(May 27, 2017 at 11:37 am)Aroura Wrote:

(May 27, 2017 at 10:16 am)Little Rik Wrote: As far as your guessing is turned into a solid and firm belief then you got to be very careful.
You are guessing that God did this or that without even understand why.
What about if God would have a good reason to do this or that?
Have you ever heard of the kangaroo court where people are declared guilty before real evidence is brought forward?  

(color mine)

I am actually guessing there is no God.  I'm just trying to understand those who continue to believe in him and believe him to be "good".  I'm pointing out they are the ones guessing, and making excuses.  They are the ones who have passed judgement and declared all of mankind guilty without evidence.

I already said my beliefs are subject to change.  Are yours?

You are still projecting.

No more changes about my beliefs since I discovered that God is within.
It didn't come all of a sudden like winning millions at Lottery.
The awareness came after a lot of hard work through yoga but if on top of that you also put the
NDEs experiences that confirm what I already believe then the reasons for a change become nil.  

(May 27, 2017 at 8:14 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: Either God exists or God does not exist.  This covers 100% of all possibilities, and in either case, a fallible human being would not be able to explain God's ways to another fallible human being's satisfaction.  So for the atheist side, why ask, and for the theist side, why attempt to explain?

Because skeptics love asking questions and coming to understand things.
And most of those who actually believe in God would want as many people as possible to share this blissfull experience and share in their happynes.

I know I did when I was one.

That comment seems to be out of left field anyway.  Plenty of people are satisfied with the explanation of god's ways that has been provided to them, regardless of their fallibility as humans, or the fallibility of the communicator presenting the explanation.

There are billions of satisfied believers in the world......... and no shortage of atheists who feel that believers have explained their gods way's satisfactorily. Hell, I'm satisfied? I just don't believe in their god, and wouldn't be an acolyte even if they were right (in most cases, specifically because they were right about some of their god's ways, satisfactorily explained).

(May 28, 2017 at 5:13 am)Mr.Obvious Wrote: Because skeptics love asking questions and coming to understand things.
And most of those who actually believe in God would want as many people as possible to share this blissfull experience and share in their happynes.

I know I did when I was one.

I understand the drive, but I meant given the limitations, why would anyone suppose the drive could be met? The skeptic requires evidence, which can't be provided to skeptical satisfaction and a spreader of the faith requires acceptance of the premise, which can't be transferred to a skeptic.

(May 28, 2017 at 8:46 am)Khemikal Wrote: That comment seems to be out of left field anyway.  Plenty of people are satisfied with the explanation of god's ways that has been provided to them, regardless of their fallibility as humans, or the fallibility of the communicator presenting the explanation.

There are billions of satisfied believers in the world......... and no shortage of atheists who feel that believers have explained their gods way's satisfactorily. Hell, I'm satisfied? I just don't believe in their god, and wouldn't be an acolyte even if they were right (in most cases, specifically because they were right about some of their god's ways, satisfactorily explained).

True. My question was a bit ill-phrased. I was referring specifically to the interchange between believers and skeptics to defend/examine Faith. There is a futility to the attempt to adjudicate the rational legitimacy of a non-rational process.

(May 27, 2017 at 8:14 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: Either God exists or God does not exist...

Unless you can supply a coherent, falsifiable definition of 'God', we have nothing to discuss.

Yes. Either God exists or he does not.

He does not.

(May 28, 2017 at 1:13 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(May 27, 2017 at 8:14 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: Either God exists or God does not exist...

Unless you can supply a coherent, falsifiable definition of 'God', we have nothing to discuss.

I agree. That rather supports my point.

(May 28, 2017 at 9:21 am)Valyza1 Wrote:

(May 28, 2017 at 5:13 am)Mr.Obvious Wrote: Because skeptics love asking questions and coming to understand things.
And most of those who actually believe in God would want as many people as possible to share this blissfull experience and share in their happynes.

I know I did when I was one.

I understand the drive, but I meant given the limitations, why would anyone suppose the drive could be met?  The skeptic requires evidence, which can't be provided to skeptical satisfaction and a spreader of the faith requires acceptance of the premise, which can't be transferred to a skeptic.

Do you only do things because you expect them to succeed? If so, I'd say you are missing out on life my friend. Some of the best things in life are wasting time and effort on hopeless causes.

But still. Why you or I may never have changed anyone's point of view altogether on this big question, why would that stop us? For starters, do you believe no one has ever deconverted or converted? My change to atheist happened gradually, but couldn't have happened without people bringing up decent points to pull the wool from my eyes, sort of speak. And even if that weren't to happen, isn't it a basic sign of respect and human decency to engage in conversation and try to understand not only the other's position but come to challenge your own? Not saying this is your intent, but if I were to try and shut down the conversation all together, it'd probably be because I have a point of view so fragile and undefendeable it can't withstand honest reasoning and discourse yet I don't want to give it up.
I'm on atheist forums (.com & .org) on the one hand to converse with fellow atheists. But also because I like, from time to time, to engage views that opposite and challenge my own. I want to know what you think and why you think it. I want to know why I believe what I believe and don't believe what I don't believe.
And without this 'looking-glass self' tough chance of that happening.

(May 29, 2017 at 4:00 am)Mr.Obvious Wrote:

(May 28, 2017 at 9:21 am)Valyza1 Wrote: I understand the drive, but I meant given the limitations, why would anyone suppose the drive could be met?  The skeptic requires evidence, which can't be provided to skeptical satisfaction and a spreader of the faith requires acceptance of the premise, which can't be transferred to a skeptic.

Do you only do things because you expect them to succeed? If so, I'd say you are missing out on life my friend. Some of the best things in life are wasting time and effort on hopeless causes.

But still. Why you or I may never have changed anyone's point of view altogether on this big question, why would that stop us? For starters, do you believe no one has ever deconverted or converted? My change to atheist happened gradually, but couldn't have happened without people bringing up decent points to pull the wool from my eyes, sort of speak. And even if that weren't to happen, isn't it a basic sign of respect and human decency to engage in conversation and try to understand not only the other's position but come to challenge your own? Not saying this is your intent, but if I were to try and shut down the conversation all together, it'd probably be because I have a point of view so fragile and undefendeable it can't withstand honest reasoning and discourse yet I don't want to give it up.
I'm on atheist forums (.com & .org) on the one hand to converse with fellow atheists. But also because I like, from time to time, to engage views that opposite and challenge my own. I want to know what you think and why you think it. I want to know why I believe what I believe and don't believe what I don't believe.
And without this 'looking-glass self' tough chance of that happening.

Engaging in healthy, communal, educational debate is great, as long as in the final analysis, there's a mutual respectfulness exhibited by both debaters. That's great to see on the forums. But when people argue with the mentality that the other side is deficient for being on the other side, I find that anti-productive and futile.

Personally, I tend to think that converts on either side just never examined their initial position thoroughly enough to identify what they really believe. In such a case, examination is helpful as long as, again, it's honest examination. I don't see how that's possible when one's guard is up. Ridicule and condescension are not conducive to self-examination, IMO.

(May 29, 2017 at 11:17 am)Valyza1 Wrote:

(May 29, 2017 at 4:00 am)Mr.Obvious Wrote: Do you only do things because you expect them to succeed? If so, I'd say you are missing out on life my friend. Some of the best things in life are wasting time and effort on hopeless causes.

But still. Why you or I may never have changed anyone's point of view altogether on this big question, why would that stop us? For starters, do you believe no one has ever deconverted or converted? My change to atheist happened gradually, but couldn't have happened without people bringing up decent points to pull the wool from my eyes, sort of speak. And even if that weren't to happen, isn't it a basic sign of respect and human decency to engage in conversation and try to understand not only the other's position but come to challenge your own? Not saying this is your intent, but if I were to try and shut down the conversation all together, it'd probably be because I have a point of view so fragile and undefendeable it can't withstand honest reasoning and discourse yet I don't want to give it up.
I'm on atheist forums (.com & .org) on the one hand to converse with fellow atheists. But also because I like, from time to time, to engage views that opposite and challenge my own. I want to know what you think and why you think it. I want to know why I believe what I believe and don't believe what I don't believe.
And without this 'looking-glass self' tough chance of that happening.

Engaging in healthy, communal, educational debate is great, as long as in the final analysis, there's a mutual respectfulness exhibited by both debaters.  That's great to see on the forums.  But when people argue with the mentality that the other side is deficient for being on the other side, I find that anti-productive and futile.  

Personally, I tend to think that converts on either side just never examined their initial position thoroughly enough to identify what they really believe.  In such a case, examination is helpful as long as, again, it's honest examination.  I don't see how that's possible when one's guard is up.  Ridicule and condescension are not conducive to self-examination, IMO.

I see your point, but still. It depends. And it can be a great backfire. I remember I first started really questioning my own views on religion after I'd rudely dismissed a classmate's belief in the abilities of 'psychic investigators' as unfounded nonsense and ridiculed her for believing in something without having any evidence to point anyone towards to. No more than three seconds later a little voice in my head went: "Yeah, kind of like your belief in Christianity."
But as a rule of thumb, I tend to agree. While I find the ideas behind religion ridiculous and utterly ridicule-worthy nowadays, when my conversational partner is polite I will reply in kind. Otherwise a decent conversation often seems impossible. It's only when one starts being demeaning to me that I tend to return the favor.
That all being said; I do don't really agree that converts on either side never examined their initial position thoroughly enough. Sometimes you can just have a gestaltswitch, sometimes just like that, sometimes brought on by grain by grain of argument until the weight of the final straw breaks the camel's back. Couple that with other attributes such as ego and stubborness which may cloud your objective ideas with subjective counterarguments. In that case, you've still concidered your arguments thoroughly, you just blocked them off internally for bad reasons. I, again speaking from my own experiences, had a hard time admitting I'd been wrong my entire life plus that I wasn't 'special', two things that really wreaked havoc on my bloated sense of self-importance. If I were ever to make the switch again, I imagine I'd find myself again hard-pressed to accept that I was wrong about this thing I only 'till recently described as ridiculous.