Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (evolutionary, proof, opinion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What conceivable reason would there be for a trickster to convince me to love God, Jesus, and everyone by pretending to be the God revealed by Jesus? It seems to me that love of God and each other is a superior reason to believe Jesus than a fear of God and Hell.
For most. But we have some in our ranks some that just need to be told ... "Because we said so." Thats why the "control component" of being anti-god is one of the more weaker arguments. I don't speed because I don't want a ticket. Some people don't speed just because. Not most.
The fact that people have different and contradictory spiritual experiences should lead a rational person to conclude most, if no all, spiritual experiences are false. That is why we can not use experience as reliable evidence.
This would have no bearing on whether materialism is true or not, so your claim it is false would be a non sequitur.
Yes, but this is the atheism rejection -thread, not the supernatural or materialism thread. Not that the Mods are too strict about a little off -topic.
Incidentally, are you coming round to my Doctrine, revealed inspirationally, that Matthew did not copy Mark but Both are adaptations of a (lost, but reconstructable) Original synoptic Gospels (really, all you need to do is take out the stuff in Mark that Matthew doesn't agree with).
?i
Comfort?
Well, my friend..if and when God comes to you up-close and personal - then tell me if you
saw any judgment or punishment in Him.We'll talk seriously then.
We are not allowed to show how that statement may be supported by the standard model.
for obvious reasons, if we are allowed to look at what you have actually be experiences using what we know to support spiritual claims that makes the anti-god claims mute. so mute the evidence. I say.
Yes, but this is the atheism rejection -thread, not the supernatural or materialism thread. Not that the Mods are too strict about a little off -topic.
A valid point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Incidentally, are you coming round to my Doctrine, revealed inspirationally, that Matthew did not copy Mark but Both are adaptations of a (lost, but reconstructable) Original synoptic Gospels (really, all you need to do is take out the stuff in Mark that Matthew doesn't agree with).
?i
Ironically off topic. English humor?
The answer is no. Where Mark and Matthew overlap, the fatigue is always in Matthew, which is evidence against a Q source.
The answer is no. Where Mark and Matthew overlap, the fatigue is always in Matthew, which is evidence against a Q source.
No; I am genuinely looking for you to come round to my view. I would be interested to look at this 'fatigue' evidence (which I do not follow) in Matthew. And I understand that by 'Q', you mean the Synoptic source, rather than the postulated document with the material common to Luke and Matthew such as the 'sermon' material.
I would keep in mind that atheism is made up of people too. We have in our ranks those that reject anything for other reasons than just talking about god beliefs as they relate to how the universe works. In fact, they are so defined by a statement of belief about god/religion that the word "sect" fits even though atheism doesn't have them.
The word applies enough that it can be used to move the conversation to the important parts.
The fact that people have different and contradictory spiritual experiences should lead a rational person to conclude most, if no all, spiritual experiences are false. That is why we can not use experience as reliable evidence...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
“We” may not feel obliged to use an experience as reliable evidence (although the more people who claim to have experienced something similar the less easy it is to dismiss). But “we” can be rational and reach a different conclusion than you have. After all, even a physical event is often experienced and perceived differently by different people. Each person may focus on a different aspect of an event or ascribe a different meaning to it. Two people could be having a conversation and walk away with very different, even conflicting, understandings of the conversation. In other words, the fact that subjective experience of the same physical event (or the same type of event) may be even vastly different does not mean that/those physical event(s) never occurred. Same thing with spiritual experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
But the similar experiences could be based on a similar cultural background, not because what you experienced is true.
But it is not rational to look at the common ideas while ignoring the very different experiences. That is a cognitive bias. Physical is the important word, as a physical event can be independently verified, whereas your internal experience can not. Your experience may be evidence for you, but I have no more reason to believe your experience I can not verify than that of any other mystical experience.
Nothing in your post addresses my point that one can be rational and not reach the conclusion you are saying a rational person must reach, that all or most spiritual experiences are false. One can reach the conclusion that spiritual experiences are as subjectively experienced as physical experiences but that does not mean either didn’t happen.
Nothing in your post addresses my point that one can be rational and not reach the conclusion you are saying a rational person must reach, that all or most spiritual experiences are false. One can reach the conclusion that spiritual experiences are as subjectively experienced as physical experiences but that does not mean either didn’t happen.
That is possible, but if spiritual people see wolves and bears when Christians see angels, that is evidence for me that spiritual experiences are based on culture, not that they are different perspectives of one spiritual truth.
Those differences and the fact we can not verify your individual experience makes them useless as evidence except to the people having those experiences.
Even if some of those experiences are valid, we have no way of determining which ones are the valid ones.
That is possible, but if spiritual people see wolves and bears when Christians see angels, that is evidence for me that spiritual experiences are based on culture, not that they are different perspectives of one spiritual truth.
I wouldn’t disagree with the first part of that at all. The question I’d ask is do wolves, bears and angels represent similar things depending on the cultures? If so, why do you automatically come to the conclusion you do?
Quote:
Those differences and the fact we can not verify your individual experience makes them useless as evidence except to the people having those experiences.
Even if some of those experiences are valid, we have no way of determining which ones are the valid ones.
We’re not far off in our opinion. But I don’t agree that they are useless as evidence that it’s worth exploring, for those who are inclined to do so, how one goes about having those experiences for themselves.
Where we really differ is in our intentions.
Cloaked in half truths, avoidance, and deceit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
