Search for Causes

[possibletarian]

There's only one God. These are human attempts to describe or personify God.  All religions have myths.

If there is only one god, why isn't everyone's experience the same, and why the myths ? wouldn't it be a living relationship with everyone that no one questions ?

[Deesse23]

You guys are feeding a troll.

A troll who claims to have information DIRECTLY from god. A Troll who has been told numerous times about how FUNDAMENTALLY flawed his thinking processes are (and thats no matter of opinion, but a matter of fact). A troll who is basically too intellectually dishonest to admit to himself how unreliable his *methods* of thinking about what is true and what not is. Do you expect someone who cant be honest to himself to be honest to others?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Or they are an individual who is so poorly educated Deesse23, that they can't make good decisions?

If their education is so lacking that now all they have recourse to is teh google-tubes?

Where luminaries such as 'Doctor Tour" (As a quick example) expound their own special brand of 'What is' ?

Perhaps this explains much about their behaviour?

Cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you don't believe on account of the reasons you gave, then, fine? Go back and block quote whatever it is you were bullshitting us about so that we know when you misspoke and when you didn't. So that we understand what it is you believe, what it is you actually want us to consider.

I think that it's hilarious that your experience and the experience of others was so important until you realized that this was called naturalistic theism...an idea "unwelcome in churches"...despite it being the prevailing model of belief and evangelism in contemporary christianity. You do it again even as you object, with comments on memory, love, and near death experiences. You go so far as to deem the very mechanism of experience something other than™ and demonstrative*. All of which are expressions of naturalistic theism, welcome or not.

Still, you managed to answer my question, I strongly suspect that you did so accidentally. The difference between us, the variable present in your calculus not present in mine, is your existential faith in god. That's why we can use the same eyes to look at the same world applying the same thoroughly natural process of assessment..and one of us comes up with god, whereas the other does not. The same relationship plays out with religious humanism and naturalism. Both of us look at the same world as they do, with the same eyes, and the same thoroughly natural process of assessment...and since neither of us have an existential faith in humans or nature, we do not see their analogs for divinity. I could even group you in with those two in opposition to what I see, to my own analog for divinity, which the three of you would strongly reject. We all use the strongest values that we indwell as a basis for determining truth, but we do not all share the same set of values. These values have a profound effect on how we perceive the world, and it's in the confluence of these things that rationality presents itself as what might appear (to others) to be craven dishonesty. At worst, regardless of who (if anyone) got it right... it's an effect of fooling ourselves first, and then faithfully and honestly relaying the aftermath of that initial and most successful lie.

Until, I suppose...we hear a word we don't like. Then, at least in your case, immediately proceed to call shenanigans on our own repeated statements. If it helps, the fact that you (and the vast majority of christians) are naturalistic theists doesn't actually mean that you don't believe in, or even that there is no such thing as the supernatural. It only refers to how you predicate your beliefs in such things. What do you ask us to consider when you express those beliefs? You ask us to consider personal experiences and natural observations. It's not on account of magic book that you believe, or that you implore anyone else to believe. That would be a short conversation with no need for observational details. You think that these experiences and observations are true, and indicative of the accuracy of your faith in the articles they describe. "Look at this natural thing, listen to this persons story, it clearly provides evidence for the supernatural, for god!". Do you understand what the term means, now? Do you really think that such ideas aren't welcome in christian churches? The idea that god and the supernatural are manifestly present in the world? That they can be seen, heard, experienced? That you can possess a relationship with them?

[The Grand Nudger]

*

-and to give you something else to bitch and moan about, on the off chance that you realize you're fighting a doomed battle on the issue of naturalistic theism.....

Recall when I suggested that even in your own worldview..there is no such thing as natural and supernatural? No meaningful distinction? Well..if human consciousness is meaningfully supernatural, then the contents of every experience you have...likewise. Seeing ducks flying? Supernatural. Ducks? Supernatural. Every little jot and tittle about everything you know in the world...supernatural. Like I said, pick a stream, and you'll have no more use for one of those terms natural and supernatural than I do - even if you might prefer the other term to mine.

I can't help but think "natural" when I see a duck, but to each his own. It hardly matters when we understand the context, which you so obligingly provided. We use different terms, you and I, but they possess identical content and we use identical appeals when trying to establish the accuracy of those contents to and with others.

[Deesse23]

At work.

Or they are an individual who is so poorly educated Deesse23, that they can't make good decisions?

If their education is so lacking that now all they have recourse to is teh google-tubes?

Where luminaries such as 'Doctor Tour" (As a quick example) expound their own special brand of 'What is' ?

Perhaps this explains much about their behaviour?

Cheers.

The various threads in here, and the information provided by many users leave no plausible excuse, even for those who entered AF in a most ignorant state. If someone like Lek is remaining so ignorant, turns around in repeated circles about the same fundamental and simple errors in his thinking, then its due to willful ignorance.

[Lek]

It seems that this thread has devolved into repetition.  I stand by what I've said.  Thanks for the discussion and debate.

[Ranjr]

Atheist:  Evidence. . .  reasoning. . . contradiction. . . dime store philosopher blah. . . and thus forth QED.

Theist:  I see the stars.  I hear the rolling thunder.  Thy pow'r throughout the universe displayed.  Then sings my soul. . . 

At least when we argue Kirk vs. Picard or Nancy Drew vs. Trixie Belden, we're speaking the same language.

[LadyForCamus]

What you’ve said is really nothing more than a bare assertion offered up as some sort of conclusion that you’ve reached by starting with your assertion, lol. Or, in other words, a circle.

“God has revealed himself to me, and I know this is true because I see evidence of him in nature everywhere. But, the reason I see this evidence of god in nature and you don’t is because god has revealed himself to me.”

And, then you act perplexed when we aren’t convinced, like we’re the ones being unreasonable.
💁

[possibletarian]

It seems that this thread has devolved into repetition.  I stand by what I've said.  Thanks for the discussion and debate.

That's what happens when you make assertions you cannot back up, you simply have to assert over and over. !!