Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: You act like I'm afraid to lose my belief? Do I really seem to be that unopen to new ideas? Am I not a Christian talking openly on an atheist forum? True I didn't come here to question my belief ony to understand a different POV, but that doesn't mean I'll reject it outright because I'm afraid I'll lose some reward in heaven... that's preposterous. Make your points or don't, but don't try to save me from your almighty logic, before you even posit a response.This is just an exchange of ideas.. in no way a formal debate (which I refuse to participate in) and I'm fully capable of accepting new ideas.
Whoa there, buddy. I didn't say anything about you being scared of losing anything, it was not my intention for the tone to imply such a prospect, so I apologize if I misspoke.
Take a chill pill, I'm not here to mess with your beliefs or try to invalidate your experiences.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- correct but you also assume the possibility that God exists, unless you're an absolutist, which I don't gather. So we'll discus my concept of God then.
There is a possibility that God exists, sure. There is also a possibility of fairies in my underwear drawer, both equally devoid of evidence to support the claims. You can't make a positive claim that they don't, so there is a possibility. However, the odds of this are ridiculously tiny. I try not to assume anything. I'll consider something with evidence though.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 2-Empirical as in data produced through experiment or experience (subjective or objective). Verifiable through continuous and exploration and logical inference.
Do you understand how subjective evidence is irrelevant to everyone else?
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3-The validity is sound only when all variables are accounted for. Since we're talkigng on a scale as large as God then I simply look for more varialbles to eliminate and reassess. The whole of me being on this forum is a search for variables I've missed.
What are the variables you have accounted for thus far?
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3.5-Do you really expect a peer review article published in a scientific journal? Yoiu can do better than that. If you would like documented or shared experience look up the word testimonial.
This is what you wrote:
That doesn't equal "there's no evidence for God". Those mental constructs (which I would group with math, etc.) along with inductive reasoning and subjective personal perspective and peer-review help me form my belief, which is well above the threshold of belief in God for me.
You mentioned peer review, I simply asked you to establish that point a bit better.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.3- I too was in wresting as a youth and definately had that dopamine/adrenalin rush before a game when we were psyching ourselves up. That is dependant on either suggestability or seeking a "high". I rarely seek the holy spirit's intervention, in fact that's probably my worst trait as a Christian not seeking God's help in my daily life. People are deemed to be suggestible if they accept and act on suggestions by others. I only act of my own volition whenever I'm not forced to do something, which is rarely I'm 6'4" and 260 lbs.
You accept God intervenes in your life and you say you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. That's fine. Then you say he has control of you, but yet you act of your own volition. The fact that this exact response can be independently tested and replicated kind of puts the whole experience into perspective. There is a high probability that it's not an outside force acting on you, it's your brain doing what it does best - providing stimuli.
By the way,the best kind of illusions are the ones that absolutely convince you of their validity.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.5-I agree that my perceptions of synchonicity have greatly increased since my reentering into religion. I wouldn't say I didn't see any coincidence while a nonbeliever. The causality train just seem far smaller without religion. Perhaps I was just paying attention less to why I was doing what I was doing?
It's the same effect if I buy a Volkswagen Jetta, then I suddenly start noticing all the Jettas on the road. Your brain has a way to filter out the information that's not relevant to your immediate worldview.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.6healing by prayer is probably more of a psychological stress relief allowing the immune system to work better I'll conceed that. How then could I know when to "randomly" pray for someone in need when consciously I had no thoughts on that person's wellbeing or life?
I don't understand the question. You randomly prayed for someone in need? Did you know they were in need beforehand? Can you shed some more light on this?
I'd dismiss this as a coincidence, but I'm not sure I fully understand the situation.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.7-Once again another atheist saying I need clinical help... really? Why when I rationally and honestly answer the quesitons in as concise a manner as I can, am I reffered to psychiactric help or told to jump into traffic? Sounds like someone has a psychological defence mechanism preventing them from actually looking at themselves and focusing solely on others for accountability.. and it's not me. I'm away I act on my own, I have no puppetmaster pulling strings so that I grab a girls butt as she walks by... ridiculus. I don't take credit for anything the holy spirit does, it's actually a common Chrisitan habit. I do however take complete responsibility for everything my body does. I've never heard a Christian that I've know say I stole her purse because God told me to do it, not a rational one at least. Maybe you should take some responsibility for that vomit you just threw up, or am I responsible for that?
I'll make this known and I'll write it clearly so anyone can understand without strife.
If you believe that an entity can control you against your will and control your body via proxy or extreme influence, you may have a psychological illness. Doing something not only because something told you to do it, but something MADE you do it is downright scary.
I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm trying to tell you that it's not normal. I'm being as brutally honest as I can be, and I'm not making fun of you. I'm not saying to jump into traffic. I want you to realize that something taking control of you beyond your own control can be a big indicator of mental illness. Whether that applies to you or not is up to you.
Personally, I try to take responsibility for everything I do, and don't hold a belief that I have a guiding force(s) pushing me to a certain predestined goal.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: "They have happened before and will happen again to people. They are not isolated or unique phenomena. " That's exactly my point. They're not unique, just shared experience. atheists say they're unique not theists. Perhaps you're missing out?
If they weren't unique to you you wouldn't be listing them as subjective evidence for the existence of God. I just told you that I don't regard them as unique. Why would you maintain a blanket statement that applies to all atheists?
I was probably a little too hyped on caffeine; I've been away from it for a while. It's just a little frustrating that, as a theist, I would have precursored any positing of a rebuttal with that, at least 3 people would have pointed out the attack on innuendo. Though, not nearly as frustrating as having to type half of this response three times, due to internet problems.
1-So we can agree that we both have faith that God could exist, just varying levels. That point can rest then.
2-Yes and my concept of God should be irrelevant to you. Conceptually God, from a Christian perspective, gives each of us a direct line to understanding him. Subjectivity is actually a key. I’m not making a claim for you, only myself.
3-I guess that list would be better as a whole other thread.
3.5- Ok so I’ve clarified peer review as testimonial, make your point.
4.3- Actually I have said the exact opposite of your first assertion. “I don't feel he acts on our behalf or intercedes but is omnificent and omnipotent.” I would say we all have a holy spirit that we interact with. It pulls us closer to God in a way similar to a magnet and iron shavings. The Holy Spirit being the magnetic fields and God being the magnet, etc.
4.3.1-You’re just reasserting that it can be independently tested and replicated. I clearly delineated that my experience has not, to my knowledge, been replicated and is not indicative of normal responces to various stimuli.
4.3.2- How can I be misled by myself(read illusion)? The only person I can be is me, and the only direction I can go is forward. Every time atheists claim I’m delusional or need to test God by jumping into traffic the people who know me laugh.
4.5 It could possibly be a form of confirmational bias (less than20% IMO) but definitely not rationalization. I believe that rests on your interpretations of relevant and immediate, which seem to me to reside in the conscious mind not the subconscious.
4.6 For instance I’m sitting in prayer thanking God for his wonderful awesomeness and suddenly a friend I haven’t spoken with in 6 years just pops into my head. I pray for him and feel his body needs healing, so I ask for it. I shoot him an email just BS’ing about how he’s been and it’s been a while, and how’s the family. Come to find out that he’s going though the stress of having polyps tested and very worried about it. I then respond back about my prayer and he shared the test results and we all had a good story to tell.
4.7- see the metaphor in 4.3 It’s not like I couldn’t separate the magnet and the iron fillings. I can tell God no, I can refuse to do what the spirit nudges me to ask about, say, or go. I did it before. Every time I do go along with it though, synchronicity events start stacking up.
4.8 They’re unique to me. You’re referencing the populace though so I inferred you were talking about unique among a group. They’re not unique among Christians, but to an individual they stand out for their own belief.
This really was much more eloquent and inclusive of all my thoughts the first time. I’m getting tired now and Void is doing a great job of distracting me, to his benefit. I'll have to reassess tomorrow.
1. I don't have faith that a God COULD exist. I'm simply not making the positive claim that he does not. I'm not lending any credibility to the claim, and I'm also adding that such a claim would be highly, highly unlikely. Saying I have faith that he could exist would be to also say that I have faith that leprechauns or wizards could exist.
2. If subjectivity is key, then it's paramount to understand that it doesn't go much farther past subjective interpretations, meaning no objective claim is likely to be true.
3.5. Perhaps you didn't understand what peer review actually meant. I understand you meant to write testimonial, but peer review is altogether something different. Testimonials, secondhand accounts, and anecdotal evidence is not valid when objectively trying to deduct a conclusion, since they can be easily embellished, changed, and cherry picked at the subject's choosing, making it almost impossible to call their bluff on it. "Taking someone's word for it" isn't good enough. Pure and simple.
4.3. Again, you're asserting an objective claim with subjective, anecdotal evidence. If I told you the sky was falling, and to have faith that it was, and I got a bunch of others to believe me, would you then also believe, based on the collective faiths of like-minded people?
4.31. I'd log this under confirmation bias. The fact that religious experiences have been replicated artificially using certain psychological and physical methods is pretty self-explanatory. Every truly religious person knows that what they feel is genuine and generally dismiss any evidence to the contrary. You explained the rushing of the holy spirit and the control over you. I illustrated how this has been done.
4.32. It's very easy to be misled. When you assume God exists, you're more susceptible to things that you might attribute to him - things you normally wouldn't, such as coincidences, situations you don't quite understand, freak occurrences, and religious experiences that manifest into your physical body and have an effect on your emotional status. I'm not saying you have to test God by jumping out into traffic, but I think it would be safe to say most of what you put forth can objectively be classified as wishful thinking.
4.5. Where are you pulling these statistics? Your brain has a method of singling out elements in your life that identify with your world view. If I suddenly started working at Dairy Queen, you'd be certain that I would notice more Dairy Queens in my area. The same thing as if you started a belief that God is all around you, you would notice coincidental things more and attribute that to a divine presence.
4.6. Would it be just as big of a coincidence if you had just thought about him,not prayed, then decided to call? How about if you had dreamt it? Lots of people have medical issues, most turn out to be easily treatable. Contacting a friend after a while because you had a hunch that he needs help, and come to find out he's getting benign polyps tested is a coincidence. Did you think your prayer had anything to do with his test results?
4.7. Every time you believe that a spirit takes over your actions, more coincidences occur in your mind? You don't see in the slightest bit how this is rationalization? Seriously?
4.8. As well they should be if you sincerely believe what you say you do. All I'm saying is that these things have happened and will continue to happen, all without the need of a supernatural explanation. Subjective experience lends itself to embellishment, exaggeration, and false and unfounded claims. The objective explanation of all the things you listed can be attributed to your own imagination and thought processes. In all likelihood, it's the most realistic claim.
February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm (This post was last modified: February 22, 2010 at 9:35 pm by tackattack.)
(February 22, 2010 at 10:32 am)tavarish Wrote:
(February 19, 2010 at 4:30 am)tackattack Wrote:
(February 19, 2010 at 1:00 am)tavarish Wrote:
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: You act like I'm afraid to lose my belief? Do I really seem to be that unopen to new ideas? Am I not a Christian talking openly on an atheist forum? True I didn't come here to question my belief ony to understand a different POV, but that doesn't mean I'll reject it outright because I'm afraid I'll lose some reward in heaven... that's preposterous. Make your points or don't, but don't try to save me from your almighty logic, before you even posit a response.This is just an exchange of ideas.. in no way a formal debate (which I refuse to participate in) and I'm fully capable of accepting new ideas.
Whoa there, buddy. I didn't say anything about you being scared of losing anything, it was not my intention for the tone to imply such a prospect, so I apologize if I misspoke.
Take a chill pill, I'm not here to mess with your beliefs or try to invalidate your experiences.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- correct but you also assume the possibility that God exists, unless you're an absolutist, which I don't gather. So we'll discus my concept of God then.
There is a possibility that God exists, sure. There is also a possibility of fairies in my underwear drawer, both equally devoid of evidence to support the claims. You can't make a positive claim that they don't, so there is a possibility. However, the odds of this are ridiculously tiny. I try not to assume anything. I'll consider something with evidence though.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 2-Empirical as in data produced through experiment or experience (subjective or objective). Verifiable through continuous and exploration and logical inference.
Do you understand how subjective evidence is irrelevant to everyone else?
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3-The validity is sound only when all variables are accounted for. Since we're talkigng on a scale as large as God then I simply look for more varialbles to eliminate and reassess. The whole of me being on this forum is a search for variables I've missed.
What are the variables you have accounted for thus far?
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3.5-Do you really expect a peer review article published in a scientific journal? Yoiu can do better than that. If you would like documented or shared experience look up the word testimonial.
This is what you wrote:
That doesn't equal "there's no evidence for God". Those mental constructs (which I would group with math, etc.) along with inductive reasoning and subjective personal perspective and peer-review help me form my belief, which is well above the threshold of belief in God for me.
You mentioned peer review, I simply asked you to establish that point a bit better.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.3- I too was in wresting as a youth and definately had that dopamine/adrenalin rush before a game when we were psyching ourselves up. That is dependant on either suggestability or seeking a "high". I rarely seek the holy spirit's intervention, in fact that's probably my worst trait as a Christian not seeking God's help in my daily life. People are deemed to be suggestible if they accept and act on suggestions by others. I only act of my own volition whenever I'm not forced to do something, which is rarely I'm 6'4" and 260 lbs.
You accept God intervenes in your life and you say you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. That's fine. Then you say he has control of you, but yet you act of your own volition. The fact that this exact response can be independently tested and replicated kind of puts the whole experience into perspective. There is a high probability that it's not an outside force acting on you, it's your brain doing what it does best - providing stimuli.
By the way,the best kind of illusions are the ones that absolutely convince you of their validity.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.5-I agree that my perceptions of synchonicity have greatly increased since my reentering into religion. I wouldn't say I didn't see any coincidence while a nonbeliever. The causality train just seem far smaller without religion. Perhaps I was just paying attention less to why I was doing what I was doing?
It's the same effect if I buy a Volkswagen Jetta, then I suddenly start noticing all the Jettas on the road. Your brain has a way to filter out the information that's not relevant to your immediate worldview.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.6healing by prayer is probably more of a psychological stress relief allowing the immune system to work better I'll conceed that. How then could I know when to "randomly" pray for someone in need when consciously I had no thoughts on that person's wellbeing or life?
I don't understand the question. You randomly prayed for someone in need? Did you know they were in need beforehand? Can you shed some more light on this?
I'd dismiss this as a coincidence, but I'm not sure I fully understand the situation.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.7-Once again another atheist saying I need clinical help... really? Why when I rationally and honestly answer the quesitons in as concise a manner as I can, am I reffered to psychiactric help or told to jump into traffic? Sounds like someone has a psychological defence mechanism preventing them from actually looking at themselves and focusing solely on others for accountability.. and it's not me. I'm away I act on my own, I have no puppetmaster pulling strings so that I grab a girls butt as she walks by... ridiculus. I don't take credit for anything the holy spirit does, it's actually a common Chrisitan habit. I do however take complete responsibility for everything my body does. I've never heard a Christian that I've know say I stole her purse because God told me to do it, not a rational one at least. Maybe you should take some responsibility for that vomit you just threw up, or am I responsible for that?
I'll make this known and I'll write it clearly so anyone can understand without strife.
If you believe that an entity can control you against your will and control your body via proxy or extreme influence, you may have a psychological illness. Doing something not only because something told you to do it, but something MADE you do it is downright scary.
I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm trying to tell you that it's not normal. I'm being as brutally honest as I can be, and I'm not making fun of you. I'm not saying to jump into traffic. I want you to realize that something taking control of you beyond your own control can be a big indicator of mental illness. Whether that applies to you or not is up to you.
Personally, I try to take responsibility for everything I do, and don't hold a belief that I have a guiding force(s) pushing me to a certain predestined goal.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: "They have happened before and will happen again to people. They are not isolated or unique phenomena. " That's exactly my point. They're not unique, just shared experience. atheists say they're unique not theists. Perhaps you're missing out?
If they weren't unique to you you wouldn't be listing them as subjective evidence for the existence of God. I just told you that I don't regard them as unique. Why would you maintain a blanket statement that applies to all atheists?
I was probably a little too hyped on caffeine; I've been away from it for a while. It's just a little frustrating that, as a theist, I would have precursored any positing of a rebuttal with that, at least 3 people would have pointed out the attack on innuendo. Though, not nearly as frustrating as having to type half of this response three times, due to internet problems.
1-So we can agree that we both have faith that God could exist, just varying levels. That point can rest then.
2-Yes and my concept of God should be irrelevant to you. Conceptually God, from a Christian perspective, gives each of us a direct line to understanding him. Subjectivity is actually a key. I’m not making a claim for you, only myself.
3-I guess that list would be better as a whole other thread.
3.5- Ok so I’ve clarified peer review as testimonial, make your point.
4.3- Actually I have said the exact opposite of your first assertion. “I don't feel he acts on our behalf or intercedes but is omnificent and omnipotent.” I would say we all have a holy spirit that we interact with. It pulls us closer to God in a way similar to a magnet and iron shavings. The Holy Spirit being the magnetic fields and God being the magnet, etc.
4.3.1-You’re just reasserting that it can be independently tested and replicated. I clearly delineated that my experience has not, to my knowledge, been replicated and is not indicative of normal responces to various stimuli.
4.3.2- How can I be misled by myself(read illusion)? The only person I can be is me, and the only direction I can go is forward. Every time atheists claim I’m delusional or need to test God by jumping into traffic the people who know me laugh.
4.5 It could possibly be a form of confirmational bias (less than20% IMO) but definitely not rationalization. I believe that rests on your interpretations of relevant and immediate, which seem to me to reside in the conscious mind not the subconscious.
4.6 For instance I’m sitting in prayer thanking God for his wonderful awesomeness and suddenly a friend I haven’t spoken with in 6 years just pops into my head. I pray for him and feel his body needs healing, so I ask for it. I shoot him an email just BS’ing about how he’s been and it’s been a while, and how’s the family. Come to find out that he’s going though the stress of having polyps tested and very worried about it. I then respond back about my prayer and he shared the test results and we all had a good story to tell.
4.7- see the metaphor in 4.3 It’s not like I couldn’t separate the magnet and the iron fillings. I can tell God no, I can refuse to do what the spirit nudges me to ask about, say, or go. I did it before. Every time I do go along with it though, synchronicity events start stacking up.
4.8 They’re unique to me. You’re referencing the populace though so I inferred you were talking about unique among a group. They’re not unique among Christians, but to an individual they stand out for their own belief.
This really was much more eloquent and inclusive of all my thoughts the first time. I’m getting tired now and Void is doing a great job of distracting me, to his benefit. I'll have to reassess tomorrow.
1. I don't have faith that a God COULD exist. I'm simply not making the positive claim that he does not. I'm not lending any credibility to the claim, and I'm also adding that such a claim would be highly, highly unlikely. Saying I have faith that he could exist would be to also say that I have faith that leprechauns or wizards could exist.
2. If subjectivity is key, then it's paramount to understand that it doesn't go much farther past subjective interpretations, meaning no objective claim is likely to be true.
3.5. Perhaps you didn't understand what peer review actually meant. I understand you meant to write testimonial, but peer review is altogether something different. Testimonials, secondhand accounts, and anecdotal evidence is not valid when objectively trying to deduct a conclusion, since they can be easily embellished, changed, and cherry picked at the subject's choosing, making it almost impossible to call their bluff on it. "Taking someone's word for it" isn't good enough. Pure and simple.
4.3. Again, you're asserting an objective claim with subjective, anecdotal evidence. If I told you the sky was falling, and to have faith that it was, and I got a bunch of others to believe me, would you then also believe, based on the collective faiths of like-minded people?
4.31. I'd log this under confirmation bias. The fact that religious experiences have been replicated artificially using certain psychological and physical methods is pretty self-explanatory. Every truly religious person knows that what they feel is genuine and generally dismiss any evidence to the contrary. You explained the rushing of the holy spirit and the control over you. I illustrated how this has been done.
4.32. It's very easy to be misled. When you assume God exists, you're more susceptible to things that you might attribute to him - things you normally wouldn't, such as coincidences, situations you don't quite understand, freak occurrences, and religious experiences that manifest into your physical body and have an effect on your emotional status. I'm not saying you have to test God by jumping out into traffic, but I think it would be safe to say most of what you put forth can objectively be classified as wishful thinking.
4.5. Where are you pulling these statistics? Your brain has a method of singling out elements in your life that identify with your world view. If I suddenly started working at Dairy Queen, you'd be certain that I would notice more Dairy Queens in my area. The same thing as if you started a belief that God is all around you, you would notice coincidental things more and attribute that to a divine presence.
4.6. Would it be just as big of a coincidence if you had just thought about him,not prayed, then decided to call? How about if you had dreamt it? Lots of people have medical issues, most turn out to be easily treatable. Contacting a friend after a while because you had a hunch that he needs help, and come to find out he's getting benign polyps tested is a coincidence. Did you think your prayer had anything to do with his test results?
4.7. Every time you believe that a spirit takes over your actions, more coincidences occur in your mind? You don't see in the slightest bit how this is rationalization? Seriously?
4.8. As well they should be if you sincerely believe what you say you do. All I'm saying is that these things have happened and will continue to happen, all without the need of a supernatural explanation. Subjective experience lends itself to embellishment, exaggeration, and false and unfounded claims. The objective explanation of all the things you listed can be attributed to your own imagination and thought processes. In all likelihood, it's the most realistic claim.
1- If you admit that "There is a possibility that God exists, sure." yet you have no evidence to support it you indeed have faith that a God could exist, I'll call that one self-denial due to the connotation of faith. If you are lending 0 credibility to the existance of God then the first statement is false. One or the other.
2-I completely agree and would almost go as far to say as within our known universe no objecifiable God exists if pushed.
3.5- I am aware of the definition of peer review. You are assuming that no Christians with a testimonial have tested God, which is usually covered in the testimonials. You're also forgetting that the key is subjectivity. I'm not objectively trying to deduct a conclusion. I'm trying to deduce as much informaiton subjectively about an objective absolute outside our known realm of understaning and universe. Nor, do I make a positive claim that God exists. I see things subjectively that subjectively point in that direction, supported by logic, etc. all stated previously. My belief that God exists is an assumption taken wholely on faith.
4.3-To answer your question, if you were sane and rational and the people you got to believe were the same and came from a stance oppsing to your I would definately weigh the possibility. Not that I agree; but, are you implying that my "anecdotal evidence" is untrustworthy or true but doesn't support the conclusion?
4.3.1-I'm saying it has not been equivocated to my experiences. I'm not opposed to submitting to magentic field testing or brain stimuli experiments of any type to try and replicate the experice. I simply don't have access. If you can equivocate my subjective experience with anyting of significant magnitude I'd be happy to conceed the point. ? It very well be confirmation bias, but I'm not unwilling to test that.
4.3.2-If you feel I'm misleading myself and objectively call it wishfull thinking I'll just respectfully disagree. I won't admit it's not possible just "highly unlikely" as you atheists would put it.
4.5-That would mean I would equivocate God to coincidence which is incorrect. Out of my ass, just an arbitrary number from the variables I can intuitively gather about my self view.
4.6- No I don't that's just when I'm the most introspective. I've had it happen plenty of times without prayer.. though never in a dream. But then I'm constanly in a reverent mindset so one could argue I'm praying all the time. You may see it as coincidence, but the sheer volume and accuracy from my perspective, seemingly completely unrelated I would say defies coincidence and would be synchronicity.
4.7- rationalization entails shifting blame correct? It relies on being defencive? It involves introspection with a goal to illicit a desired goal. I'm am clearly not doing either of the first 2. The goals I have are truth , understanding and clarity of purpose, and I'm excited to get answers, but not completely depandant on those answers. I'm not opposed to being an atheist, agnostic, sun worshiper, wiccan, any of those things, I only answer to myself. I feel my intentions are fairly unbiased. If you continue to believe I'm rationalizing , I'll just have to agree to disagree.
4.8-I don't think my sincerity is really in question here or my sincerity of beliefs (any1 else comment?)I know they have happened and will continue. God isn't dependant on us, he is the Alpha nad the Omega. I don't see myself anymore special that the cow I frequently like to eat, just with better tools.
4.8.1-Subjective experience is just that subjective. It can't be used for universal truths, only personal truths. If all evidence for belief in the idea of God has to be both emperical and objective alone then we'll just have to agree that our perspectives differ too much to come to a concensus. I don't think I'll continue to comment on that.
4.8.2-"The objective explanation of all the things you listed can be attributed to your own imagination and thought processes." - I disagree and have stated why.
" In all likelihood, it's the most mater-realistic claim. " Your more than welcome to your perspective.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(February 19, 2010 at 1:00 am)tavarish Wrote: [quote='tackattack' pid='56788' dateline='1266541969']
You act like I'm afraid to lose my belief? Do I really seem to be that unopen to new ideas? Am I not a Christian talking openly on an atheist forum? True I didn't come here to question my belief ony to understand a different POV, but that doesn't mean I'll reject it outright because I'm afraid I'll lose some reward in heaven... that's preposterous. Make your points or don't, but don't try to save me from your almighty logic, before you even posit a response.This is just an exchange of ideas.. in no way a formal debate (which I refuse to participate in) and I'm fully capable of accepting new ideas.
Whoa there, buddy. I didn't say anything about you being scared of losing anything, it was not my intention for the tone to imply such a prospect, so I apologize if I misspoke.
Take a chill pill, I'm not here to mess with your beliefs or try to invalidate your experiences.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- correct but you also assume the possibility that God exists, unless you're an absolutist, which I don't gather. So we'll discus my concept of God then.
There is a possibility that God exists, sure. There is also a possibility of fairies in my underwear drawer, both equally devoid of evidence to support the claims. You can't make a positive claim that they don't, so there is a possibility. However, the odds of this are ridiculously tiny. I try not to assume anything. I'll consider something with evidence though.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 2-Empirical as in data produced through experiment or experience (subjective or objective). Verifiable through continuous and exploration and logical inference.
Do you understand how subjective evidence is irrelevant to everyone else?
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3-The validity is sound only when all variables are accounted for. Since we're talkigng on a scale as large as God then I simply look for more varialbles to eliminate and reassess. The whole of me being on this forum is a search for variables I've missed.
What are the variables you have accounted for thus far?
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3.5-Do you really expect a peer review article published in a scientific journal? Yoiu can do better than that. If you would like documented or shared experience look up the word testimonial.
This is what you wrote:
That doesn't equal "there's no evidence for God". Those mental constructs (which I would group with math, etc.) along with inductive reasoning and subjective personal perspective and peer-review help me form my belief, which is well above the threshold of belief in God for me.
You mentioned peer review, I simply asked you to establish that point a bit better.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.3- I too was in wresting as a youth and definately had that dopamine/adrenalin rush before a game when we were psyching ourselves up. That is dependant on either suggestability or seeking a "high". I rarely seek the holy spirit's intervention, in fact that's probably my worst trait as a Christian not seeking God's help in my daily life. People are deemed to be suggestible if they accept and act on suggestions by others. I only act of my own volition whenever I'm not forced to do something, which is rarely I'm 6'4" and 260 lbs.
You accept God intervenes in your life and you say you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. That's fine. Then you say he has control of you, but yet you act of your own volition. The fact that this exact response can be independently tested and replicated kind of puts the whole experience into perspective. There is a high probability that it's not an outside force acting on you, it's your brain doing what it does best - providing stimuli.
By the way,the best kind of illusions are the ones that absolutely convince you of their validity.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.5-I agree that my perceptions of synchonicity have greatly increased since my reentering into religion. I wouldn't say I didn't see any coincidence while a nonbeliever. The causality train just seem far smaller without religion. Perhaps I was just paying attention less to why I was doing what I was doing?
It's the same effect if I buy a Volkswagen Jetta, then I suddenly start noticing all the Jettas on the road. Your brain has a way to filter out the information that's not relevant to your immediate worldview.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.6healing by prayer is probably more of a psychological stress relief allowing the immune system to work better I'll conceed that. How then could I know when to "randomly" pray for someone in need when consciously I had no thoughts on that person's wellbeing or life?
I don't understand the question. You randomly prayed for someone in need? Did you know they were in need beforehand? Can you shed some more light on this?
I'd dismiss this as a coincidence, but I'm not sure I fully understand the situation.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.7-Once again another atheist saying I need clinical help... really? Why when I rationally and honestly answer the quesitons in as concise a manner as I can, am I reffered to psychiactric help or told to jump into traffic? Sounds like someone has a psychological defence mechanism preventing them from actually looking at themselves and focusing solely on others for accountability.. and it's not me. I'm away I act on my own, I have no puppetmaster pulling strings so that I grab a girls butt as she walks by... ridiculus. I don't take credit for anything the holy spirit does, it's actually a common Chrisitan habit. I do however take complete responsibility for everything my body does. I've never heard a Christian that I've know say I stole her purse because God told me to do it, not a rational one at least. Maybe you should take some responsibility for that vomit you just threw up, or am I responsible for that?
I'll make this known and I'll write it clearly so anyone can understand without strife.
If you believe that an entity can control you against your will and control your body via proxy or extreme influence, you may have a psychological illness. Doing something not only because something told you to do it, but something MADE you do it is downright scary.
I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm trying to tell you that it's not normal. I'm being as brutally honest as I can be, and I'm not making fun of you. I'm not saying to jump into traffic. I want you to realize that something taking control of you beyond your own control can be a big indicator of mental illness. Whether that applies to you or not is up to you.
Personally, I try to take responsibility for everything I do, and don't hold a belief that I have a guiding force(s) pushing me to a certain predestined goal.
(February 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: "They have happened before and will happen again to people. They are not isolated or unique phenomena. " That's exactly my point. They're not unique, just shared experience. atheists say they're unique not theists. Perhaps you're missing out?
If they weren't unique to you you wouldn't be listing them as subjective evidence for the existence of God. I just told you that I don't regard them as unique. Why would you maintain a blanket statement that applies to all atheists?
I was probably a little too hyped on caffeine; I've been away from it for a while. It's just a little frustrating that, as a theist, I would have precursored any positing of a rebuttal with that, at least 3 people would have pointed out the attack on innuendo. Though, not nearly as frustrating as having to type half of this response three times, due to internet problems.
1-So we can agree that we both have faith that God could exist, just varying levels. That point can rest then.
2-Yes and my concept of God should be irrelevant to you. Conceptually God, from a Christian perspective, gives each of us a direct line to understanding him. Subjectivity is actually a key. I’m not making a claim for you, only myself.
3-I guess that list would be better as a whole other thread.
3.5- Ok so I’ve clarified peer review as testimonial, make your point.
4.3- Actually I have said the exact opposite of your first assertion. “I don't feel he acts on our behalf or intercedes but is omnificent and omnipotent.” I would say we all have a holy spirit that we interact with. It pulls us closer to God in a way similar to a magnet and iron shavings. The Holy Spirit being the magnetic fields and God being the magnet, etc.
4.3.1-You’re just reasserting that it can be independently tested and replicated. I clearly delineated that my experience has not, to my knowledge, been replicated and is not indicative of normal responces to various stimuli.
4.3.2- How can I be misled by myself(read illusion)? The only person I can be is me, and the only direction I can go is forward. Every time atheists claim I’m delusional or need to test God by jumping into traffic the people who know me laugh.
4.5 It could possibly be a form of confirmational bias (less than20% IMO) but definitely not rationalization. I believe that rests on your interpretations of relevant and immediate, which seem to me to reside in the conscious mind not the subconscious.
4.6 For instance I’m sitting in prayer thanking God for his wonderful awesomeness and suddenly a friend I haven’t spoken with in 6 years just pops into my head. I pray for him and feel his body needs healing, so I ask for it. I shoot him an email just BS’ing about how he’s been and it’s been a while, and how’s the family. Come to find out that he’s going though the stress of having polyps tested and very worried about it. I then respond back about my prayer and he shared the test results and we all had a good story to tell.
4.7- see the metaphor in 4.3 It’s not like I couldn’t separate the magnet and the iron fillings. I can tell God no, I can refuse to do what the spirit nudges me to ask about, say, or go. I did it before. Every time I do go along with it though, synchronicity events start stacking up.
4.8 They’re unique to me. You’re referencing the populace though so I inferred you were talking about unique among a group. They’re not unique among Christians, but to an individual they stand out for their own belief.
This really was much more eloquent and inclusive of all my thoughts the first time. I’m getting tired now and Void is doing a great job of distracting me, to his benefit. I'll have to reassess tomorrow.
1. I don't have faith that a God COULD exist. I'm simply not making the positive claim that he does not. I'm not lending any credibility to the claim, and I'm also adding that such a claim would be highly, highly unlikely. Saying I have faith that he could exist would be to also say that I have faith that leprechauns or wizards could exist.
2. If subjectivity is key, then it's paramount to understand that it doesn't go much farther past subjective interpretations, meaning no objective claim is likely to be true.
3.5. Perhaps you didn't understand what peer review actually meant. I understand you meant to write testimonial, but peer review is altogether something different. Testimonials, secondhand accounts, and anecdotal evidence is not valid when objectively trying to deduct a conclusion, since they can be easily embellished, changed, and cherry picked at the subject's choosing, making it almost impossible to call their bluff on it. "Taking someone's word for it" isn't good enough. Pure and simple.
4.3. Again, you're asserting an objective claim with subjective, anecdotal evidence. If I told you the sky was falling, and to have faith that it was, and I got a bunch of others to believe me, would you then also believe, based on the collective faiths of like-minded people?
4.31. I'd log this under confirmation bias. The fact that religious experiences have been replicated artificially using certain psychological and physical methods is pretty self-explanatory. Every truly religious person knows that what they feel is genuine and generally dismiss any evidence to the contrary. You explained the rushing of the holy spirit and the control over you. I illustrated how this has been done.
4.32. It's very easy to be misled. When you assume God exists, you're more susceptible to things that you might attribute to him - things you normally wouldn't, such as coincidences, situations you don't quite understand, freak occurrences, and religious experiences that manifest into your physical body and have an effect on your emotional status. I'm not saying you have to test God by jumping out into traffic, but I think it would be safe to say most of what you put forth can objectively be classified as wishful thinking.
4.5. Where are you pulling these statistics? Your brain has a method of singling out elements in your life that identify with your world view. If I suddenly started working at Dairy Queen, you'd be certain that I would notice more Dairy Queens in my area. The same thing as if you started a belief that God is all around you, you would notice coincidental things more and attribute that to a divine presence.
4.6. Would it be just as big of a coincidence if you had just thought about him,not prayed, then decided to call? How about if you had dreamt it? Lots of people have medical issues, most turn out to be easily treatable. Contacting a friend after a while because you had a hunch that he needs help, and come to find out he's getting benign polyps tested is a coincidence. Did you think your prayer had anything to do with his test results?
4.7. Every time you believe that a spirit takes over your actions, more coincidences occur in your mind? You don't see in the slightest bit how this is rationalization? Seriously?
4.8. As well they should be if you sincerely believe what you say you do. All I'm saying is that these things have happened and will continue to happen, all without the need of a supernatural explanation. Subjective experience lends itself to embellishment, exaggeration, and false and unfounded claims. The objective explanation of all the things you listed can be attributed to your own imagination and thought processes. In all likelihood, it's the most realistic claim.
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- If you admit that "There is a possibility that God exists, sure." yet you have no evidence to support it you indeed have faith that a God could exist, I'll call that one self-denial due to the connotation of faith. If you are lending 0 credibility to the existance of God then the first statement is false. One or the other.
LOL. If that's the case I have the same amount of faith that dragons and underpants gnomes exist. Credibility is based on evidence. If I don't have evidence to support the claim, I don't give it any credibility. I think I confused you a bit, just remember to read the context of the entire text. I don't believe a god exists based on a lack of evidence. On a scale of 1 to 10 in certainty of God's existence, it's as close to zero as you can get without actually being zero, because that in itself would be a positive claim, which requires faith.
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 2-I completely agree and would almost go as far to say as within our known universe no objecifiable God exists if pushed.
And finally we get somewhere.
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 3.5- I am aware of the definition of peer review. You are assuming that no Christians with a testimonial have tested God, which is usually covered in the testimonials. You're also forgetting that the key is subjectivity. I'm not objectively trying to deduct a conclusion. I'm trying to deduce as much informaiton subjectively about an objective absolute outside our known realm of understaning and universe. Nor, do I make a positive claim that God exists. I see things subjectively that subjectively point in that direction, supported by logic, etc. all stated previously. My belief that God exists is an assumption taken wholely on faith.
Peer review is independent. Asking a christian to examine evidence of God's existence introduces bias, which is not good for the purposes of a legitimate experiment.
You said "objective absolute outside our known realm of understanding and universe". What exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to God, or just "things we don't know"?
You do make a positive claim that God exists, as illustrated by your last sentence.
I'll explain this a bit better:
"I believe that God exists" = Positive claim, requires evidence
"I believe that no god exists" = Positive claim, requires evidence
"I don't believe that a god exists = Not a positive claim, does not require evidence
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.3-To answer your question, if you were sane and rational and the people you got to believe were the same and came from a stance oppsing to your I would definately weigh the possibility. Not that I agree; but, are you implying that my "anecdotal evidence" is untrustworthy or true but doesn't support the conclusion?
Yes, anecdotal evidence and word of mouth is questionable and untrustworthy when you're trying to evaluate a claim.
If I told you the sky was falling, I was an otherwise sane person, but I had no evidence to show you, would you believe it?
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.3.1-I'm saying it has not been equivocated to my experiences. I'm not opposed to submitting to magentic field testing or brain stimuli experiments of any type to try and replicate the experice. I simply don't have access. If you can equivocate my subjective experience with anyting of significant magnitude I'd be happy to conceed the point. ? It very well be confirmation bias, but I'm not unwilling to test that.
Did you even look at the links I sent you when we first started the conversation? There's a lot of information there about many religious experiences and how they can be artificially replicated.
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.3.2-If you feel I'm misleading myself and objectively call it wishfull thinking I'll just respectfully disagree. I won't admit it's not possible just "highly unlikely" as you atheists would put it.
Let's put this into perspective. I make a claim that a magical pink unicorn intervenes in my life and wills me into doing what it wants and I can see its doings all around me. I have no evidence to back up such a claim, but I believe it wholeheartedly.
What's more likely - that I actually have a unicorn following me and making my life enjoyable, or am I just creating a concept in my mind and allowing my brain to run with it?
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.5-That would mean I would equivocate God to coincidence which is incorrect. Out of my ass, just an arbitrary number from the variables I can intuitively gather about my self view.
You assume God's intervention with the coincidences that you so often attest to. If not, they wouldn't be religion affirming notions.
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.6- No I don't that's just when I'm the most introspective. I've had it happen plenty of times without prayer.. though never in a dream. But then I'm constanly in a reverent mindset so one could argue I'm praying all the time. You may see it as coincidence, but the sheer volume and accuracy from my perspective, seemingly completely unrelated I would say defies coincidence and would be synchronicity.
If that's the case, test it. If this is demonstrable and can be falsified, it is valid as an assertion and demands evidence to back it up.
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.7- rationalization entails shifting blame correct? It relies on being defencive? It involves introspection with a goal to illicit a desired goal. I'm am clearly not doing either of the first 2. The goals I have are truth , understanding and clarity of purpose, and I'm excited to get answers, but not completely depandant on those answers. I'm not opposed to being an atheist, agnostic, sun worshiper, wiccan, any of those things, I only answer to myself. I feel my intentions are fairly unbiased. If you continue to believe I'm rationalizing , I'll just have to agree to disagree.
Rationalization is a defense mechanism. It also operates in the subconscious - so you don't know you're doing it most of the time. You're opposed to being other religions because you simply aren't another religion. You have youre preferences and they're quite apparent. I'm opposed to being Christian because logically it doesn't make sense to me.
(February 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4.8-I don't think my sincerity is really in question here or my sincerity of beliefs (any1 else comment?)I know they have happened and will continue. God isn't dependant on us, he is the Alpha nad the Omega. I don't see myself anymore special that the cow I frequently like to eat, just with better tools.
If you don't see and appreciate a certain luck of the draw with being human, then I guess you just don't. Have fun being a cow.
I’m not going to quote the pretext anymore it’s getting far too long and convoluted. I've already spent far too much time on this.
1-The amount of faith you have is irrelevant to me. You have the same amount of faith that God exists as in an apple falling up. God hasn’t proved himself to you and you rest in the belief of your materialism, supported by testing of science and by countless proofs to be historically “the way things work”.
3.5- I agree that bias is detrimental to legitimate experimentation. I was referring to any objective truth that could rest outside our realm of how we understand our universe. I did make a positive claim that God exists, allow me to restate.
I believe that God is likely to exist, resting on nothing but faith= I have faith that God exists
I believe I can know aspects of what God would be if he existed, by the evidence cited = I believe in the idea of God
4.3- I posit that my anecdotal evidence isn’t untrustworthy. It’s true but it can’t be used to support the conclusion that God exists objectively.
4.3.1-I did read the links when posted a while ago, down to the references. I’ll accept that the data is relative even though the references weren’t to anything more than broken links, fiction books and subjective news articles. “Persinger believes that religious experiences are the result of so-called "mini electrical storms" in the temporal lobes” Is a faulty assumption because he’s saying all religious experiences are conclusively attributed to these storms. All he really got was hallucinations and out of body experiences, neither of which are on my list of evidence. I agree that neurobiology some day may yield the ultimate answer. I applaud their efforts and am a willing experiment. You however have fell short of convincing me that what I perceive as my experience is attributable to biochemistry. I have no more psychomotor epilepsy, hallucinatory experiences, post-stimulation electrical instability or generate learned seizures any more than you do.
4.3.2- You may have whatever skewed view of my explanations of God as you like. The analogy is flawed so you still don’t understand my perspective.
4.5-No the original analogy of the VW jetta is a faulty one.. see 4.3.2 for same conclusion.
4.6- I have and I do and it is valid. The evidence has been listed over and over again, but rejected because it’s not mathematic of scientific evidence.
4.7-I’ve been other religions and no religion. I’m not opposed to changing those views.
4.8-I do appreciate a little satisfaction that we’re number 2 on the food chain. I do appreciate that lucky things can happen as part of the chaos of life. I didn’t say I was a cow, just no more special in God’s eyes. You’re a haughty prick. By your own words of “I attempted to do it, but it was an exercise in futility as there were simply too many points made to argue every single one in a respectable time frame. I stopped caring and let it go, frankly.” I can see you’re not really here to discuss, you’re here to argue. That coupled with you inability to accept the possibility of a stance other than yours and your haughty and disingenuous attitude solidifies you as a very intelligent troll to me. I’ll stop feeding you now.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
February 23, 2010 at 10:55 am (This post was last modified: February 23, 2010 at 10:57 am by tavarish.)
(February 23, 2010 at 7:43 am)tackattack Wrote: I’m not going to quote the pretext anymore it’s getting far too long and convoluted. I've already spent far too much time on this.
1-The amount of faith you have is irrelevant to me. You have the same amount of faith that God exists as in an apple falling up. God hasn’t proved himself to you and you rest in the belief of your materialism, supported by testing of science and by countless proofs to be historically “the way things work”.
3.5- I agree that bias is detrimental to legitimate experimentation. I was referring to any objective truth that could rest outside our realm of how we understand our universe. I did make a positive claim that God exists, allow me to restate.
I believe that God is likely to exist, resting on nothing but faith= I have faith that God exists
I believe I can know aspects of what God would be if he existed, by the evidence cited = I believe in the idea of God
4.3- I posit that my anecdotal evidence isn’t untrustworthy. It’s true but it can’t be used to support the conclusion that God exists objectively.
4.3.1-I did read the links when posted a while ago, down to the references. I’ll accept that the data is relative even though the references weren’t to anything more than broken links, fiction books and subjective news articles. “Persinger believes that religious experiences are the result of so-called "mini electrical storms" in the temporal lobes” Is a faulty assumption because he’s saying all religious experiences are conclusively attributed to these storms. All he really got was hallucinations and out of body experiences, neither of which are on my list of evidence. I agree that neurobiology some day may yield the ultimate answer. I applaud their efforts and am a willing experiment. You however have fell short of convincing me that what I perceive as my experience is attributable to biochemistry. I have no more psychomotor epilepsy, hallucinatory experiences, post-stimulation electrical instability or generate learned seizures any more than you do.
4.3.2- You may have whatever skewed view of my explanations of God as you like. The analogy is flawed so you still don’t understand my perspective.
4.5-No the original analogy of the VW jetta is a faulty one.. see 4.3.2 for same conclusion.
4.6- I have and I do and it is valid. The evidence has been listed over and over again, but rejected because it’s not mathematic of scientific evidence.
4.7-I’ve been other religions and no religion. I’m not opposed to changing those views.
4.8-I do appreciate a little satisfaction that we’re number 2 on the food chain. I do appreciate that lucky things can happen as part of the chaos of life. I didn’t say I was a cow, just no more special in God’s eyes. You’re a haughty prick. By your own words of “I attempted to do it, but it was an exercise in futility as there were simply too many points made to argue every single one in a respectable time frame. I stopped caring and let it go, frankly.” I can see you’re not really here to discuss, you’re here to argue. That coupled with you inability to accept the possibility of a stance other than yours and your haughty and disingenuous attitude solidifies you as a very intelligent troll to me. I’ll stop feeding you now.
1. The way I feel is that if an objective claim is made (God exists), then that requires objective evidence. That's all. Pretty simple.
3.5. Good.
4.3. If it can't be used to verify anything objectively, then what good is it? At this point you're taking someone's word for it on the basis that it agrees with your point of view. That's all. There is no such thing as subjective truth.
4.31. I provided a link with a scholarly, peer reviewed article on the Good Friday Experiment:
Here's a link where it's easier to read and broken up a bit better:
They broke down a religious experience into nine distinct dimensions:
1) Unity
2) Transcendence of space and time
3) A deeply felt positive mood
4) Sense of sacredness
5) Objectivity and reality
6) Paradoxiality
7) Alleged ineffability
8) Transiency
9) Persisting positive changes in attitude and behavior
The second study even found that the psychoactive drugs used for the test produced a long lasting effect on the subjects, that which they felt to be 100 percent genuine. Their verbatim comments don't differ from yours much.
4.32. How is it skewed? I replaced "God" with "unicorn". That's it. You were talking about likelihood. It is not likely an infinitely complex intelligent being, talks to you personally, manifests in reality, leaves no objective evidence, and controls your actions to make your life better. If you care to explain it better, go ahead.
It is much more likely that it is a concept in your mind, which does manifest in reality through your actions, and can only be viewed subjectively because it is simply a personal belief and does not go further than that.
4.5. How is it faulty? Because you say it is? Please provide a reason.
4.6. If your tests are valid, submit them to independent scrutiny. If they are rejected, it's because they are not valid.
Many tests have been made on the claim that prayer works.
None support the claim, but they do show several psychological effects at work for both the sender and receiver.
4.7. What made you change to Christianity? What other religions were you? Did you feel that the others were less correct?
4.8. I understand your view just fine. I don't agree with it on the basis that there are no supporting arguments that can be made with verifiable and falsifiable evidence. The arguments that you did present, and can be falsified, have been. I apologize if I was a bit harsh, but this is a topic I can write at length about. I wrote that early in the morning, and I also missed your last 2 points because I was so tired I passed out
I have been a Christian for most of my life, I fully understand what you mean in terms of religious experience. I know how it can be subjective and the same for every like-minded individual. What I'm telling you is that that is irrelevant and does not demonstrate that these feelings or emotions are anything more than our brains doing their own thing.
I'll concede that I do like to argue. You got me there. I like analyzing others' positions as well.
