Strong Atheism starts from faith

[tackattack]

1- I don't make the claim that God exists in the commonly accepted def. of reality or objectively at all. Quite the opposite actually.
2- I'll wait
3- Well it looks like he's done so define it for us, oh wise one, since you're using please.
4- No it's not reflexive rationalization. It's been a formulated conscious process of logical deduction. it's not rationalization, check your definitions. I'm fully prepared to reevaluate my beliefs and accept any accountability for that. It's just like an atheist to assume us frail little Christians are just afraid to let something go j/k anyways. Now, are you speaking of the validity of my deductive reasoing or the soundness of my premisis.. and yes I learned "debate speak" in roughly a week so cut me a little slack.

Why does the premises of deductive logiic have to follow objective perception? Could a premise be true and subjective?

[downbeatplumb]

I dont think all theists 'are afraid to let things go'.

There are probably thousands of reasons that people believe what they do.

Its just that if god doesnt exist 'according to the accepted definition of reality' in what way does he exist?

Obviously in a way that does not meet the normal definition of reality.

Just like all those other imaginary things.

Simples

[tavarish]

1- I don't make the claim that God exists in the commonly accepted def. of reality or objectively at all. Quite the opposite actually.
2- I'll wait
3- Well it looks like he's done so define it for us, oh wise one, since you're using please.
4- No it's not reflexive rationalization. It's been a formulated conscious process of logical deduction. it's not rationalization, check your definitions. I'm fully prepared to reevaluate my beliefs and accept any accountability for that. It's just like an atheist to assume us frail little Christians are just afraid to let something go j/k anyways. Now, are you speaking of the validity of my deductive reasoing or the soundness of my premisis.. and yes I learned "debate speak" in roughly a week so cut me a little slack.

Why does the premises of deductive logiic have to follow objective perception? Could a premise be true and subjective?

1. In your imagination. Good that you can admit it.
2. When i get home, I promise
3. LOL wut?
4. What subjective or objective evidence did you use to come to such a logical conclusion? I'm talking specific examples in your life.

[tackattack]

---

1- I don't make the claim that God exists in the commonly accepted def. of reality or objectively at all. Quite the opposite actually.
2- I'll wait
3- Well it looks like he's done so define it for us, oh wise one, since you're using please.
4- No it's not reflexive rationalization. It's been a formulated conscious process of logical deduction. it's not rationalization, check your definitions. I'm fully prepared to reevaluate my beliefs and accept any accountability for that. It's just like an atheist to assume us frail little Christians are just afraid to let something go j/k anyways. Now, are you speaking of the validity of my deductive reasoing or the soundness of my premisis.. and yes I learned "debate speak" in roughly a week so cut me a little slack.

Why does the premises of deductive logiic have to follow objective perception? Could a premise be true and subjective?

1. In your imagination. Good that you can admit it.
2. When i get home, I promise
3. LOL wut?
4. What subjective or objective evidence did you use to come to such a logical conclusion? I'm talking specific examples in your life.

---

I will respond but please see questions below as well ty.

1- I'm not sure that's the exact area of the psyche it resides.. see my response to dbp. otherwise yes my idea of God rests somewhere in my mind . (and a mind is a terrible thing to waste... who's too young for that phrase? )
2-kk
3- You said

What are the hard facts?

and referenced Fr0d0's definition. Well he probably won't define it so if you define it I will attempt to answer it, or if not I'll just exclude question 3 from further discussion.
4-Specific life examples?
4.1-I can seperate experienced reality from rationalized reality, unwitnessed from observation. I was in a major car accident and had functional amnesia, was completely coherent yet all facts of the 24 hour period are from outside input, the brain wasn't on record for that time.
4.2-I have not been found mentally defective (physically or psychologically)
4.3-There is a strong distinction from the biological responses from stimuli and the "rushing of the spirit". I won't specify what outside stimuli on the forums (whether chemical or psychological).
4.5-Synchronicity every day, minor and major
4.6-Healing from laying on hand and prayer for others and self.
4.7-A galvanizing force, not explainable with my logic to originate from self, acting on my perception, will and control
4.8-a buried post waiting for seponse from Void

A-Why does the premises of deductive logiic have to follow objective perception?
B-Could a premise be true and subjective?
C- Are you questioning the validity of my deductive reasoing or the soundness of my premisis?

I dont think all theists 'are afraid to let things go'.

excellent!

---

There are probably thousands of reasons that people believe what they do.

Its just that if god doesnt exist 'according to the accepted definition of reality' in what way does he exist?

Obviously in a way that does not meet the normal definition of reality.

Just like all those other imaginary things.

Simples

---

exactly like all those other imaginary things like math, psychology, philosopy, quantum singularity, dark energy, ideas, etc. they can't possibly contribute to reality so lets trash them all.

[tavarish]

I appreciate your response, and I thank you for being courteous in your replies. This is why I like this topic.

I will respond but please see questions below as well ty.

1- I'm not sure that's the exact area of the psyche it resides.. see my response to dbp. otherwise yes my idea of God rests somewhere in my mind . (and a mind is a terrible thing to waste... who's too young for that phrase? )

That's very intellectually honest. I actually spoke to my mother about this yesterday. We established that God may just be a function of her imagination and a consoling force for the rougher parts of her life.

I have absolutely no problem with this.

3- You said

What are the hard facts?

and referenced Fr0d0's definition. Well he probably won't define it so if you define it I will attempt to answer it, or if not I'll just exclude question 3 from further discussion.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, and I really don't know what he means, since he believes that you can't have objective evidence of God. So let's just omit this one.

4-Specific life examples?
4.1-I can seperate experienced reality from rationalized reality, unwitnessed from observation. I was in a major car accident and had functional amnesia, was completely coherent yet all facts of the 24 hour period are from outside input, the brain wasn't on record for that time.
4.2-I have not been found mentally defective (physically or psychologically)
4.3-There is a strong distinction from the biological responses from stimuli and the "rushing of the spirit". I won't specify what outside stimuli on the forums (whether chemical or psychological).
4.5-Synchronicity every day, minor and major
4.6-Healing from laying on hand and prayer for others and self.
4.7-A galvanizing force, not explainable with my logic to originate from self, acting on my perception, will and control
4.8-a buried post waiting for seponse from Void

Finally a theist that puts their experiences into perspective.

I'm not going to try to invalidate your experiences in any way. You have your reasons to believe. I'd just make the point that there are definitely alternate explanations for all of those, but this is something you already know. Thanks again for your input.

A-Why does the premises of deductive logiic have to follow objective perception?
B-Could a premise be true and subjective?
C- Are you questioning the validity of my deductive reasoing or the soundness of my premisis?

A - Deductive reasoning, especially dealing with an objective claim, requires objective evidence.
B - I don't think a premise could be true and purely subjective, BUT if it is subjective, the person with the experience renders the objectivity, or lack thereof, irrelevant. Simply put, if a person accepts something subjective is true, then the objectivity of that claim is irrelevant for that person.
C - Not at all, your reasons are your reasons and it would be an exercise in futility to tell someone what they felt wasn't real.

exactly like all those other imaginary things like math, psychology, philosopy, quantum singularity, dark energy, ideas, etc. they can't possibly contribute to reality so lets trash them all.

I wouldn't group all of them together, but they are all conceptual, just like a belief in God. I've been saying for a while it doesn't matter if you believe something to be true - without verifiable and objective evidence you cannot make that claim. You have the intellectual honesty to admit that is a concept in your mind. My contention is that perhaps it doesn't go any further than that, as there is no evidence to show that it does.

I appreciate your responses, and I'm sure you have rebuttals to all of my writings.

[tackattack]

---

I appreciate your response, and I thank you for being courteous in your replies. This is why I like this topic.

I will respond but please see questions below as well ty.

1- I'm not sure that's the exact area of the psyche it resides.. see my response to dbp. otherwise yes my idea of God rests somewhere in my mind . (and a mind is a terrible thing to waste... who's too young for that phrase? )

That's very intellectually honest. I actually spoke to my mother about this yesterday. We established that God may just be a function of her imagination and a consoling force for the rougher parts of her life.

I have absolutely no problem with this.

3- You said

What are the hard facts?

and referenced Fr0d0's definition. Well he probably won't define it so if you define it I will attempt to answer it, or if not I'll just exclude question 3 from further discussion.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, and I really don't know what he means, since he believes that you can't have objective evidence of God. So let's just omit this one.

4-Specific life examples?
4.1-I can seperate experienced reality from rationalized reality, unwitnessed from observation. I was in a major car accident and had functional amnesia, was completely coherent yet all facts of the 24 hour period are from outside input, the brain wasn't on record for that time.
4.2-I have not been found mentally defective (physically or psychologically)
4.3-There is a strong distinction from the biological responses from stimuli and the "rushing of the spirit". I won't specify what outside stimuli on the forums (whether chemical or psychological).
4.5-Synchronicity every day, minor and major
4.6-Healing from laying on hand and prayer for others and self.
4.7-A galvanizing force, not explainable with my logic to originate from self, acting on my perception, will and control
4.8-a buried post waiting for seponse from Void

Finally a theist that puts their experiences into perspective.

I'm not going to try to invalidate your experiences in any way. You have your reasons to believe. I'd just make the point that there are definitely alternate explanations for all of those, but this is something you already know. Thanks again for your input.

A-Why does the premises of deductive logiic have to follow objective perception?
B-Could a premise be true and subjective?
C- Are you questioning the validity of my deductive reasoing or the soundness of my premisis?

A - Deductive reasoning, especially dealing with an objective claim, requires objective evidence.
B - I don't think a premise could be true and purely subjective, BUT if it is subjective, the person with the experience renders the objectivity, or lack thereof, irrelevant. Simply put, if a person accepts something subjective is true, then the objectivity of that claim is irrelevant for that person.
C - Not at all, your reasons are your reasons and it would be an exercise in futility to tell someone what they felt wasn't real.

exactly like all those other imaginary things like math, psychology, philosopy, quantum singularity, dark energy, ideas, etc. they can't possibly contribute to reality so lets trash them all.

I wouldn't group all of them together, but they are all conceptual, just like a belief in God. I've been saying for a while it doesn't matter if you believe something to be true - without verifiable and objective evidence you cannot make that claim. You have the intellectual honesty to admit that is a concept in your mind. My contention is that perhaps it doesn't go any further than that, as there is no evidence to show that it does.

I appreciate your responses, and I'm sure you have rebuttals to all of my writings.

---

I'll try to keep this concise since my conversations are spread over several PM's and lots of threads.

1- I believe you're associating my idea of God's aspects with the possibility of God's existence. They are distinctly different.
2-The beginings of my religion started with faith alone. I rejected my parent's faith and soughts answers for myself through other religions and attempted to reationalize their beliefs. Then I starting doubting any faith, so I guess I was an agnostic atheist for a while and was sufficed to live my own life. I applied logic and materialism to reality till I had developed those processes. After a time it seemed hollow and I found myself searching again. This time armed with reason (inductive and deductive) I went about assesing my beliefs in any and everything. When I came to religion. I then reassed my religious beliefs nad that's why I label myself as Christian. I used:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypotheses.
My experiences lead me to for a hypothesis that God could exist. I place faith in that hypothesis for furthering of the study then ..
Inductive Reasoning- The quantum singularity (which I'm deeply studying now.. well procrastinating a tad bit) would be the only qualifiable falsifier for the premise.
Deduction: Deducting consequenses of hypotheses as testable predictions. I couldn't claim tru or false on this but it was valid IMO.
Testing: I tested, albeit subjective as best I could for something otuside the realm of the known universe and it was repeatable and seemed to coincide with peer review.
Evaluation: I am constantly evaluating reevaluating and going through the process again, which was one reason I'm here.
3- I believe you are underestimating my convictions. I freely admit that my concepts of God rest solely conceptually in my mind. 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. I may not have developed the most accurate concept of what God is, but I have little doubt that God doesn't exist in some form beyond our current understanding.

4- Let's talk specifically about your alternate explinations for 4.3/5/6/7and 8. I'm too tired and have to go home and to bed. I've spent far too much time in my PM's so state your alternate explination please and we'll compare notes.

[tavarish]

I'll try to keep this concise since my conversations are spread over several PM's and lots of threads.

1- I believe you're associating my idea of God's aspects with the possibility of God's existence. They are distinctly different.

One assumes the other. They are different concepts, but you cannot have an idea of God's aspects without the possibility of his existence, and vice versa. They are connected.

2-The beginings of my religion started with faith alone. I rejected my parent's faith and soughts answers for myself through other religions and attempted to reationalize their beliefs. Then I starting doubting any faith, so I guess I was an agnostic atheist for a while and was sufficed to live my own life. I applied logic and materialism to reality till I had developed those processes. After a time it seemed hollow and I found myself searching again. This time armed with reason (inductive and deductive) I went about assesing my beliefs in any and everything. When I came to religion. I then reassed my religious beliefs nad that's why I label myself as Christian. I used:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts;

Empirical facts not available to everyone or interpreted the same way. Purely subjective and used for your sole purposes. Not testable by independent sources or verifiable. Am I correct?

Forming hypotheses.
My experiences lead me to for a hypothesis that God could exist. I place faith in that hypothesis for furthering of the study then ..

You need to understand that when you place faith into it, it becomes non-falsifiable, and therefore a null argument. You can't use the scientific method on something that you've already concluded and can't disprove even if you wanted to.

Inductive Reasoning- The quantum singularity (which I'm deeply studying now.. well procrastinating a tad bit) would be the only qualifiable falsifier for the premise.

You conclude that something which you do not understand could be the only viable falsifier for the premise, yet you've already concluded the experiment and called it for Christianity. I don't agree with it being a viable falsifier, because it still does not release the possibility of there being any gods in any alternate universes or realities, or any gods that operate in frequencies we cannot yet determine.

Deduction: Deducting consequenses of hypotheses as testable predictions. I couldn't claim tru or false on this but it was valid IMO.
Testing: I tested, albeit subjective as best I could for something otuside the realm of the known universe and it was repeatable and seemed to coincide with peer review.
Evaluation: I am constantly evaluating reevaluating and going through the process again, which was one reason I'm here.
3- I believe you are underestimating my convictions. I freely admit that my concepts of God rest solely conceptually in my mind. 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. I may not have developed the most accurate concept of what God is, but I have little doubt that God doesn't exist in some form beyond our current understanding.

Validation of the hypothesis is a conclusion. If you couldn't claim true or false, then you didn't have enough evidence to make the claim - it becomes a null argument.

What did you test, and where is the peer reviewed article?

The fact that the evidence for God rests solely in your mind is exactly why there is no OBJECTIVE evidence for God. You can use rationalization, find evidence, but unless it's repeatable and testable by independent unbiased sources, you cannot make that claim for everyone else.

I would love to see the article and in which journal it was published.

4- Let's talk specifically about your alternate explinations for 4.3/5/6/7and 8. I'm too tired and have to go home and to bed. I've spent far too much time in my PM's so state your alternate explination please and we'll compare notes.

I don't look to invalidate your reasons for believing, but if you want to delve into this, it's fine by me.

This is what you wrote:

4.3-There is a strong distinction from the biological responses from stimuli and the "rushing of the spirit". I won't specify what outside stimuli on the forums (whether chemical or psychological).
4.5-Synchronicity every day, minor and major
4.6-Healing from laying on hand and prayer for others and self.
4.7-A galvanizing force, not explainable with my logic to originate from self, acting on my perception, will and control
4.8-a buried post waiting for seponse from Void


4.3 - When you are in a highly suggestive and excited state, your brain creates stimuli that can manifest in other regions of the body. You can feel a presence that's not really there. It's the same effect when football players get hyped for a big game. They are overcome with an intangible force, when it's just their brain releasing amounts of dopamine and adrenaline.

This effect has been replicated artificially and tested.

Here are some sources:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/ne...hmood.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/26/news/mn-43266

http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~bhidalgo/litreview.htm

4.4 - lulz.

4.5 - The concept of synchronicity is purely subjective. Obviously not everything is a cause for everything else. Not everything contains a profound meaning. It means just as much as you want it to mean, and should understand that chance plays a part in every facet of life. The fact that something happens in a coincidental manner is not evidence for a divine being, it just means you're noticing it more and making the connection between causality and God. Your perception of synchronicity came from the belief in God, not the other way around.

4.6 - You have an immune system. That immune system has also been shown to heal faster and work more efficiently when you don't have stressors acting on it, much the way you would when you're in prayer - a relatively more relaxed state. Think about this - if prayer was an effective and verifiable healing method, why is there modern medicine? Why not teach doctors to summon God's healing powers? It's because it's a psuedoscience, and has no merit in the scientific world. This is another case of subjective connect the dots.

4.7 - For lack of a more suitable term, it's a psychological defense mechanism to rid yourself of any personal responsibility. It's an excuse. The only one controlling you is you. If you think you really have voices in your head controlling your thoughts and actions and impacting your will, get to a psychotherapist, because something is wrong.

What would happen if that force decides to do harm in the name of God? Would you allow it? Or would you just have faith that such a thing would not happen?

The conscience is a concept that can guide you based on your personal moral views as they pertain to your survival and procreation, but saying something has taken over control of your body is somewhat disturbing. If that is the case, get help.

4.8 - You wrote around 30 points. To each of those points you could write a paragraph explaining faulty reasoning. You'd have to write nothing less than a 4-5 page essay on the subject, just so it can be dismissed because faith trumps all. Some people just don't have that kind of time nor devotion to arguing on an internet forum.

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.


Again, I don't mean to invalidate a damn thing you experienced, but please know that none of these things are outside of the realm of explanation. They have happened before and will happen again to people. They are not isolated or unique phenomena.

[tackattack]

---

I'll try to keep this concise since my conversations are spread over several PM's and lots of threads.

1- I believe you're associating my idea of God's aspects with the possibility of God's existence. They are distinctly different.

One assumes the other. They are different concepts, but you cannot have an idea of God's aspects without the possibility of his existence, and vice versa. They are connected.

2-The beginings of my religion started with faith alone. I rejected my parent's faith and soughts answers for myself through other religions and attempted to reationalize their beliefs. Then I starting doubting any faith, so I guess I was an agnostic atheist for a while and was sufficed to live my own life. I applied logic and materialism to reality till I had developed those processes. After a time it seemed hollow and I found myself searching again. This time armed with reason (inductive and deductive) I went about assesing my beliefs in any and everything. When I came to religion. I then reassed my religious beliefs nad that's why I label myself as Christian. I used:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts;

Empirical facts not available to everyone or interpreted the same way. Purely subjective and used for your sole purposes. Not testable by independent sources or verifiable. Am I correct?

Forming hypotheses.
My experiences lead me to for a hypothesis that God could exist. I place faith in that hypothesis for furthering of the study then ..

You need to understand that when you place faith into it, it becomes non-falsifiable, and therefore a null argument. You can't use the scientific method on something that you've already concluded and can't disprove even if you wanted to.

Inductive Reasoning- The quantum singularity (which I'm deeply studying now.. well procrastinating a tad bit) would be the only qualifiable falsifier for the premise.

You conclude that something which you do not understand could be the only viable falsifier for the premise, yet you've already concluded the experiment and called it for Christianity. I don't agree with it being a viable falsifier, because it still does not release the possibility of there being any gods in any alternate universes or realities, or any gods that operate in frequencies we cannot yet determine.

Deduction: Deducting consequenses of hypotheses as testable predictions. I couldn't claim tru or false on this but it was valid IMO.
Testing: I tested, albeit subjective as best I could for something otuside the realm of the known universe and it was repeatable and seemed to coincide with peer review.
Evaluation: I am constantly evaluating reevaluating and going through the process again, which was one reason I'm here.
3- I believe you are underestimating my convictions. I freely admit that my concepts of God rest solely conceptually in my mind. 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. I may not have developed the most accurate concept of what God is, but I have little doubt that God doesn't exist in some form beyond our current understanding.

Validation of the hypothesis is a conclusion. If you couldn't claim true or false, then you didn't have enough evidence to make the claim - it becomes a null argument.

What did you test, and where is the peer reviewed article?

The fact that the evidence for God rests solely in your mind is exactly why there is no OBJECTIVE evidence for God. You can use rationalization, find evidence, but unless it's repeatable and testable by independent unbiased sources, you cannot make that claim for everyone else.

I would love to see the article and in which journal it was published.

4- Let's talk specifically about your alternate explinations for 4.3/5/6/7and 8. I'm too tired and have to go home and to bed. I've spent far too much time in my PM's so state your alternate explination please and we'll compare notes.

I don't look to invalidate your reasons for believing, but if you want to delve into this, it's fine by me.

This is what you wrote:

4.3-There is a strong distinction from the biological responses from stimuli and the "rushing of the spirit". I won't specify what outside stimuli on the forums (whether chemical or psychological).
4.5-Synchronicity every day, minor and major
4.6-Healing from laying on hand and prayer for others and self.
4.7-A galvanizing force, not explainable with my logic to originate from self, acting on my perception, will and control
4.8-a buried post waiting for seponse from Void


4.3 - When you are in a highly suggestive and excited state, your brain creates stimuli that can manifest in other regions of the body. You can feel a presence that's not really there. It's the same effect when football players get hyped for a big game. They are overcome with an intangible force, when it's just their brain releasing amounts of dopamine and adrenaline.

This effect has been replicated artificially and tested.

Here are some sources:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/ne...hmood.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/26/news/mn-43266

http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~bhidalgo/litreview.htm

4.4 - lulz.

4.5 - The concept of synchronicity is purely subjective. Obviously not everything is a cause for everything else. Not everything contains a profound meaning. It means just as much as you want it to mean, and should understand that chance plays a part in every facet of life. The fact that something happens in a coincidental manner is not evidence for a divine being, it just means you're noticing it more and making the connection between causality and God. Your perception of synchronicity came from the belief in God, not the other way around.

4.6 - You have an immune system. That immune system has also been shown to heal faster and work more efficiently when you don't have stressors acting on it, much the way you would when you're in prayer - a relatively more relaxed state. Think about this - if prayer was an effective and verifiable healing method, why is there modern medicine? Why not teach doctors to summon God's healing powers? It's because it's a psuedoscience, and has no merit in the scientific world. This is another case of subjective connect the dots.

4.7 - For lack of a more suitable term, it's a psychological defense mechanism to rid yourself of any personal responsibility. It's an excuse. The only one controlling you is you. If you think you really have voices in your head controlling your thoughts and actions and impacting your will, get to a psychotherapist, because something is wrong.

What would happen if that force decides to do harm in the name of God? Would you allow it? Or would you just have faith that such a thing would not happen?

The conscience is a concept that can guide you based on your personal moral views as they pertain to your survival and procreation, but saying something has taken over control of your body is somewhat disturbing. If that is the case, get help.

4.8 - You wrote around 30 points. To each of those points you could write a paragraph explaining faulty reasoning. You'd have to write nothing less than a 4-5 page essay on the subject, just so it can be dismissed because faith trumps all. Some people just don't have that kind of time nor devotion to arguing on an internet forum.

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.


Again, I don't mean to invalidate a damn thing you experienced, but please know that none of these things are outside of the realm of explanation. They have happened before and will happen again to people. They are not isolated or unique phenomena.

---

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.

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.
2-Empirical as in data produced through experiment or experience (subjective or objective). Verifiable through continuous and exploration and logical inference.
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.
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.
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.
4.4 lolz ?? idk what happened I was tired and it was longer than I wanted already.
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?
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?
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?
4.8- If you don't care that's fine we'll just dismiss those, I have no problems saving time.

"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?

[tavarish]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

[tackattack]

---

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.