lucaspa
Legend
BaNaNasRuS said:
Not the response you expected.
I'm impressed that you realize atheism is a religion.
Hmm. If you don't doubt it, then why do you use "Christian" as a label for another person? See above. If you think the Bible is accurate, wouldn't that compel you to be Christian? If not, why not?
Apples and oranges. If you communicate with God that's fine. But hearing voices is something else. That's why we make the distinction. Because theists don't really claim God talks to them as in hearing an actual "voice" in their head. Yes, both claimed that God "talked" to them, but not that they heard voices. Do you see the difference?
I've met many. If you pay attention on these forums, you'll meet many. I've also read the works of many. Again, the key here is to have an independent criteria to decide they are not sane. Claiming personal experience of God by itself can't be a reason to decide they are not sane, since it is the existence of God we are trying to determine. So, is there anything in Paul's letters other than his religion to suggest he isn't sane? Seems sane to me. Also, nothing in Theodosius' extensive scientific work to suggest he wasn't sane, or in the writings of CS Lewis. So, what you have is evidence and no reason, other than that it is evidence, to think it is wrong.
The same way you tell if people are making up other things: whether they have a history of it, their voice, their facial expression, their behavior, etc. Humans have evolved pretty good detection of liars; we had to in order to detect cheaters in a cooperative society.
Do you see your circular logic here? "the fact that they say there were talked to by god to say they were making it" up. People say they have experience of god. They made it up. Why? Because it's experience of god. Run around that mental circle a couple of times and you'll be very dizzy.
You're right. We can't say they were lying just from what they were saying. We always must have additional evidence that they were lying. What they said has to contradict something we know from other means or their manner and behavior has to indicate a lie. OTOH, we do accept people tell the truth based solely on what they say. Your friend comes up and says "I had a great meal at Applebee's last night." You accept that he is telling the truth without any proof, don't you? What you are doing is making up special criteria to use against theists that you don't use other places. That's called Special Pleading.
You are confusing evidence and proof. Evidence is simply information backing a position. Proof is what you accept as overwhelming evidence such that you can't doubt the position.
When I said "evidence is information backing a position" Microsoft said "something that gives a sign of the existence or truth of something" I said "information" and Microsoft said "something" I said "backing a position" and Microsoft said "a sign of the existence or truth of something" but they are the same position. Microsoft said "Poof-convincing evidence" the only difference between them and me is that I said "overwhelming" instead of "convincing"
Thank you so much for falsifying your own position and backing mine. Your help is greatly appreciated (no sarcasm intended).
Sure it does. It is a "sign of the existence or truth of something". In this case the "something" is God. People are telling you they had experience of God. God did such as so. It's the same as them saying they had a burned steak at the restaurant last night. What they said is evidence that the cook at the restaurant burned the steak last night. Is it conclusive evidence? Depends on how much you trust the person. Same thing with the Bible.
Upvote
0