I am a theist

Originally posted by John W Booth
And this isolated instance of what you say is invalid irrationality, disqualifies me from (or invalidates my opinions related to) commenting on the inexplicability and irrationality of religious dogma and practise?

It does not invalidate your opinions, nor does it disqualify you from commenting. What it does do, is invalidate some of your explanations as to why you consider their beliefs invalid, and it should also give you pause before you declare their beliefs invalid.
You have taken a lot of trouble to explain that your belief does not require any action from you. Why is that relevant? What argument does it make? Does a lack of required action make a belief more valid? If that is what you are claiming, then I disagree.

You have essentially dismissed almost all beliefs but your own as invalid. Yet your only argument as to why that is the case seems to be one of skepticism ie a belief should be proven before considered valid. But skepticism doesn't disprove beliefs it only leave their truth value unknown. You seem to be arguing that it disproves beliefs, but then don't apply the same argument to my skepticism of your belief.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, it is just as valid as your belief.

Your belief that that sherry and wafers are not the body of God's child is more valid than my belief that sherry and wafers are not the body of God's child?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But in addition, I have examined your belief and found no reason to accept it either.

I don't want you to accept my belief.

Do you also not accept that I have a 'sense'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It does not invalidate your opinions, nor does it disqualify you from commenting. What it does do, is invalidate some of your explanations as to why you consider their beliefs invalid, and it should also give you pause before you declare their beliefs invalid.

So your reason for thinking vishvahetu's outpourings on this forum are invalid is better than my reason for thinking vishvahetu's outpourings on this forum are invalid?

You have presumably not accepted Jesus as your personal saviour, having familiarized yourself with that whole deal and the premise it's based on. Same goes for me - but your reason for not accepting it is not as valid as yours?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have essentially dismissed almost all beliefs but your own as invalid.

I certainly don't think people have received detailed instructions from a God that demands to be worshipped. Are you not as certain as I am about this?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In this thread at least, I have tried not to claim otherwise. My main point is that if intuition is valid for him, then it should be equally valid for the Christians that he readily criticized for having more elaborate beliefs than his.
Presumably observation and reason trump intuition or at least cause good reason for concern. Many famous scientists hav ...[text shortened]... he claim that my observation and reason disproves his beliefs, will he stick with his intuition?

Edit: “But John appeared to be saying that his belief is valid intuition and most other theist belief is fabricated nonsense.”

Methinks our John W. Booth says repeatedly that, according to his intuition alone, in his opinion the existence of a “god” is highly probable -and he admits on the spot that he has no way to break through the veil of his uncertainty regarding the de facto existence of “god”. Therefore, due to the fact that his uncertainty can be neither discarded nor corroborated, he stays there calmly, leaving this product of his intuition in semi-existence, in a superposition, in a kind of a quantum uncertainty!
Then, since it is not exactly his taste to see our fellow theists bringing up their religious mumbo-jumbo in order to justify their respectful intuitive religious beliefs (which they cannot be justified rationally by these means), he acknowledged that his personal belief has nothing common to the common theist beliefs.

All in all, methinks John W. Booth does not question the core belief (the certainty that a god is existent) of our fellow theists; he questions the struggle of the common theists to justify rationally their religious doctrines that press the believers of their respectful religions to accept blindly the de facto existence of the so called “god”.


Well, in my opinion John W. Booth has to justify no thing regarding his spiritual superposition
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
All in all, methinks John W. Booth does not question the core belief (the certainty that a god is existent) of our fellow theists; he questions the struggle of the common theists to justify rationally their religious doctrines that press the believers of their respectful religions to accept blindly the de facto existence of the so called “god”.

And I countered that by pointing out that a theist may include in his core belief, the resurrection of Christ, and other things that he dismiss as 'fanciful speculation'. Who gets to decide what is 'core belief'?

Originally posted by John W Booth
I certainly don't think people have received detailed instructions from a God that demands to be worshipped. Are you not as certain as I am about this?

But what are your reasons for doubting that? Is it mere skepticism on your part, or do you have evidence to the contrary? If you have evidence to the contrary, why do you appear to be arguing from a position of skepticism?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I countered that by pointing out that a theist may include in his core belief, the resurrection of Christ, and other things that he dismiss as 'fanciful speculation'. Who gets to decide what is 'core belief'?

A theist may include whatever, but in that case s/he would make an unjustified attempt in order to back up her/ his religious beliefs; this specific attempt is dismissed by the OP poster as “fanciful speculation”, whilst a product of one’s intuition alone is merely accepted as such and it is left hanging there in a state similar to a superposition.

The core belief of the common theist theses, in the context of the OP of this thread, is the belief in the blindly accepted existence of a so called “god”. These theists are using their so called “holy scriptures” in order to justify their beliefs, which they do not hold when the authenticity of the religious personages who compiled them is rejected. However, John W. Booth’s core belief (ie the high probability of the existence of the so called god) is intuitive and, as such, it can be neither discarded as a fanciful speculation, nor can it be corroborated as an accurate theory of reality. An illustration: if 7 years ago I had the feeling that somebody was stalking me somewhere and nothing happened, I can neither discard nor corroborate herenow the probability that my intuition back then was accurate; however, if I have herenow a strong feeling that someone was indeed stalking me back then, I don’t see the slightest problem if I can live my life normally. The problem would start the very moment that I would create a whole myth that would urge me to hire bodyguards in order to assure my protection from my “stalker” etc etc
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what are your reasons for doubting that? Is it mere skepticism on your part, or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Do I have evidence to the contrary?

On the contrary, I simply have no evidence that people have received detailed instructions from a God that demands to be worshipped.

Suggesting that I should not doubt the assertion that "people have received detailed instructions from a God that demands to be worshipped" unless I "have evidence to the contrary" is surely very similar to the argument religious people use against atheists? And yet you appear to be using it here to question why I have arrived at the same conclusion as you.

Originally posted by black beetle
The problem would start the very moment that I would create a whole myth that would urge me to hire bodyguards in order to assure my protection from my “stalker” etc etc
😵

No I am not following you. You seem to be joining his argument of "if I don't act on a belief then it is more valid.".
Why would you hiring body guards be a problem? You have already ascertained a high probability that you are being stalked by someone dangerous. I fail to see why you wouldn't hire body guards. I would.

Originally posted by John W Booth
Suggesting that I should not doubt the assertion that "people have received detailed instructions from a God that demands to be worshipped" unless I "have evidence to the contrary" is surely very similar to the argument religious people use against atheists? And yet you appear to be using it here to question why I have arrived at the same conclusion as you.

I am not suggesting you should not doubt it. I too doubt that the god you believe in exists. What I am suggesting is that your doubt regarding peoples belief about detailed instructions from god, is no different than my doubt regarding your belief in the existence of a god. Your beliefs are both doubtable by any non-believer and equally so.

Originally posted by John W Booth
So, let me try to summarize - you can correct me if I am wrong or unfair.

I have a wholly passive belief, a 'sense', which does not affect my actions and does not form the basis of a 'theology'. I haven't even tried to describe the nature of this 'sense' nor the nature of the subject of the 'sense'.

And this isolated instance of what you say is in ...[text shortened]... ability and irrationality of religious dogma and practise?

Is this what your saying?

======================================
So, let me try to summarize - you can correct me if I am wrong or unfair.

I have a wholly passive belief, a 'sense', which does not affect my actions and does not form the basis of a 'theology'. I haven't even tried to describe the nature of this 'sense' nor the nature of the subject of the 'sense'.
===================================

Mr. Booth,

I am curious. Is there anything you do which strengthens this "sense" ?

If you, for example, read aloud the first chapter of say, the Gospel of John, would that "sense" in you encrease ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No I am not following you. You seem to be joining his argument of "if I don't act on a belief then it is more valid.".
Why would you hiring body guards be a problem? You have already ascertained a high probability that you are being stalked by someone dangerous. I fail to see why you wouldn't hire body guards. I would.

But in the illustration I offered, I said I had just once this feeling/ belief that I was stalked, and this unjustified feeling/ belief took place years ago. Since that time, my supposed stalker left no traces that would point towards to his existence. Therefore, even if I had a strong feeling that I 'm stalked herenow but without being able to justify it, I would discard my feeling/ belief as an unjustified fear.

I do not join the belief you mentioned; I 'm an atheist afterall😵

Originally posted by black beetle
But in the illustration I offered, I said I had just once this feeling/ belief that I was stalked, and this unjustified feeling/ belief took place years ago. Since that time, my supposed stalker left no traces that would point towards to his existence. Therefore, even if I had a strong feeling that I 'm stalked herenow but without being able to justify ...[text shortened]... as an unjustified fear.

I do not join the belief you mentioned; I 'm an atheist afterall😵

In your example, I don’t think you can call it “unjustified”: in this case, absence of evidence (of the stalker) cannot be taken as evidence of absence (of the stalker). One day I am walking in the woods, and my senses sense something that leads me to stop—before any conscious reflection; I may not even be sure upon reflection after the fact which senses were picking up what sense data, or how it got collated in my brain in order for a “decision” (to stop) to be made. Then I see a skunk crossing the path 30 yards ahead. Another day, the same thing happens—but no skunk, and no evidence of whatever may have triggered my sense and my “sense-response”. I cannot conclude that the first instance was “justified”, and the second not.

I think it is a good example; I also think that the kind of persistent or intermittent sense that JWB is talking about is similarly not invalidated (rendered unjustified) by either absence of further evidence or further reasoning reflection. As you say, he remains in a kind of “superposition”.

Namaste, old friend! 🙂