Theists- do you believe without evidence?

[Lord Privy Seal]

Stating the obvious...

The cornerstone of modern atheism is the belief that everything needing to be explained can be explained in terms of physical phenomena, i.e. physical reduction. Mental phenomena are characterized by two things: raw sensation and intentionality (‘about’ness). These two aspects of reality do not fit within any physical paradigm.

How can you know this, without possessing omniscient knowledge of every possible physical paradigm? For one thing, quantum entanglement seems to me to be a rather direct example of one bit of energy/matter being "about" another, and vice versa.

With respect to raw sensation (qualia) modern atheism has two primary solutions. The first is to dismiss qualia by saying that it is actually an illusory by-product of brain processes. I.e. you aren’t actually experiencing anything. The second solution is to admit that raw sensations are real but useless. They do not causally interact with brain processes.

With respect to intentionality, intuitions, thoughts, and beliefs each have subject matter. They are about something. Your belief that the Lincoln Memorial is in Washington D.C. is about the Lincoln memorial. Unlike a belief, a physical thing is not ‘about’ anything. It just is whatever it is. As a physical object performing physical processes, neuronal systems in aren’t ‘about’ anything. Physical reduction cannot preserve the intentional properties of thought. Intentional properties must always be assigned from outside the physical system being described.

OK, let's say that our consciousness is in some way situated in something that is invisible, intangible, but gravitationally bound (the latter explaining why our consciousnesses don't get flung away or left behind by Earth's motion). We can call it "spirit." What, specifically, is it about this stuff that makes "about-ability" possible? Now let's talk about this same stuff--exact same properties (intangible, invisible, gravitationally bound)...but use a different label for it: "dark matter." Does it suddenly lose its "about-ability?" If not, how does the "about-ability" disappear if we dispense with the dark matter and go with quarks instead?

Physical theories do not explain everything that needs to be explained because they only consider things that can be quantified. The physical sciences deal only with physical processes without any consideration of the formal or final causes. Both are needed to explain mental processes.

Even if we grant that "formal and final causes" exist, I don't see how this leads to monotheism. Just one example, Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" would be an example of a system of formal causation that does not require Yahweh. If it's possible for one such non-theistic model to exist (even if that model isn't itself accurate), how do you know that no others can possibly be discovered?

The above relates only to issues of general revelation. Since atheism does not satisfy my intellectual curiosity about things that matter to me, I turn to theology. I believe people choose specific religious traditions largely for familiarity. Each has its own rich and varied history. At some point you must just dive in and see how far it goes.

This seems to me to be a pretty good argument against monotheism. The existence of so many different versions of theism--even monotheistic religions divide into irreconcilable sects--implies that theists are not "observing" the same territory. If they were, their maps would tend to converge on a more consistent, accurate picture over time. Polytheists could claim that their views are more consistent with religious variety: people experience many deities because there are many deities. However, polytheists don't seem to converge on a single consistent picture of plural divinity either. "Deities" just "happen" to be culturally bound: Thor never goes on vacation in India to hang out with yogis. Gods and goddesses come and go with the vagaries of human culture and popularity. This is exactly what we would expect to see if gods and goddesses are constructs of the human mind, rather than the other way around.

[frz]

And, unlike all the "I used to be an atheist but then I found Jesus Christ yay!" horseshitters on this forum, I can even prove it.

This was a forum I ran years ago under the username "Weltall". All the posts, made with that name, are mine. So, you can see that I am not talking out of my ass when I say that I once was dumb enough to be a Christian and believe the same stupid things you believe, today.

kudos to you Ryantology. Its really interesting to see those then and now scenarios. The truth is the truth, at the of the day one cannot beat reality but, accept it.

[Godscreated]

And, unlike all the "I used to be an atheist but then I found Jesus Christ yay!" horseshitters on this forum.
This was a forum I ran years ago under the username "Weltall". All the posts, made with that name, are mine. So, you can see that I am not talking out of my ass when I say that I once was dumb enough to be a Christian and believe the same stupid things you believe, today.

You could not have believed as I do or you would not have rejected Christ, this is simply and necessarily true.

[wwjs]

You could not have believed as I do or you would not have rejected Christ, this is simply and necessarily true.

So ex clergies who have devoted their whole lives to God could not believe as you do?

[Godscreated]

You could not have believed as I do or you would not have rejected Christ, this is simply and necessarily true.

So ex clergies who have devoted their whole lives to God could not believe as you do?

Not and reject Christ, many pastors have preached for years before realizing they did not know Christ as their savior. In Christianity as I see it everyone has a responsibility to Christ, not a position of hierarchy. Christ made that clear to John and James.

[wwjs]

What you describe as "preaching for years before realizing not knowing Christ as their savior" in many cases was preaching for decades just like any other clergy and then losing faith.

[Godscreated]

What you describe as "preaching for years before realizing not knowing Christ as their savior" in many cases was preaching for decades just like any other clergy and then losing faith.

No these men realized they were preaching for a different reason than belief in Christ, they realized they had not accepted the Christ as Savior, they may have become a member of a church or something else and become emotionally excited about it and never realized they had left Christ outside of their lives. They were preaching for the emotional high, I've heard a preacher say this, I would think he knew what was going on in his life and made a change. These men gained a faith in Christ not lost one. How does one lose what one never had.

[Esquilax]

And, unlike all the "I used to be an atheist but then I found Jesus Christ yay!" horseshitters on this forum.
This was a forum I ran years ago under the username "Weltall". All the posts, made with that name, are mine. So, you can see that I am not talking out of my ass when I say that I once was dumb enough to be a Christian and believe the same stupid things you believe, today.

You could not have believed as I do or you would not have rejected Christ, this is simply and necessarily true.

Boy, I'm glad you're around to let us all know who is and isn't a Scotsman, GC!

There's a worrying close-mindedness about this kind of response from you, but I don't think you really care, either. You've designated yourself as in possession of the one truth of the universe, after all.

[Tex]

Not sure if I understand you. Assuming that you agree to answer, like I said before, provide your non-physical evidence (which is "coherent and logical system") that someone from different faith (like Dawud) wouldn't be able to give.

The system is a Hylomorphism with both immaterial and material components. To give you the whole system, I best just link you to the whole Suma Theologica. You already know the basic Christian system of an uncaused causer that cares for what it causes, a human person with both material and immaterial components, that very same uncaused causer humbling himself unto death in order to redeem us from our own frailty, and desiring us to embrace the grace offered so that we may live life how it was intended.

My claim is that this is all coherent and logical, while no other system is, including both your's and Dawud's.

I did mention in another thread that solipsism was coherent. I still hold to this. However, it's not logical. Solipsism has all sorts of problems that, when looked at together, looks rather ridiculous.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

And, unlike all the "I used to be an atheist but then I found Jesus Christ yay!" horseshitters on this forum.
This was a forum I ran years ago under the username "Weltall". All the posts, made with that name, are mine. So, you can see that I am not talking out of my ass when I say that I once was dumb enough to be a Christian and believe the same stupid things you believe, today.

You could not have believed as I do or you would not have rejected Christ, this is simply and necessarily true.

No it isn't, it's nonsense.

What you're basically doing there is elevating yourself to the moral high ground (which is imagined) over Ryan by appealing to the lowest common denominator; that you're right and everything that conflicts with you is necessarily wrong. This, based on nothing but emotive reasoning and a level of indoctrination that can only be guessed.

Speaking on behalf (but not for, an important distinction) of everyone who has both sought to and managed to disassociate themselves from the religion that they were taught to follow, just, fuck you man. It's views such as the one that you propagate in your post above that leads to be people being branded apostates and ostracized, maybe even killed, for not believing in the same deity as their peers around them.

Not often do I swear at posters, but here I think it's totally warranted.