Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Bad Writer]

Clear as mud. You can't possibly know what I desire, so you can shut ....... up about that, and just because the Nazis were following orders doesn't mean they could completely wash their hands of mass genocide. You are a class act Pontius Pilate (to take a page out of your own book).

So I was wrong then? If I was wrong, then you do desire to spend an eternity with Christ.

---

What if I desired to determine my own afterlife, rather than being forced into one of two at the whims of someone else? Because that's generally what atheists would want, self determination.

I think you do determine it. Atheist or not.

Keep guessing, Christ-boy. You can't read minds, so why do you insist on knowing the thoughts of others?

---

How do we determine a choice made FOR us?

[discipulus]

Think you're really righteous?
Think you're pure at heart?
Well I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art.

I neither think I am righteous or pure at heart.

I am what I am by the grace of God. A human being who is full of frailty, and weakness on one hand, and on the other, priceless, and precious in the sight of God.

And yes I do seek to be humble. I often times fail. And so day by day, you all are helping me to see that humility is a virtue that can only be cultivated by esteeming others more highly than myself.

---

Keep guessing, Christ-boy. You can't read minds, so why do you insist on knowing the thoughts of others?

---

How do we determine a choice made FOR us?

I have no where on this forum insisted that I know the thoughts of others.

But tell me, since you have yet to respond, if given the choice which would you choose:

Eternal life with Christ or eternal life without Christ?

[Esquilax]

I think you do determine it. Atheist or not.

I don't think you know what a free choice is, then.

[Bad Writer]

Your question begs a number of questions, disciplus. You first must establish that there is such a thing as eternal life. After that, you must demonstrate that Christ is there.

Get cracking on that, and then perhaps we can get back to you.

[Ryantology]

I neither think I am righteous or pure at heart.

I am what I am by the grace of God. A human being who is full of frailty, and weakness on one hand, and on the other, priceless, and precious in the sight of God.

And yes I do seek to be humble. I often times fail. And so day by day, you all are helping me to see that humility is a virtue that can only be cultivated by esteeming others more highly than myself.

uh huh.

What about the virtue of respecting our wishes and not trying to cram your religion down our throats?

[fr0d0]

I'm confused. If you're saying religious beliefs are first person phenomena, I agree. They are real for those that experience them. But why go on about "personal evidence"? Since it is only a passive reflection of your personal, subjective experience .. why assume anyone who doesn't already share that sort of experience will suddenly develop those beliefs based on your testimony? Surely you're not so naive as to think we are all basically the same. Even if we were the same, why assume that what you believe must be what we would believe if we considered it aright? Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot.

You would believe it understanding the same evidence. The only difference is understanding.

It's the other way around... We're defending our understanding against your understanding. I'm not talking about some special gift unobtainable to all but a special few. We're talking about something clear and ordinary, simple enough for a child to understand.

the term "truth" does not apply to strongly held beliefs if they're not rational beliefs

I agree.

You don't appear to be following the discussion. Scientism is an illogical stance, whereas my beliefs are entirely rational.

You assume to know what I believe, and judge it without knowledge. I pay you no such disrespect.

if you were to try to convince the abused woman that she needs to leave the relationship, would you first give her a spiel about what she is and isn't willing to accept?

Yes. Because that is the root cause of the problem you're addressing.

[Whateverist]

You would believe it understanding the same evidence. The only difference is understanding.

If it has anything to do with the bible I'm quite sure I would not. I've never found a compelling reason to think that book had anything to do with God even when I was young enough to still believe.

You have to understand that I'm not looking to believe in God and have no desire to. I much prefer to allow what I believe to follow passively from what I think true. That is far from Scientism. Much of first person knowledge resists the third person requirement of repeatability and falsifiability, but that doesn't mean I reject all first person knowledge. Far from it. I simply don't count an apprehension of God among the artifacts of my first person knowledge. Who are you to rule on the validity of my first person knowledge?

It's the other way around... We're defending our understanding against your understanding. I'm not talking about some special gift unobtainable to all but a special few. We're talking about something clear and ordinary, simple enough for a child to understand.

No doubt. But a child is moldible and a sponge for information. My sponge is sopping wet with all I've absorbed in 61 years of experiencing the world. My world has already taken on a shape. Anything new will have to be reconciled with what has come before. I have no god shaped holes to fill.

the term "truth" does not apply to strongly held beliefs if they're not rational beliefs

I agree.

You don't appear to be following the discussion. Scientism is an illogical stance, whereas my beliefs are entirely rational.

You assume to know what I believe, and judge it without knowledge. I pay you no such disrespect.

I agree that scientism is an unnatural perspective as it gives too little weight to first person knowledge. But science itself is a wonderful tool for understanding the world in a third person manner. I realize this remark was not addressed to me, but I do not assume to know what you believe on the basis of your first person experience, and neither do I judge it on the basis of third person (science based) criteria. But it seems as if it is you who wish to rule on what is real on the basis of first person experience. I don't object to your doing so for yourself but I reject your authority to do so for others.

[max-greece]

Huxley said: 'I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.'

Are you saying that is how you feel as well?

Not quite no.

I had no motive for either wanting or not wanting the world to have meaning in the grand sense.

If the earth did have a motive I would despair were it as banal as the one your religion offers (to praise a God that doesn't need it but demands it).

First I recognised there was no God.
Then I realized religion is just another word for slavery.
Then I was relieved.
In the absense of a God I understood there wouldn't be a "reason" for the world (in the sense that religion used it).
Then I realized that "the lack of a reason" equated exactly to true freedom.

I am an indivdual on a planet that has no pre-defined function. I exist. I chose, within the limits of the society that I live in, my reasons to justify my existence.

Those reasons - love, friendship, parenthood, music, good food, travel, knowledge, experience and many others are more than sufficient to justify my life to me. YMMV.

If the effect of how I live my life has no effect on the rest of the universe I couldn't care less. The grander the meaning you allocate the less meaning it actually has.

My meaning is entirely local to me and those around me who are affected by it.

[discipulus]

If the earth did have a motive I would despair were it as banal as the one your religion offers (to praise a God that doesn't need it but demands it).

Bingo. You would "despair". This is as I suspected.

First I recognised there was no God.

How did you recognize there was no God?

Then I was relieved.

Bingo again. This is right in line with what I suspected.

Then I realized that "the lack of a reason" equated exactly to true freedom.

Bingo again. This is similar to what both Huxley and Nagel say.

[Mister Agenda]

You don't appear to be following the discussion. Scientism is an illogical stance, whereas my beliefs are entirely rational.

Ah, so unlike most people, you think your beliefs are entirely rational. You are SO different from all the people who tell us their beliefs are entirely irrational!

---

If the earth did have a motive I would despair were it as banal as the one your religion offers (to praise a God that doesn't need it but demands it).

Bingo. You would "despair". This is as I suspected.

First I recognised there was no God.

How did you recognize there was no God?

Then I was relieved.

Bingo again. This is right in line with what I suspected.

Then I realized that "the lack of a reason" equated exactly to true freedom.

Bingo again. This is similar to what both Huxley and Nagel say.

That is all what I suspected you would say.