(November 7, 2010 at 6:36 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: @coffeeveritas: what do you think about this as a theory.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-5223.html

Jung is familiar territory for me, I actually have a copy of Man and His Symbols here with me. The Collective Unconscious has been a very interesting theory for me, it's very handy for writing poetry, and it is odd how much of it seems to check out. Scientifically speaking you don't necessarily have to believe that there is some shared unconsciousness floating around out there, but merely that there are certain aspects to being human that we all share which manifest themselves in similar ways in our minds. For example, as humans we all have to drink water, so there will be certain themes related to water that will always appear in any human culture. Spiritually speaking I would say we are all created by the same God, and we were all made in the image of God, so there are many things we share, including a God that relates to us all. I know of course Jung would have seen this somewhat differently, but I think he was getting at something psychologically real.

I'm noticing on this thread we're getting into some blind faith stuff. Related to this we're also seeing some science vs. religion stuff. So I'm getting that you see Christianity's emphasis on faith as contrary to a modern understanding of scientific evidence. Presenting a very Modernist front I see. I can see a little Post-modernity creeping in with the admission that science is not about proof, but evidence. Still very Modernist thought in here though. @Buddy Lee, your quote was quite excellent! It helped me understand your position a lot better. So you see Atheism as the lack of any religious claims, and any religious claims would have to be made against the default position, i.e. the empty jar. Very concise explanation of the "burden of proof" stance.

I'm a bit disappointed that no one answered the question I had about how Modernists view the work of Post-Modern philosophers, but perhaps I'll raise that in a separate thread. It is something I wonder about. I'm thinking about reading either Why I am not a Christian or Society without God so I might have some questions about those soon, and I would appreciate book recommendations.

(November 7, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: Without objective evidence faith can never be validly evident to everyone. Subjective evidence can be indicative of subjective belief based in reality. You're presupposing faith has no evidence. That it's reasoned without experiential evidence and therefore a delusion. From your perspective it seems perfectly valid, because you've had no experiential data to factor into the equation. However, from my perspective, I experience something then try to reason why and how I came to experience it. I don't limit evidence to only the material, nor do I care about it's objectivity. I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. I'm merely trying to validate what's true to me. I believe in the existence of God based on a trust that experiences I can't explain and can't measure lead to the inclination that God exists and is working and has been revealed in my life. Luckily I know lots of other people who have had the same experiences and reached the same conclusions independently, lending even more credence to my own subjective, indicative evidence; thus overcoming the threshold for reality for me.

But where do you draw the line and on what basis? A number of serial killers claim to have had experiences of god ordering them to murder. Certainly according to the OT this wouldn't have been the first time god would have sent such an order. In my view it doesn't lend credence to their experience or the truth or reality of all such experiences. Infact don't we all just dismiss it (using our own humanistic inclinations) and ridicule these people as wackos. However if you allow one experience as any form of evidence then you open the door to them all.

You draw the line, from a Christian perspective, by using scripture, intuition and reason to test the experience.

(November 9, 2010 at 5:32 am)tackattack Wrote: You draw the line, from a Christian perspective, by using scripture, intuition and reason to test the experience.

Thats one way of looking at it. Or do you use your own humanism and ignore the injunctions to wreak havoc and cruelty on innocent peoples in scripture? Just as our other fellow humans have ignored their own humanism (dehumanising their victims) and sought justification in scripture, personal experience, dialogue with dieties etc and have reasoned that their destructive actions are indeed what god wants. Their experience is no less valid, but I say there is no truth, reality or proof in theirs, yours or my own experience.

I don't know if I subscribe to your definition of humanistic (I'm not a secular humanist nor a religious humanist), but I do believe that all of our actions should be justified internally with reason, ethics and justice. All that is encompassed by our developed human nature. I just factor in a few more checks and balances, such as intuition, the Holy Spirit, and a comprehensive scripture check. Just to clarify I don't deny any of my own human aspects and value every life at least as a fellow human.

(November 6, 2010 at 8:37 am)Godschild Wrote: Other religious faiths have no satan...

Set / Seth, Apep, Loki, Hel, Hades / Pluto, Angra Mainyu / Ahriman & Kali would all like to have a word with you.

Well, they might if they were real at least.

(November 10, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't know if I subscribe to your definition of humanistic (I'm not a secular humanist nor a religious humanist), but I do believe that all of our actions should be justified internally with reason, ethics and justice. All that is encompassed by our developed human nature. I just factor in a few more checks and balances, such as intuition, the Holy Spirit, and a comprehensive scripture check. Just to clarify I don't deny any of my own human aspects and value every life at least as a fellow human.

You clearly stated that your personal experience was in some way was subjective personal proof of a god. My contention is only if you are prepared to accept that is also true for others who have a similar experience, but with less desirable results (the serial killer or suicide bomber being examples). So do you concede that they also experience god, or that your experience is the true god and they are mistaken? If you concede that you know where I'll go next of course, but if you don't you still have offered no grounds on which to deny their claims, as all your defences could be used by them as well. Scripture can't really help here as it will support both the humane and murderous amongst us.

(November 5, 2010 at 5:17 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: I was hoping that you could tell me why you don't personally believe in God.

I'll spare you the whole tedious deconversion process because it would take an essay to brush upon. Me personally I have many reasons for my position, or rather my lack of belief, for one, such an extraordinary creator-entity has an appalling lack of evidence. God is defined as something that can't be investigated by science i.e. does not manifest itself in nature, in reality, the real observable world, therefore demonstrating its existence is to either argue for the logically impossible or logically unknowable, both are undesirable in any case, since a god-like entity that created the very cosmos should logically have an abundance of evidence so that there could be no debate or dispute. Another problem is every time someone presents an argument or posits an existence claim for a supernatural god it is often indistinguishable from any other conceptual deity within theology, separate god claims never seem to mutually exclusive.

Quote:Another thing I hope is that this thread will include what you think are the best arguments against Christianity, or the concept of God in general.

Usually the best examples aren't counterarguments, but those arguments for Christianity and God since they're practically self-refuting.

Quote:I'd like to hear about some good authors or resources too if you have any. I don't want to sound inflammatory, but I've already read some Dawkins, Dennit, and Hitchens and found that their arguments, while well thought out, didn't do much to dissuade anyone from believing.

I'm not surprised. They didn't change me either. The only person, who can sincerely change yourself and your perspective, your outlook on life for better or for worse, is you.

Quote:So in conclusion, I want to hear all of the best Atheist apologetics, and especially your own story of how you came to Atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a world-view. Atheism makes no claims about reality, all it is is a rejection of theistic claims that haven't met their burden of proof. Welcome to the Forums.

(November 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

---

(November 10, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't know if I subscribe to your definition of humanistic (I'm not a secular humanist nor a religious humanist), but I do believe that all of our actions should be justified internally with reason, ethics and justice. All that is encompassed by our developed human nature. I just factor in a few more checks and balances, such as intuition, the Holy Spirit, and a comprehensive scripture check. Just to clarify I don't deny any of my own human aspects and value every life at least as a fellow human.

You clearly stated that your personal experience was in some way was subjective personal proof of a god. My contention is only if you are prepared to accept that is also true for others who have a similar experience, but with less desirable results (the serial killer or suicide bomber being examples). So do you concede that they also experience god, or that your experience is the true god and they are mistaken? If you concede that you know where I'll go next of course, but if you don't you still have offered no grounds on which to deny their claims, as all your defences could be used by them as well. Scripture can't really help here as it will support both the humane and murderous amongst us.

---

subjective experience alone is not proof of my understanding of God. My only point was that you have to experience something first before you can decide whether it's real or not. They may or may not have had an experience prior to analysis, idk. The examples you used though obviously did not do enough (or any) other verification prior to acting on blind faith or delusion. If they had, perhaps they'd see it was their own desires or a delusion that had caused the experience.Scripture (the Holy Bible in my religion) when analyzed as a whole does not condone the murderous. While I concede that there are incidences of atrocities recorded as being in God's name, Jesus came to teach us the error of our previous interpretations and uses of the old testament, and when looked at humanistic-ally are of selfish motivation not an external to selfish desires.

(November 10, 2010 at 8:39 pm)tackattack Wrote:

(November 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

---

(November 10, 2010 at 2:29 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't know if I subscribe to your definition of humanistic (I'm not a secular humanist nor a religious humanist), but I do believe that all of our actions should be justified internally with reason, ethics and justice. All that is encompassed by our developed human nature. I just factor in a few more checks and balances, such as intuition, the Holy Spirit, and a comprehensive scripture check. Just to clarify I don't deny any of my own human aspects and value every life at least as a fellow human.

You clearly stated that your personal experience was in some way was subjective personal proof of a god. My contention is only if you are prepared to accept that is also true for others who have a similar experience, but with less desirable results (the serial killer or suicide bomber being examples). So do you concede that they also experience god, or that your experience is the true god and they are mistaken? If you concede that you know where I'll go next of course, but if you don't you still have offered no grounds on which to deny their claims, as all your defences could be used by them as well. Scripture can't really help here as it will support both the humane and murderous amongst us.

---

subjective experience alone is not proof of my understanding of God. My only point was that you have to experience something first before you can decide whether it's real or not. They may or may not have had an experience prior to analysis, idk. The examples you used though obviously did not do enough (or any) other verification prior to acting on blind faith or delusion. If they had, perhaps they'd see it was their own desires or a delusion that had caused the experience.Scripture (the Holy Bible in my religion) when analyzed as a whole does not condone the murderous. While I concede that there are incidences of atrocities recorded as being in God's name, Jesus came to teach us the error of our previous interpretations and uses of the old testament, and when looked at humanistic-ally are of selfish motivation not an external to selfish desires.

I don't think you can state that they didn't do enough verification. They could turn round to you and claim exactly the same and they would not be short of biblical authority in doing so. If you allow for the possibility that you are right then you have to concede that they could also be either. My position is that you are both wrong.

If Jesus existed, and I'll concede that it is at probable, he was was alleged to say lots of things, as an orthodox Jew who accalimed the OT. He probably used is own humanistic qualities to tone down some of the shrill stuff.