What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[just a believing guy]

However, if a person believes god exists...

Shouldn't you have said ''a god''?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok.



Ok.



Firstly, to say that I cannot reproduce it is a fallacy, because I never said that I can make people experience it as your first premise, neither did Edison make people experience it first hand.

Your faulty conclusions from your faulty premises are, that I cannot reproduce it and that no one gets the same experience I did.

You made the comparison...not me. Your experience is nothing like Edison and the lightbulb.

The experience is of the Light Jesus Christ, he made the claim that he will make people experience him.....

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them." (John 14:21)

Many countless Christians throughout the last 2000 years and counting have claimed to experienced the Light, as the promise quoted above.

They have claimed to, yes.

They experienced the same Light and their lives have been touched in ways that is not infinitesimal, but one that is playing out throughout their lives as they walk and bath in the Light Jesus Christ.

They claim to.

The same people who experienced the invention of Edison are literally bathing in his invention at night and have the same life changing experience as peoples who have lights running in their homes at night in all the world. The people didn't experience Edison they continue to experience his invention.

Not even remotely similar...for reasons already listed and several others.

In contrast Jesus the Light of the world has been directly experienced by the people's of the world and yet some like 3rd world countries still live in darkness because they have yet to experience the Light of Christ.

The inability to experience what countless others have experienced does in no way, shape or form do away with what is real and tangible for those who have the Light of Life Jesus Christ.

You're using the word "tangible" wrong. There's nothing "tangible" about your experiences with god or anyone else's.

You can't assert this claim of false equivalence,

I can...and I do.

because you have yet to experience the Light of the world, in the same way 3rd world countries that have no light cannot make claims against those in the 1st world countries who experience light every single day of their lives.

Are you talking about electricity or Jesus here?

No you can't! That is not your call and never was, because you have yet to experience the Light of the Wolrd.

Do you believe in Odin?

Again, you have not experienced any of which you mentioned above and your lack of a real and tangible daily and life long experience is not a right to discount the experiences of billions across the last 2000 years and counting.

I do have "real" and "daily" lifelong experiences.

Do you believe in Ahura Mazda?

Yes, try again from an angle you have authority to opine in and to provide a reasoned counter claim.

Counter claim to what? Your personal experiences which exist entirely within your own mind?

All you are doing here is demonstrated cognitive dissonance, because what ever is your cognition, you manipulate your dissonance to agree with it and this is a logical fallacy by rights, because you are not in a position to discount a single person who has experience the Light of the world Jesus Christ.

Sure I am...just as you discount all the people who ever believed in Odin, Ahura Mazda, Chernobog, Dionysus, Mithra, Set, Ganesh...and so on...and so on...

Your claims to "personal experience" bear no more weight than any of those.

Anything else?

 

[Gene2memE]

Enough of fluff talk. Please refer to....

What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

Read it, colour me unimpressed.

If Thomas Edison claimed to me that he had invented a device that could emit light just through the application of electricity, and I hadn't witnessed a demonstration of such, then my position would be to withhold belief of his claim until he provided evidence.

A wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence provided.

Without any evidence, particularly good evidence, I have no reason to accept his claim. Even though he's correct, I have no reason to accept his experience until it is demonstrated.

Once Mr Edison demonstrated his 'light bulb' to me, then I would be justified in accepting his claim, at least tentatively.

The wonderful thing about Mr Edison's device is that it can be tested easily and repeatedly, taken apart, put together again, examined, poked and prodded and verified that it works the way he says it works.

If the evidence presented for deities, any deity, was just a tenth as strong, then I wouldn't be an atheist.

My lack of belief is provisional, until such a time as my skepticism of these claims is overcome by the demonstration of evidence. Otherwise, I wouldn't be posting here.

 

[The Times]

You made the comparison...not me. Your experience is nothing like Edison and the lightbulb.

You are not in a position to state what my life long experience is with Jesus Christ, because you have NOT experienced the Light Jesus Christ.

Therefore I can make that comparison and it is legitimate, where as you can't. What you can do however, is learn from Christains who are in spiritually qualified positions to help you find the Light of the world Jesus Christ.

They have claimed to, yes.

A claim is valid and verifiable to the subject through a real and tangible life long experience that transcends the primal five senses.

They claim to.

A claim is valid and verifiable to the subject through a real and tangible life long experience that transcends the primal five senses.

Not even remotely similar...for reasons already listed and several others.

Again, your not qualified to make these assertions. You cannot make claims that you are not learnered to make, because you don't have a real and tangible life long experience with Jesus Christ.

You're using the word "tangible" wrong. There's nothing "tangible" about your experiences with god or anyone else's.

This statement is false, you know it and I know and everybody else knows it. There is everything tangible about a real to life experience that one has with a person or persons. Jesus Christ is a historical figure that can be experienced.

I hope that you don't make the claim that there is nothing tangible about your experiences with your wife, your children, your mother and father, your brothers and sisters. If you hold this point of view, then you must deny your very existence, wouldn't you say?

I can...and I do.

Really. Look at what you stated above!

Are you talking about electricity or Jesus here?

Both are real to life experiences that people can have, if you believe that you exist that is.

Do you believe in Odin?

No.

I do have "real" and "daily" lifelong experiences.

You almost made me doubt your very existence for a moment, because of your statement.....

"There's nothing "tangible" about experiences with anyone else's."

Do you believe in Ahura Mazda?

No.

Counter claim to what? Your personal experiences which exist entirely within your own mind?

That is actually a false statement. Do you know why?

Because your premise is that my life long experiences with Jesus Christ are only in my own mind, yet billions of others before me and throughout the last 2000 years and counting have the same experience with the same person. I don't know most of these people and they are spread across the globe, in most countries that persecuted them for having this personal relationship and experience with Jesus Christ, so go figure.

Your arguing from a position of ignorance, there is no objective truth on your side. How can you make such preposterious claims, having none of them yourself?

Sure I am...just as you discount all the people who ever believed in Odin, Ahura Mazda, Chernobog, Dionysus, Mithra, Set, Ganesh...and so on...and so on...

Frankly whether I discount them or not, is not a determinant to validate your claims. Your arguing from my position and your not qualified to do that, because you haven't experienced any of the above.

Your claims to "personal experience" bear no more weight than any of those.

Again, your arguing from my position, you can't do that, because your not qualified. Please understand.

Anything else?

Yes, you continue to feed your rigid cognition with dissonance that is becoming more and more irrational and illogical. Have you noticed that from this exercise your dissonance has brought you to this statement......

"There's nothing "tangible" about experiences with anyone else's."

Let it go friend, please for Christ's sake free yourself of this heavy burden you have placed on your shoulders and come and experience Jesus. You won't be disappointed.

 

[The Times]

If Thomas Edison claimed to me that he had invented a device that could emit light just through the application of electricity, and I hadn't witnessed a demonstration of such, then my position would be to withhold belief of his claim until he provided evidence.

Very good!

A wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence provided.

Very good!

Without any evidence, particularly good evidence, I have no reason to accept his claim. Even though he's correct, I have no reason to

Aha! So from this you are openly admitting that you require a real and tangible personal experience and one that is repeatable throughout your life time, otherwise it would be a one off magic trick right?

The second is an argument from a point ignorance, that is, if you have yet to experience personally the evidence, then you have no reason to believe it to be true, on the basis of your LACK of personal experience, right? Even....... as you stated, if the claim turns out to be true.

Do you know what you have unwittingly done just now?

As a proclaimed Athiest, you have exemplified and qualified the position of billions of Christians, over the last 2000 years and counting who have personally experienced the evidence. Just because YOU haven't doesn't mean the billions who have are wrong.

So you cannot argue against any of those who have a life long evidential experience, just because you haven't experienced the evidence. Doing so, is unmerited and unqualified and it would highly suggestive that you are claiming to have evidence against all those billions that believe that God doesn't exists. Therefore the burden of proof is on you my friend, not the billions and this means that you cannot use a counteract argument when trapped like this, by saying with certainty that God doesn't exist, when you are lacking the evidence to verify God's existence.

So whose fault is that? The billions who have the life long evidence or you that has yet to personally experience what they have experienced?

So you can't have it both ways, right?

Once Mr Edison demonstrated his 'light bulb' to me, then I would be justified in accepting his claim, at least tentatively.

So, you agree that you must show an open mind and willingness to aleast afford Mr Edison the time to demonstrate his invention to you.

Very well, if you are genuine in this matter, then you must be consistent with your methodological approach, instead of reverting to further feeding dissonance to your inflexible and rigid preconceived cognition of the none existence of God.

So Jesus said......

"Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends. (Revelation 3:20)

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)

The wonderful thing about Mr Edison's device is that it can be tested easily and repeatedly, taken apart, put together again, examined, poked and prodded and verified that it works the way he says it works.

Yes, that is right. You can say that now, after you have personally experienced the evidence. However if you recall what you said above....

"Without any evidence, particularly good evidence, I have no reason to accept his claim. Even though he's correct, I have no reason to"

The red in bold is a give away!

So, since you have yet to experience a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, as have many have, why then haven't you made a concerted effort to find out, instead of feeding your rigid cognition that is associated with a mental discomfort in regards to the none existence of God, by continually feeding your dissonance and avoiding the adventure of finding out yourself.

The point I am making is you are not willing to find out, yet you have plainly said that you were willing to give Edison's invention a fair go, yet you choose to avoid the finding out of the God who does exist.

Which really comes down to one human characteristics, you fear what you run away from and this has caused your cognition to be wired unnaturally by your peers influence to reject the truth. You stated even if something is true, unless you are willing to personally experience it, then you have no personal reason to consider it as truth.

In a way you are censoring truth and have a close discussion mind that is unwilling to venture where billions have ventured and were greatly satisfied what they discovered through their life long experience with Jesus Christ.

All I'm saying is that your sabotaging your joy by carrying such a burden of censoring God from your life and continuing to live the peer driven cognition.

If I have discovered this spiritual conflict in your spirit, then how much are you living a poor in spirit life, by continuing to hold onto chains that you need not to. Free yourself from your own bondage friend, enough is enough.

If the evidence presented for deities, any deity, was just a tenth as strong, then I wouldn't be an atheist.

That is another last minute false statement!

My lack of belief is provisional, until such a time as my skepticism of these claims is overcome by the demonstration of evidence. Otherwise, I wouldn't be posting here.

Reverting back to a counteract argument of your lack of belief scenario.

Ohhh, you poor thing......

Look, I don't buy it, you don't buy it and certainly by now who ever has read these posts also wouldn't buy this flip flop.

Please remember friend, that until such a time your skepticism resulting from your unwillingness to overcome your cognitive dissonance, is finally OVERCOME by demonstrating the evidence youself and in your own life long personal experience, rather than looking at a demonstration of evidence through another person's personal life long experience.

Remember what you said......

"Without any evidence, particularly good evidence, I have no reason to accept his claim. Even though he's correct, I have no reason to"

I caught you out friend, your dissonance in one instant has you claiming truth by your own personal experience, right?

Then you state that others need to demonstrate it for you, and there lies the internal inconsistency in the unwillingness to shift your cognition, by further feeding your dissonance with irrational and illogical requests for evidence.

The facts are as the famous line goes......

YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

 

[Gene2memE]

Aha! So from this you are openly admitting that you require a real and tangible personal experience and one that is repeatable throughout your life time, otherwise it would be a one off magic trick right?

No, I'm explaining that without an evidential demonstration, I have no reason to believe a particular claim.

The second is an argument from a point ignorance, that is, if you have yet to experience personally the evidence, then you have no reason to believe it to be true, on the basis of your LACK of personal experience, right? Even....... as you stated, if the claim turns out to be true.

No, I don't need a personal demonstration, just sufficiently convincing evidence. Someone making a claim that I either don't have evidence for, or couldn't verify myself or through a third party, I have no reason to accept.

Do you know what you have unwittingly done just now?

As a proclaimed Athiest, you have exemplified and qualified the position of billions of Christians, over the last 2000 years and counting who have personally experienced the evidence. Just because YOU haven't doesn't mean the billions who have are wrong.

Argumentum ad populum.

Billions CLAIM to have "personally experienced the evidence" - yet when we dig into those claims, what we find is assertions and feelings, not evidence.

So you cannot argue against any of those who have a life long evidential experience, just because you haven't experienced the evidence.

So, equally, you cannot argue against any of those who have "lifelong evidential experience" of non-Christian gods, or alien abduction, or ghost, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just because you haven't experienced the evidence.

You're confusing and conflating claims and evidence. Claims of experience are just that, claims. There is no way for me to verify personal experience, so no reason for me to accept it.

Doing so, is unmerited and unqualified and it would highly suggestive that you are claiming to have evidence against all those billions that believe that God doesn't exists.

I think you mean 'does exist' - but that's immaterial. I'm not claiming to have evidence against them, I'm stating that their claims, and the "evidence" used to support their positions, are unconvincing to me.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying I don't believe them (because I have no good reason to).

Therefore the burden of proof is on you my friend, not the billions and this means that you cannot use a counteract argument when trapped like this, by saying with certainty that God doesn't exist, when you are lacking the evidence to verify God's existence.

Again, I'm not "saying with certainty that God doesn't exist". That's a misconstruing of my position.

I'm not making the positive claim "God doesn't exist". I'm withholding belief of your claim that God does.

So whose fault is that? The billions who have the life long evidence or you that has yet to personally experience what they have experienced? [/qote]

Theirs. None of the evidence they've presented to me is sufficient for me to accept the claim "God exists".

So, you agree that you must show an open mind and willingness to aleast afford Mr Edison the time to demonstrate his invention to you.

Yep. I remain open to being convinced. What have you got to convince me?

So Jesus said......

"Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends. (Revelation 3:20)

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)

Personal historical anecdote time. I was raised in a mixed Anglican and Catholic family, and educated through Marist and Jesuit schools, from pre-school through to high school. I was an alter boy, soloist for two church choirs, and attended both mass, Sunday school and other specific religious education through my schooling.

I was an active, practicing, believing Christian for better than 25 years. My atheism is a position I arrived at later in life, after much consideration, discussion and thought.

I can't say that I searched harder than anyone else, but seek and search I did. End result: de-conversion to atheism.

The point I am making is you are not willing to find out, yet you have plainly said that you were willing to give Edison's invention a fair go, yet you choose to avoid the finding out of the God who does exist.

To re-iterate. If the level of support for God was even remotely similar to that observed for the lightbulb, I'd have no issue.

However, when the best evidence presented (at least from you) is "well, lots of other people believe, so you should too" then I find it sorely wanting.

YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

Present the truth of the claim then.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I was a Christian for 44 years. I've done all the looking I'm gonna do.


Besides, if he is "not willing that any should perish" then, yeah, I believe that any such god should present himself.


Also, this is besides the point. You asked, "What evidence would I accept?" My response answers that. And your question supposes that someone could present this evidence. If this god cares, he can present it. Else he doesn't exist or doesn't care.

but an omniscient god knows what I'd accept.

Hello tinker grey.

A woman who attends my church recently said that she has never heard from God. There are christians who seem satisfied with what they have.

What were you looking for and are you sure you never found it?


2 peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I assume that you have quoted this scripture. Please correct me,

God presents Himself in many ways, which you may not have recognized my friend.

You seem to suggest that you would believe in God if he shows Himself to you?
Have you considered. If you went to the white house and shouted for the president to come out and prove he exists, do you think he would do so?

Of course he would not. He knows who He is, He doesnt need you to believe He exists. You need seek God through the right channels.

There are ways to prove it...sure.


As for a "strong conviction"...you're talking about your emotions, your feelings, and those aren't even a part of a rational/logical argument...they're part of an emotional argument.


Frankly, your feelings don't prove anything other than how you feel (Technically, they don't even prove that)...so I'm not sure where you're going with this.







If "god" wants me to believe in him...then yeah, "presenting himself" and proving himself god would be one way to do it.


Does that answer both your questions?

Hello and thank you for your reply.

So are you asking me to accept your authority about the nature of water?

A strong conviction is not an emotion it is an intuition, based on facts.

A strong conviction is neither logical or illogical, its about knowing, once you know you no longer believe - you know.

A strong conviction is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Emotions.
For example a feeling of fear in the presence of an axe murderer is either a rational response to a fear inducing situation or it is a mere emotion which might deceive you.


Please read my reply to tinker grey for my response to your last sentence.

Thank you

No, just because there's a fallacy present doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily false.


However, the argument containing the fallacy must be thrown out or corrected and a logically correct argument must be shown before we can accept the conclusion as true.

Hello dave.

Fallacies should always be corrected. Which one in relation to God would you correct?

Nope, it's not my job to provide the evidence. I have no idea what someone could provide that would prove a god.


However, if a person believes god exists, it should follow that they already have sufficient evidence. Hopefully they can provide whatever that is to me.

Please forgive me if I was not clear enough. I was asking you what are the conditions for proof?

He who has had an experience is not at the mercy of the one with the arguement. Its like seeing a commet. You either saw it or you did not.

Thank you for reading and im looking forward to a polite and friendly discussion

 

[Dave Ellis]

Shouldn't you have said ''a god''?

It works either way

 

[just a believing guy]

It works either way

Not so.

 

[keith99]

Read it, colour me unimpressed.

If Thomas Edison claimed to me that he had invented a device that could emit light just through the application of electricity, and I hadn't witnessed a demonstration of such, then my position would be to withhold belief of his claim until he provided evidence.

A wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence provided.

Without any evidence, particularly good evidence, I have no reason to accept his claim. Even though he's correct, I have no reason to accept his experience until it is demonstrated.

Once Mr Edison demonstrated his 'light bulb' to me, then I would be justified in accepting his claim, at least tentatively.

The wonderful thing about Mr Edison's device is that it can be tested easily and repeatedly, taken apart, put together again, examined, poked and prodded and verified that it works the way he says it works.

If the evidence presented for deities, any deity, was just a tenth as strong, then I wouldn't be an atheist.

My lack of belief is provisional, until such a time as my skepticism of these claims is overcome by the demonstration of evidence. Otherwise, I wouldn't be posting here.

But what if you were blind?

How could you then verify Edison's claims?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but no, I don't think it's got anything to do with my point.

It has everything to do with your post. You stated you benefit from a more realistic view, and I simply compared two popular opposing views so the reader could decide which was more realistic.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But what if you were blind?

How could you then verify Edison's claims?

Ask a trusted colleague?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hello dave.

Fallacies should always be corrected. Which one in relation to God would you correct?

Depends on the argument, different arguments contain different fallacies.

Please forgive me if I was not clear enough. I was asking you what are the conditions for proof?

He who has had an experience is not at the mercy of the one with the arguement. Its like seeing a commet. You either saw it or you did not.

Thank you for reading and im looking forward to a polite and friendly discussion

I said I'm not sure what would qualify. I'm not aware of a method to reliably test for the supernatural and I'm not aware of a way to prove god. If someone can come up with a method, I'm all ears.

If someone has a personal experience, depending on what it is that may serve as proof for them. However, since I have not had that personal experience, I have no way to verify if their experience is true. Therefore, someone elses personal experience can't definitively prove the existence of god for me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not so.

How so?

 

[keith99]

Ask a trusted colleague?

Only a fool would do that when there are ways to actually test something.

So I'll ask again how could a blind man test the claims of Edison? Or perhaps a better way to put it is how could a community of blind people test that claim and the more general one that sight actually exists? What things would lead a reasonable blind person to think that others have some sense he does not?

Or perhaps baby steps are needed. If long ago humans were all color blind and a mutation gave someone the ability to see some colors how could that person convince others he saw differences they did not?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Only a fool would do that when there are ways to actually test something.

What? That would be the way a blind man would have to test it, let someone do their seeing for them.

So I'll ask again how could a blind man test the claims of Edison? Or perhaps a better way to put it is how could a community of blind people test that claim and the more general one that sight actually exists? What things would lead a reasonable blind person to think that others have some sense he does not?

Oh, you are making the question harder now, seemingly making what was a good answer before, now obsolete? That's a new one.

Anyway, I'll answer again, ask a trusted Colleague.

Go ahead, oversee (so to speak) the experimentation yourself, just let someone else be your eyes, and you don't have to worry if they have sense or not...as long as they can be trusted. Simple.

Does the question get tougher yet now?

 

[keith99]

What? That would be the way a blind man would have to test it, let someone do their seeing for them.



Oh, you are making the question harder now, seemingly making what was a good answer before, now obsolete? That's a new one.

Anyway, I'll answer again, ask a trusted Colleague.

Go ahead, oversee (so to speak) the experimentation yourself, just let someone else be your eyes, and you don't have to worry if they have sense or not...as long as they can be trusted. Simple.

Does the question get tougher yet now?

Asking one trusted colleague is stupid. It is an appeal to authority.

But I can ask those who claim to be able to see and find out what their claims are. I can stand 10 feet away from someone who claims to be able to see and raise my arm and they can tell me pretty exactly when I do so. I can get 2 or 3 different tiles that a person who claims to see says each have a number on them but that to me are identical smooth tiles and hold each up in turn and the person who claims to be able to see should be able to tell me which tile has which number on it.

Before I even try any test I might notice that when someone else arrives my friend who claims to see says hello and greets them by name when the other person has not yet spoken and I while hearing someone approach cannot tell anything beyond that.

A blind man cannot see, but they can verify that others do see.

But you want to avoid what I just said because it comes too close to some tests for the presence of any type of spirit that some cannot sense. Be it Christians claiming the real presence of God or a Gypsy fortune teller. Remember the idea above of numbered tiles? If instead of one person I had 10 if I held up a tile with a number on it I'd get the same answer from all 10. Yet when it is claimed God is speaking we rarely get the same answer about what He said from even 2 independent people. The argument that anyone who earnestly seeks God will find him is rendered void as this same God seems to tell them very different things. Does that prove there is no God? Nope. It could be the vast majority are either deceived or lying. But it does put the proposition that people seek God and get a response that would qualify as evidence in any other circumstance on extremely precarious footing.

Heck when it comes to Christians (or any other religion) when it even comes to just the real presence of their deity they cannot even agree on when it occurs. Oh there is some correlation with an especially emotional service, but even there one will claim God was moving, another will feel Satan and a third will feel nothing except teh presence of people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are not in a position to state what my life long experience is with Jesus Christ, because you have NOT experienced the Light Jesus Christ.

Therefore I can make that comparison and it is legitimate, where as you can't. What you can do however, is learn from Christains who are in spiritually qualified positions to help you find the Light of the world Jesus Christ.

You can claim it's a legitimate comparison...but you, me, and pretty much everyone else knows it isn't. I'm not sure what you're hoping for here.

A claim is valid and verifiable to the subject through a real and tangible life long experience that transcends the primal five senses.



A claim is valid and verifiable to the subject through a real and tangible life long experience that transcends the primal five senses.

You're using the word verify wrong. Here...

Definition-verifiable

able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.

If your experiences were "verifiable" we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Again, your not qualified to make these assertions. You cannot make claims that you are not learnered to make, because you don't have a real and tangible life long experience with Jesus Christ.



This statement is false, you know it and I know and everybody else knows it. There is everything tangible about a real to life experience that one has with a person or persons. Jesus Christ is a historical figure that can be experienced.

I hope that you don't make the claim that there is nothing tangible about your experiences with your wife, your children, your mother and father, your brothers and sisters. If you hold this point of view, then you must deny your very existence, wouldn't you say?

Again...You're using the word "tangible" wrong. Tangible means something that you can touch...literally, with your body. Not metaphorically, not spiritually...but physically touching.

So you're experiences with god are not tangible. I'm trying to help you here...when I tell you that you're using a word incorrectly, try looking it up before misusing it again five more times.

You almost made me doubt your very existence for a moment, because of your statement.....

"There's nothing "tangible" about experiences with anyone else's."

I said there's nothing tangible about your experiences with god, or anyone else's. I stand by that statement. See the meaning of "tangible" above.

That is actually a false statement. Do you know why?

Because your premise is that my life long experiences with Jesus Christ are only in my own mind, yet billions of others before me and throughout the last 2000 years and counting have the same experience with the same person. I don't know most of these people and they are spread across the globe, in most countries that persecuted them for having this personal relationship and experience with Jesus Christ, so go figure.

Your arguing from a position of ignorance, there is no objective truth on your side. How can you make such preposterious claims, having none of them yourself?

You dismiss the "experiences" of people who believe in gods you don't believe in all the time...I'm doing the same.

Frankly whether I discount them or not, is not a determinant to validate your claims. Your arguing from my position and your not qualified to do that, because you haven't experienced any of the above.



Again, your arguing from my position, you can't do that, because your not qualified. Please understand.

If you've physically touched god...let's hear about it. Otherwise, I'm completely justified in saying your experiences are intangible.

Yes, you continue to feed your rigid cognition with dissonance that is becoming more and more irrational and illogical. Have you noticed that from this exercise your dissonance has brought you to this statement......

"There's nothing "tangible" about experiences with anyone else's."

Let it go friend, please for Christ's sake free yourself of this heavy burden you have placed on your shoulders and come and experience Jesus. You won't be disappointed.

You'll also want to look up "cognitive dissonance"...You're using that wrong as well.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Asking one trusted colleague is stupid. It is an appeal to authority.

Then ask a bunch, lol. What a ridiculous conversation when the point seems to be no more than proving a clearly good answer wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hello tinker grey.

A woman who attends my church recently said that she has never heard from God. There are christians who seem satisfied with what they have.

What were you looking for and are you sure you never found it?


2 peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I assume that you have quoted this scripture. Please correct me,

God presents Himself in many ways, which you may not have recognized my friend.

You seem to suggest that you would believe in God if he shows Himself to you?
Have you considered. If you went to the white house and shouted for the president to come out and prove he exists, do you think he would do so?

Of course he would not. He knows who He is, He doesnt need you to believe He exists. You need seek God through the right channels.




Hello and thank you for your reply.

So are you asking me to accept your authority about the nature of water?

I genuinely don't care what you understand about water...I was just using it as an example.

A strong conviction is not an emotion it is an intuition, based on facts.

Well according to the dictionary, it's a belief or opinion....not necessarily a fact.

A strong conviction is neither logical or illogical, its about knowing, once you know you no longer believe - you know.

And how do you claim to "know"?

A strong conviction is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Back in the days when that was written...it probably passed for evidence...but it doesn't now, for obvious reasons. We don't convict people on "hopes" and the "unseen" because, you know, that would be really stupid.

Emotions.
For example a feeling of fear in the presence of an axe murderer is either a rational response to a fear inducing situation or it is a mere emotion which might deceive you.

And?

Please read my reply to tinker grey for my response to your last sentence.

Thank you

If you bury your replies to me in replies to others...don't expect me to read them or receive a response. I give you enough respect to reply to you...I don't think it's expecting a lot in return.