naught to do with atheism. Being absolutely frank, you have nothing but shallow rhetoric, yet you busted in the door like a hyped up Kool-aid man claiming that you were going to blow people's minds. I reiterate: Read about the Big Bang Theory before you try to claim it has something to do with everything coming from nothing (even a brief read will show you otherwise). Separate existential crises from atheism. Realize that antitheism and atheism are different. Simmer down on the ignoring points because you don't like the delivery. Then . . . discuss.

[Darkstar]

So his special feelings that my special feelings are "just a natural emotion" is good enough evidence for you? You should know that my feelings are really, really special, and I think his feelings are "just a natural emotion" and so he's the one that's wrong, not me.

Sorry.

His feelings that your feelings are special are special...and therefore invalid? You just used the same argument you said was invalid to invalidate itself. New idea: ignore all special feelings and just look at the actual evidence.

[IATIA]

So his special feelings that my special feelings are "just a natural emotion" is good enough evidence for you? You should know that my feelings are really, really special, and I think his feelings are "just a natural emotion" and so he's the one that's wrong, not me.

Looks like GC has a contender for the most deluded, least logical responses.

[Shell B]

Looks like GC has a contender for the most deluded, least logical responses.

Oh, thank Gandalf. I was starting to think it was just me. *phew*