that darn Jesus delusion!

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, actually it doesn't. I can back up my assertion with evidence, you cant. You are the one that should be in the psychological hospital, and if the doctor evaluating us deserves his doctorate degree in medicine then he will know this.

Now, explain to us why you didn't take the Muslim pill?

A lot depends on what counts as evidence and what is reasonable evidence and how one decides this. Atheists always assert that there is only one way of "knowing" something and that evidence always has to be of a certain type.

However , this assertion is based on a particular world view and a mindset which in itself makes certain unproven statements about existence. We all make faith statements to a certain degree and we all make decisions about the approach we take.

For example , the premise "the ultimate truth should be knowable scientifically and be able to be proved to be true using rational argument and nothing else" is ........actually a statement of faith. It's an approach. It's a mind set. It's one you are entitled to but I disagree with this premise and what's more neither of us can be proven correct.

Once you realize that your whole world view rests upon a premise which you cannot prove you will realize that we are ALL in the business of faith in a subtle way that many don't acknowledge.


As for the Muslim question - that's another thread isn't it? I can discuss this though if it means a lot to you.

Originally posted by moon1969
Religious superstition can be comforting to humans.

The idea that "religion is mere superstition and just a comforting coping mechanism" is also comforting for humans.

It always works both ways..........

Originally posted by Agerg
Acknowledging some insignificant level of doubt that I could be wrong (smaller than I can anything I can appreciate) I am sure, beyond all need of checking, that your "God" does not exist.

And yet, you (the plural you, meaning atheists in general) can make fun of me and call me all kinds of names (yes, from "fundamentalist" all the way up to and including "psycho" ) simply because I am also sure, beyond all need of checking, that my God *does* exist. Maybe it's because I do not have even an "insignificant" level of doubt that I could be wrong.

Or is it like the Dire Straits song, "Industrial Disease" where "two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong", only it's "one man believes, another does not - one of them must be wrong", and you're very afraid that it just might be you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Philosophically we cannot prove or know for sure that we even exist or are not in a holographic universe.

And I notice that you don't even attempt to actually answer the question.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Are you such a person?

All I would say is that what I have experienced of God's love is such that it has changed my life irrevocably. I would ask such an atheist what their experience of God's love was. Anyone who has properly got in touch with God would never forget it.

No I was just wanting to nullify the advantage you had acquired for yourself by being in both camps; I'm sure there will be people with the opposing experience. for myself I was raised C of E and therefor am borderline Agnostic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, actually it doesn't. I can back up my assertion with evidence, you cant.

No, actually, you can't prove that God does not exist. Produce your evidence.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No I was just wanting to nullify the advantage you had acquired for yourself by being in both camps; I'm sure there will be people with the opposing experience. for myself I was raised C of E and therefor am borderline Agnostic.

Do you mean Anglican? How does that make you "borderline Agnostic"?

Since I'm Anglican (here in the States we call it Episcopalian), I'd be interested in hearing this.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A lot depends on what counts as evidence and what is reasonable evidence and how one decides this. Atheists always assert that there is only one way of "knowing" something and that evidence always has to be of a certain type.

Well give me examples of 'other' kinds of evidence? What kinds you do know of or accept?

I would say that science (not atheists), asserts that there is only one methodology for reliably ascertaining the truth - and that is the scientific method.
Most importantly, any finding that does not stand up to the scientific method or outright contradicts the findings obtained via the scientific method can rightly be discarded.

Do you have any argument as to why I may be wrong about this? Do you have any argument as to why the scientific method might not be reliable?

However , this assertion is based on a particular world view and a mindset which in itself makes certain unproven statements about existence.
And I believe that without certain of those statements, one descends into incoherency (not unusual for you). I think, therefore I am. It may seem like an 'unproven statement' but what is existence if not this? Even if we are mere computer programs in the matrix, our existence is nevertheless real.

For example , the premise "the ultimate truth should be knowable scientifically and be able to be proved to be true using rational argument and nothing else" is ........actually a statement of faith.
And is not a statement that people will typically make. It is more common to hear "there is no reliable way of knowing the ultimate truth other than the scientific method".

It's an approach. It's a mind set. It's one you are entitled to but I disagree with this premise and what's more neither of us can be proven correct.
Tell us what method you have for knowing the ultimate truth and explain why you believe it is reliable.

Once you realize that your whole world view rests upon a premise which you cannot prove you will realize that we are ALL in the business of faith in a subtle way that many don't acknowledge.
You are starting to sound like Kelly, and I think I need to add this on to the "Favorite Fallacies—of the Very Informal Kind" thread.


As for the Muslim question - that's another thread isn't it? I can discuss this though if it means a lot to you.
It is highly relevant to this thread. Your argument in this thread appears to be "delude or not delude, that is the question", when in reality we are faced with the choice of a thousand different delusions, none of which stands out as being pre-eminent. Yet you suggest we should join you in yours. I expect you to justify this, and justify why you chose that particular delusion.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A lot depends on what counts as evidence and what is reasonable evidence and how one decides this. Atheists always assert that there is only one way of "knowing" something and that evidence always has to be of a certain type.

However , this assertion is based on a particular world view and a mindset which in itself makes certain unproven statements ...[text shortened]... - that's another thread isn't it? I can discuss this though if it means a lot to you.

You have a point, (in my nosing-in opinion) but for practical reasons we need a way to sort world views according to their value, in the circumstances they are applied. Living in the natural world, with a desire to keep living in it, provides the most inarguable way to sort. It is survival. Gauging whether our band of hunters should take on that water buffalo engages certain survival skills, among them, ways of drawing evidence-based, "peer reviewed" conclusions. The argument mounted by the water buffalo will test our conclusions and our world view.

The problem theism presents is not its overt rejection of this approach; it is how to establish another method. It seems that there should be a test of reliability, if we are to rely on an alternative. This is caused by the absence of outcomes that test the conclusions and therefore, the method. FOr example, how do we test the conclusion that Islam is "better" than Christianity as a path to eternal salvation?

Of course an anti-rationalist position could be taken, that rejects the idea of testing one's method of drawing conclusions for its reliability.

So, while you are right IMO to posit that the way of knowing things is a world view and mind set, it leaves the reader befuddled as to an alternative to, let's call it, the methods of naturalism. Do you have an alternative in mind? Is it, say, prayer and openness to divine revelation?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, actually, you can't prove that God does not exist. Produce your evidence.

I can produce very very strong evidence that the God you believe in does not exist. ( I didn't say prove, that is a strawman).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can produce very very strong evidence that the God you believe in does not exist. ( I didn't say prove, that is a strawman).

Strong enough evidence to make me abandon my faith? I doubt it. Strong enough to even make me question my faith? Again, I doubt it.

And I don't mean the kind of convoluted evidence like that created in a philosophy class. I mean "where the rubber meets the road" evidence.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Do you mean Anglican? How does that make you "borderline Agnostic"?

Since I'm Anglican (here in the States we call it Episcopalian), I'd be interested in hearing this.

Its an in joke over here, the Church of England; which is part of the Anglican community is very keen on being inclusive to the point of needing to be quite vague about what it takes as literal truth from the bible. As you Know the Anglican community is a 'Broad church' i.e the current talk of schism over gay and women bishops. Agnostic to me is someone who does not believe in ultimate truths about god or anything else; it, well as C of E are labels I'm happy with.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Its an in joke over here, the Church of England; which is part of the Anglican community is very keen on being inclusive to the point of needing to be quite vague about what it takes as literal truth from the bible. As you Know the Anglican community is a 'Broad church' i.e the current talk of schism over gay and women bishops. Agnostic to me is someone w ...[text shortened]... in ultimate truths about god or anything else; it, well as C of E are labels I'm happy with.

Aaahhhh, I see the humor in it now. But I also see "inclusive" as being a good thing. Christ did not turn people away because they were not "like him", and so neither should the Church. Our strength is in our acceptance of others.

Originally posted by Agerg
You talk as if we're consciously trying to avoid believing in your "God" when it is more the case that we simply cannot. Indeed how long would it take you to convince yourself you're the Gingerbread Man? Is it the case you avoid believing as such!?

Acknowledging some insignificant level of doubt that I could be wrong (smaller than I can anything I can appre ...[text shortened]... t. Similarly, with slightly more doubt, you are confident you're not the Gingerbread Man.

what you are proposing is illogical. you claim with a 99% degree of certainty that something does not exist. how did you come to that conclusion? what facts did you use in saying god, or for that matter, the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

you are confusing the scientific imperative "do not believe something is real without proof" with "if there is no proof, it must not exist". i can say the higgs boson doesn't exist because there is no proof of it, yet scientists are looking for it. why should god be any less worthy of looking for him?

the correct stance is "i will not believe in something without proof". i can understand that. you cannot prove god doesn't exist just like one cannot prove an "invisible undetectable miniature unicorn" doesn't exist in my fridge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can produce very very strong evidence that the God you believe in does not exist. ( I didn't say prove, that is a strawman).

that could simply mean that we have insufficient knowledge about god.

if i say God is the supreme being with a beard and you prove there is no godly beard, one can simply say "ok, i was wrong, god doesn't have a beard but there is a supreme being nonetheless."