That depends on your definition of ample. I'm not the one being shown the photographs I'm the one taking them. I'm conveying a story and my the only evidence I can show for the entirety of my experience are a few still shots of something explainable. The pictures aren't blury to me, nor is my memory of events and the logic of the truth.

I'll assume you are not talking about taking photographs of Bigfoot but are metaphorically referring to your personal quest to make sense of it all. You feel you have only a few still shots to go by, but still feel compelled to believe in your god.

Hmmm, I think my friend that generally is known as belief in belief, not as belief in deities as such.

My bigfoot comments were related to another thread http://atheistforums.org/thread-2076-pag...ht=bigfoot

I feel I have an "experience" that is unconveyable. The sum of which is as follows: I have some books, some tests I've ran against God, some peronal logical conclusions about my perception of the world I live in, unexplainable phenomenon, etc all adding up to my "experience". I don't think that's belief in belief, I think that's Belief in my perception of the world as it affects me. It studiable, peer reviewable and follows logical progression in my mind.

If all I can hand you is some "blurry photos" of God and tell you the story of how I saw him "running through the woods humping an elk" (I really liked using the bigfoot metaphor ) you're still not going to believe it because you can't justify my credibility because of our differences in perception or "cut open the carcass yourself". I'm content to just agree that you see things you way do and I mine. I'm not really here to prove God to anyone or sway anyone aware from atheism (not that I have that anywhere close to that amount of brain power) . I'm just trying to understand atheism as a perspective and some aspects of science I don't fully comprehend from some really intellegent and thoughtfull people (nice to but that's not a requirement).

(December 13, 2009 at 7:43 am)tackattack Wrote: I feel I have an "experience" that is unconveyable. The sum of which is as follows: I have some books, some tests I've ran against God, some peronal logical conclusions about my perception of the world I live in, unexplainable phenomenon, etc all adding up to my "experience". I don't think that's belief in belief, I think that's Belief in my perception of the world as it affects me. It studiable, peer reviewable and follows logical progression in my mind.

Nothing of what you mention on the "input side" is alien to me (including unexplainable phenomena). But there is no straight argument to the "output side" (i.e. god) of the equation you make. The will to arrive at that conclusion is what shines through as belief in belief. Before you can ever hope to begin to make a distinction between hope and truth, you must be willing to question the evidential basis for such hope and differentiate between little evidence for big claims and ample evidence for little claims. It will be your truth that you have to act upon for the rest of your life and with your background it is to be expected that long held convictions will be shaken when assessed with unbiased questioning. A forum like this is a good place to do it.

(December 13, 2009 at 7:43 am)tackattack Wrote: If all I can hand you is some "blurry photos" of God and tell you the story of how I saw him "running through the woods humping an elk" (I really liked using the bigfoot metaphor ) you're still not going to believe it because you can't justify my credibility because of our differences in perception or "cut open the carcass yourself". I'm content to just agree that you see things you way do and I mine. I'm not really here to prove God to anyone or sway anyone aware from atheism (not that I have that anywhere close to that amount of brain power) . I'm just trying to understand atheism as a perspective and some aspects of science I don't fully comprehend from some really intellegent and thoughtfull people (nice to but that's not a requirement).

I see you are not the proselytizing kind. You come here with questions. And we (speaking for the atheists here that have reacted) attack them, fiercely I might add. Indeed science is not the only answer on life, there's moral, there's art and there's reverence to life and the universe. Just don't think atheists are without this.

I like the Bigfoot metaphor because the guy who created Bigfoot confessed to the hoax before he died, just like man needs to confess that he created god. Both are a hoax.

Belief in belief would be 3rd person and not personal to yourself. By this you assume non direct contact with a deity. Biblical reference is 3rd person without taking anything directly upon yourself. Again if you find a direct communication via the text isn't that 1st person? Christianity is always 1st person.

(December 13, 2009 at 9:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Belief in belief would be 3rd person and not personal to yourself. By this you assume non direct contact with a deity. Biblical reference is 3rd person without taking anything directly upon yourself. Again if you find a direct communication via the text isn't that 1st person? Christianity is always 1st person.

So what do the voices inside your head tell you now?

(December 13, 2009 at 10:11 am)LEDO Wrote: So what do the voices inside your head tell you now?

Not to feed imbecilic comments but WTF - I think for myself

(December 13, 2009 at 9:42 am)LEDO Wrote: I like the Bigfoot metaphor because the guy who created Bigfoot confessed to the hoax before he died, just like man needs to confess that he created god. Both are a hoax.

What? Bigfoot a hoax? No...well I do live in Bigfoot country. Me and an old boyfriend used to go up to the mountains with the dune buggy and a fifth of Southern Comfort. Never saw Bigfoot, but had a good time

(December 13, 2009 at 9:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Belief in belief would be 3rd person and not personal to yourself. By this you assume non direct contact with a deity. Biblical reference is 3rd person without taking anything directly upon yourself. Again if you find a direct communication via the text isn't that 1st person? Christianity is always 1st person.

From first person anyone is capable of believing whatever he likes. And so believing in belief is possible from first person. You may not really believe all the crap in the bible, while still attributing positive value to the phenomenon of belief. Nowhere does 3rd person enter the room.

If biblical reference is a 3rd person account, the claim (pretty central in most versions of christianity) that it is the word of god is false.

Christianity is a religion, not an account that can be characterized as 1st or 3rd person. If you ever get that hotline with god himself how do you authenticate him?