(August 11, 2015 at 4:05 am)robvalue Wrote: I'd like to say firstly that this discussion is very polite! Way too polite, so I want to say fuckweasels

Now that's out of the way, I wanted to make an observation. I think we're dealing with two entirely different approaches to beliefs and evidence. I'm not meaning to judge either, simply to observe.

CL, and the vast majority of theists I've ever talked to, are happy to accept evidence that is apparent only to them to justify their beliefs to themselves.

People like me (if there is anyone like me) would never be satisfied believing anything that they couldn't reasonably demonstrate to others; in other words the evidence is virtually useless if it can't be examined by someone else.

For the above reason, I would conclude that various strange things I've experienced are far more likely to be glitches in my system than something actually real. Someone in CL's group may instead interpret them as something real and form beliefs out of them.

Your characterization of the religionist view is overly generous.  There is evidence that such inner feelings are caused by ordinary sorts of things and not god.  They are ignoring evidence, not simply using a different source that you do not regard as trustworthy.

Not only is there the modern science on this, but anyone with half a brain long ago realized that such inner feelings prove nothing, because contradictory religions have such things in support of them.  Since contradictory religions cannot all be true, those inner feelings cannot be proof of any religion.

So, even if you won't judge them, I certainly will.  They are being demonstrably stupid and unreasonable.

You are totally right, there is plenty of evidence that suggests their methods are unreliable. However, I would guess someone who relies heavily on such methods is far less likely to seek out this kind of evidence, and more likely to dismiss it because "they know better" when it is presented to them.

It must be possible for this to change, as I've heard many deconversion stories where people were relying heavily on emotions and "experiences" for evidence, and later became critical thinkers and flushed it all away. However, if you're naturally very strongly in the first group, it probably takes some considerable effort to make the change; if you event want to.

The only question is whether people in the first category find religion, or whether religion creates people in the first category. A bit of both, I expect.

PS: it's the people who are in category 2 for everything besides religion that are the most "interesting".

(August 11, 2015 at 4:05 am)robvalue Wrote: CL, and the vast majority of theists I've ever talked to, are happy to accept evidence that is apparent only to them to justify their beliefs to themselves.

People like me (if there is anyone like me) would never be satisfied believing anything that they couldn't reasonably demonstrate to others; in other words the evidence is virtually useless if it can't be examined by someone else.

For the above reason, I would conclude that various strange things I've experienced are far more likely to be glitches in my system than something actually real. Someone in CL's group may instead interpret them as something real and form beliefs out of them.

And that is why you have a hard time dismissing solipsism.  Actually being someone in particular, claiming your identity, requires a leap of faith.  (No gods required though.)

You're quite right

(August 10, 2015 at 9:40 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If I can witness a certain piece of writing is really great, does it mean I personally have the capability of replicating it.

Suppose I appreciate Harry Potter. Does it mean because I can appreciate it, I can replicate it?

It's not about whether you personally can replicate it, you stated it was beyond the capacity of all mortals.

(August 11, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 9:40 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If I can witness a certain piece of writing is really great, does it mean I personally have the capability of replicating it.

Suppose I appreciate Harry Potter. Does it mean because I can appreciate it, I can replicate it?

It's not about whether you personally can replicate it, you stated it was beyond the capacity of all mortals.

I don't see why it would not be possible to know it's beyond the capacity of all mortals if we can appreciate it's greatness, just like I can know a certain writing is beyond my capability.

Your argument it's because we can appreciate, it's within our capability. But with that our argument, I should be capable of replicating any writing that I can appreciate it's greatness.

(August 11, 2015 at 6:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(August 11, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: It's not about whether you personally can replicate it, you stated it was beyond the capacity of all mortals.

I don't see why it would not be possible to know it's beyond the capacity of all mortals if we can appreciate it's greatness, just like I can know a certain writing is beyond my capability.

Your argument it's because we can appreciate, it's within our capability. But with that our argument, I should be capable of replicating any writing that I can appreciate it's greatness.

Shakespeare is great, I cannot replicate Shakespeare. Therefore God. Hmmm..,can I spot the flaw?

The OP is well intended but we are not debating what makes theists happy or what they claim the meaning of life is.


Many atheists once held theistic claims and a god to be real. As nice as this olive branch thread may be intended, it still remains that the earth is much older than our species or the gods we invent. If any humann thinks Jesus or Allah or Vishnu or Thor will be around 10 billion years from now as thoughts or even monuments is a fool.

(August 11, 2015 at 6:20 pm)JackRussell Wrote:

(August 11, 2015 at 6:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I don't see why it would not be possible to know it's beyond the capacity of all mortals if we can appreciate it's greatness, just like I can know a certain writing is beyond my capability.

Your argument it's because we can appreciate, it's within our capability. But with that our argument, I should be capable of replicating any writing that I can appreciate it's greatness.

Shakespeare is great, I cannot replicate Shakespeare. Therefore God. Hmmm..,can I spot the flaw?

If Shakespeare claimed his writing is divine, and to prove it, that no one can replicate it, it would not be beyond human capability to make something somewhat similar to it or near on par of it. And if he challenged all of humanity to prove his religion is wrong, and his religion was taken as a major force that perhaps can overcome all religions, then surely a human would countered it and brought something the like of it.  And this is specially proof for those who believe in God, because they know God can surely create a person with an ability to beat a fabricator in literature and replicate his writing quality.  He would not leave all humanity helpless against a genius that seems to be way above the intellect of all the rest. So putting along God's Lordship, and if we take knowledge that God would send Messengers, then surely he would send a Messenger with better quality then that.

The fact is the Quran challenge takes into account that God would send Messengers. Obviously the best holy revelation in guidance and the top literature that outmatches all holy scriptures in eloquence and quality, is obviously the one from the Supreme Lord. The supreme Lord cannot be out beat.

I have had something supernatural happen to me. My mom was there and saw it too so I know it wasn't just me.