Personal experience

[ib.me.ub]

No one has ever returned from a personal experience with god with any new information. Why? Surely god would have given someone, something of value or something we did not know. Instead nothing, silence, indifference to our plight and our need for knowledge. Instead the only gains we have made is through our own hard work and application of critical methods and thinking. The one thing he could do to verify a personal experience he refuses to do. All this is much more likely assuming atheism is true. Is it asking to much for just 1 of the billions of encounters people have had with god would have yielded something useful to us or new to us?

It terms of religion, that information would have to come from a recognised prophet. The problem is, the different churches around the world don't actually recognise modern day prophets.

Especially the Christian Church. They have a good little thing going with Jesus and his so called return. Why would they accept another prophet when he is the only one the rely upon. And it works for them.

Also, the Islamic Church has Muhummad. The so called last prophet. So same type of thing. Stick with what you know works.

I am sure this can be said about many of the religions. And I am also sure that many new very good ideas have been though of but not recognised. In todays society people take differnet avenues to get their point accross. If the Church were to recognise a modern day prophet, I imagine things would change very quickly for the better, or change very quickly for the worst!

Would you be willing to take that risk?

[Edwardo Piet]

As George Carlin said: "Why does god always tell people to kill someone? Why doesn't he ever say 'go take a shit on the salad bar at Wendy's?"

Why indeed?

Well if it's Yahweh telling them to do this I can't say I'm surprised.

[fr0d0]

And that is a good point, it also though isn't experiencing nothing which is a contradiction.

Yep agreed.

[tackattack]

Actually there's a whole denomination of Christians called the latter day saints with just that in mind ibemub

[fr0d0]

Ok frodo but then 2 questions spring to mind:

1) why has he bothered passing on any knowledge. Accordingly to biblical sources he directly authored at least 10 of the 613 laws and directly inspired the creation story, taught Noah how to build an ark or in the new testament told parables imprating knowledge. We don't know his method but one would assume personal experiences in humans or similar. So why stop there.

I mean the knowledge of things in themselves and not philosophical truths. Religion addresses the latter and not the former.

2) however you don't seem to be literalist to any great degree. So the more fundamental point is "what is god for?". If he won't tell us anything useful; Clean energy, perpetual motion or something similar. Nothing that eliminates suffering just something to protect his creation and bring more humans to him. He has no value to humans if he won't help us or at least help us anymore.

The above only make sense to me if one assumes atheism is true.

I absolutely agree upon the usefulness of those things, but can only reiterate the purpose of God.

It makes sense to me because I can appreciate science independently from religion. Nature is a balance where we're tipping it in our favour. The world population was stabilized at quite a low number until relatively recently.

Our current growth rate is unsustainable so if God had been instrumental we'd be putting some responsibility for that error at his feet.

[Eilonnwy]

Merged the threads. Since the other thread was nowhere near dead, there wasn't a reason for the second one.

[RachelSkates]

Personal experience can eclipse any and all reason and rationality about the whole matter.

It is like a little boy abused by a priest. Never EVER will he give a rat's ass if God is proven. He will go down fighting and gladly go to hell to be away from the monster.

This is, of course, as absurd as the one who sees a flash and light and hears a voice and is SURE God is there.

However, the burden of proof is not on the little boy's experience because it is common sense that God is not there. He is in line with what is seen to be true.

The Flash of Light recipient has to prove to himself and everyone else that it was not just a stray bolt of lightening or a psychotic episode. If he told his Dr he heard voices, well......whereas if the little boy said God is not there, no one would consider him crazy.

I think there are a lot of people who are way beyond the fear and way beyond caring if he exists or not. I think there would be many martyrs for the NONFAITH -perhaps as many as the "faithful."

Christopher Hitchens has showed to world how to live without a god and now he is showing the world how to die without one. He is braving paving the way.

Wouldn't that be nice if there was a god and we could all tell him we could care less?