that darn Jesus delusion!

Originally posted by Suzianne
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.

Exactomomdo and also allows us to accept god without rejecting the evidence of our god given senses.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ...[text shortened]... pect you to justify this, and justify why you chose that particular delusion.

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?
-----------------------whitey--------------------------------------------------------

Nope. I see the scientific method as being reliable for many things. Its a valuable tool for exploring the world and finding truth. But it's not the only way. People have all sorts of ways of coming to knowledge. Experiential knowledge , for example , is a form of knowing that in the West we tend to devalue. People find out things by trying them or testing. Learning who we can trust and finding out about love - not exactly scientific. Also , spiritual knowledge and revelation is another method of knowing.

So although it is reliable ( in the right hands) it's not the whole deal. I don't think we can know God via science. It also has to be a personal and intimate experience. As I have often stated - even if one proved that God existed we would still need to get to know him. There things that the soul knows that the intellect cannot grasp.

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.

Did you have a revelation of the Holy spirit and experience God's Loving presence with you?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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 ...[text shortened]... nnot prove an "invisible undetectable miniature unicorn" doesn't exist in my fridge.

... 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?

Accepting for the sake of argument that the word "worthy" applies to the justification for looking for the higgs boson:

The HB is consider "worthy" of being looked for because it "is a hypothetical elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. The Higgs field is a hypothetical, ubiquitous quantum field that has a non-zero value in its ground state. This non-zero value explains why fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons have mass. The Higgs boson is an elementary excitation of the Higgs field above its ground state." (wikipedia)

So my response is, do you have (1) an equivalently worthy reason for looking for God? What is it? Do you have a theoretically sound means of detecting God, if God exists? Both of those things are required to make looking for the HB worthy of, for example, funding and effort.

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.

Agnostic to me is someone who does not believe in ultimate truths about god or anything else
----------------------------------kevcvs--------------------------

Do you "ultimately" believe this to be true? If so you have countered your own argument - if not you have countered your own argument. LOL

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ...[text shortened]... pect you to justify this, and justify why you chose that particular delusion.

Ok, what often happens when we go down this road whitey is that we end up with a series of multiple questions and it all gets quite cumbersome. I think at this juncture it would be good to focus on one question and do it justice- you agree?

So what's your pleasure - from what you have raised which 1 or 2 issues would you like to discuss?

The Islam question?

I think therefore I am?

Scientific premise?

Method for knowing?

Pre-eminent truth?

Something else?

BTW- I will give you one good reason why the scientific method is not a good way of exclusively coming to God or knowing God. What about children or those with brain damage or low IQ? Not to mention other conditions like autism?

Any God that wants to be known needs to have a way of his people knowing Him that is inclusive to all people. That is why revelation by the Holy Spirit is vital because it does not rely on intellect , reasoning power or any human quality. It relies on HIM and His power. Only the Holy Spirit can reach all people. Imagine a God who could only be known by those above a certain IQ - Yuk! The beauty of the Good News is that God can reveal things to a 6 year old boy that the greatest minds on this earth could not grasp. That's the way he does things. He always confounds anything that might lead to elitism or boasting.

Originally posted by knightmeister
.. He always confounds anything that might lead to elitism or boasting.

You have been engaging in quite a lot of elitism and boasting in the last few weeks yourself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Agnostic to me is someone who does not believe in ultimate truths about god or anything else
----------------------------------kevcvs--------------------------

Do you "ultimately" believe this to be true? If so you have countered your own argument - if not you have countered your own argument. LOL

How so: Are you sure you've grasped my argument. Or have you converted it into an argument your black or white, two dimensional world view is more comfy with. Or just to ensure we are not talking at cross purposes; outline what you think my argument is.

Originally posted by Suzianne
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 wron - one of them must be wrong", and you're very afraid that it just might be you?

I think people make fun of your belief that there is going to be some great battle between the so-called anti-Christ/minions of hell and the forces of light in the near future as opposed to belief in some god.

It really is a crazy belief you have there Suzianne!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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 nnot prove an "invisible undetectable miniature unicorn" doesn't exist in my fridge.

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?
Actually I claim confidence, with more than 99% certainty, that capital 'G' "God" does not exist. This is based on the simple fact that it is possible (in theory) to formulate an infinite number of mutually exclusive gods. Moreover without one shred of valid evidence that your or any other notion of god has greater plausibility than another I am compelled to consider those which are not logically contradictory from the start as equi-plausible.

note: I have not said I am 'almost' certain that no god exists out of the set of all possible gods I claim such certainty when one draws an arbitrary element from that set. Furthermore i have never said the proposition "God" does not exist can be proven.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You cannot believe in god because the god you think you are supposed to believe in is not God. There's so much misinformation out there it is very difficult to work out what "god" it is that you actually think you need to believe in in the first place.We would have to be on the same page before we could even have a discussion about it.

However , I irit you will shake and tremble with fear and understand the true depths of your own sin?

You cannot believe in god because the god you think you are supposed to believe in is not God. There's so much misinformation out there it is very difficult to work out what "god" it is that you actually think you need to believe in in the first place.We would have to be on the same page before we could even have a discussion about it.
No Knightmeister, I'm not following the herd here, I don't believe first and foremost because I cannot render the notion that capital 'G' "God" exists as remotely credible based on my worldview/skeptical nature, and scant evidence - similarly I cannot suppose the notion that I am the GingerBread man is credible.

However , I do believe that many people avoid exposing themselves to any knowledge of the true living God because they understand somewhere in their soul that He will convict them and show them their need for repentance and Jesus. For years I avoided God because I didn't want Him interfering with my life because I (mistakenly) thought my life belonged to me (as if I had created myself). I also didn't want to give up my sin and my self oriented life. I wanted to hold on to my life. I knew somewhere that if the Holy Spirit got involved then he would want to re-arrange the furniture and turn me into someone who I had never dreamed of being.
I am doubting your claim of being an atheist with this one - at least I doubt you ever held the same level of skepticism as I or other atheists in general. From my point of view there is no such "God" to avoid, I do not recognise the term "sin" as one which has any value beyond describing some set of things a fictional being dislikes. As far as I'm concerned, any overlap with this term and evil is entirely coincidental (since I don't define or accept any definition of "evil" grounded upon some god or other)

Don't you understand that God's holiness and truth has such a purity and conviction about it that when you get in touch with his Spirit you will shake and tremble with fear and understand the true depths of your own sin?
No, I do not understand this.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
How so: Are you sure you've grasped my argument. Or have you converted it into an argument your black or white, two dimensional world view is more comfy with. Or just to ensure we are not talking at cross purposes; outline what you think my argument is.

Have you not come across the very effective counter argument to the "there is no absolute truth" statement.

Namely - do you believe this is ultimately true?

I wasn't scoffing - just playfully wondering if you realized the paradox inherent in such an argument?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nope. I see the scientific method as being reliable for many things. Its a valuable tool for exploring the world and finding truth. But it's not the only way. People have all sorts of ways of coming to knowledge. Experiential knowledge , for example , is a form of knowing that in the West we tend to devalue. People find out things by trying them or tes ...[text shortened]... ll need to get to know him. There things that the soul knows that the intellect cannot grasp.

So what happens when what you leaned by one way contradicts the findings of the scientific method. Which do you trust?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok, what often happens when we go down this road whitey is that we end up with a series of multiple questions and it all gets quite cumbersome. I think at this juncture it would be good to focus on one question and do it justice- you agree?

If you cant answer them all at once, then why not start a thread on each? They may all be relevant.

So what's your pleasure - from what you have raised which 1 or 2 issues would you like to discuss?
They are all interesting and I cant choose. You pick.

BTW- I will give you one good reason why the scientific method is not a good way of exclusively coming to God or knowing God. What about children or those with brain damage or low IQ? Not to mention other conditions like autism?
But this clearly is a totally separate question from identifying the truth, or separating truth from falsehood. One does not say "that scientific experiment could not be done by children with Autism, so its findings are not valid, or its bad science, or we cant learn about the universe that way." Sure, we may use a different method for teaching science to children with Autism, but that wont change how research science is done.

Any God that wants to be known needs to have a way of his people knowing Him that is inclusive to all people. Only the Holy Spirit can reach all people.
As with my comments above, you are assuming a situation where there is a teacher in authority who is trusted and asking "what is the most effective teaching method". This is totally different from a student who does not have a trusted teacher and is trying to learn on his own and is trying to determine which teachers are good and which are not, or which teachers are telling lies.
When learning from authority we must either establish that the authority is reliable, or, as is more often the case, and is a wiser proposition for most of us, we must understand the content well enough that we can personally verify whether what the teacher is saying makes sense and adds up.
As regards the Holy Spirit, he seems to teach each individual something different, so I would not consider him a trusted authority.
And worst of all, this God that wants to be known, doesn't seem to have a plan for me, so hes not a particularly good teacher.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I've been there and I know what that feeling is like. You're an Atheist and you just don't see why you should give God a chance to reveal himself. You want to know that He's real before you give anything over to Him.

It's the Catch 22 thing. Frustratingly God offers Himself to us in a different way. He says take some steps and I will show you (seek got a taste of it you would not talk the way you do on these forums.

I had the exact opposite experience. I broke out of the religious superstition, moving toward free thinking and healthy skepticism. The transition was such a positive in my life.

If any out there are brainwashed in religious susperstition, and are questioning the delusions, I highly recommend efforts to break out of the brainwashing. It will free you to be objective and sound.