RE: Evidence: The Gathering
September 20, 2015 at 8:47 pm
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2015 at 8:51 pm by Whateverist.)
(September 20, 2015 at 11:42 am)Randy Carson Wrote: It seems to me that atheists begin with the presupposition that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, and all the rest of their efforts are geared toward explaining away anything that suggests otherwise.
You continue to insist on how things seem to you while ignoring what most of us say about atheism. I, and most of us, do not begin with the presupposition that God does not exist. Most of us are agnostic toward the possibility, and atheist only insofar as those making the positive claim have not convinced us of what it is they believe. (Many also do not feel the term has been defined sufficiently to even allow me to rule out the possibility that I may have actually run into the Dude.) There is no prior investment in not believing in your god.
(September 20, 2015 at 11:42 am)Randy Carson Wrote: God is real. God is alive. And God can and does make Himself known to those who seek him. This knowledge is not based on archaeological evidence or examination of ancient texts...it is based upon revelation and relationship.
I'd like to know why you assume that which is claimed to have been reveled comes from the same source as that which you think you experience in relationship or with that which is written in ancient texts such as the bible. Seems to me that most believers rely most heavily on what they feel is an ongoing relationship with God. But I think that is very easily explained psychologically which has the advantage of also explaining how Jormunguadr could have had a similar relationship with Kali as well as explain the experience of people in any other faith based system.
Apart from the ongoing relationship, the other two sources about to the same thing. Revelation and holy books both represent claims of others regarding the nature of the deity and what he wants from you. Putting the two things together requires a leap of faith which I don't find justified, not when the most compelling evidence -the ongoing relationship- can be so adequately explained in way which does not require you to imagine a being which created everything out of nothing, etc.