The Evolution of Morality

[EternalDragon]

Christians know what they should see, hear, feel, from reading the bible and from history, so similar delusional experiences isn't at all strange.

Trying to explain the evidence away, eh?

These are not experiences described in the bible or
from history. They are all unique and defy explanation.

I would maybe call them paranormal.

 

[HitchSlap]

Trying to explain the evidence away, eh?

These are not experiences described in the bible or
from history. They are all unique and defy explanation.

I would maybe call them paranormal.

Explanation: humans have emotional experiences and ascribe supernatural meanings to them because they are infrequent occurrences. The effects on humans can be measured and the findings are not unique to any one ethnicity or religious group.

You have yet to describe an emotional event in spiritual terms. Please give an example of a spiritual experience... for the third time.

 

[EternalDragon]

Explanation: humans have emotional experiences and ascribe supernatural meanings to them because they are infrequent occurrences. The effects on humans can be measured and the findings are not unique to any one ethnicity or religious group.

You have yet to describe an emotional event in spiritual terms. Please give an example of a spiritual experience... for the third time.

You are not ready to hear it.

 

[HitchSlap]

You are not ready to hear it.

Ready when you are.

 

[biggles53]

So then Christians believe in a delusion that has been reported by eyewitnesses as their own delusion? It's a delusion within a delusion?

What if we also have experiences similar to their delusions? Like encounters with spiritual entities that can't be explained?

Wait, are you calling Christians (or anyone that has faith in a God) delusional?

Two problems there...

1. Christians are NOT relying on eye-witness accounts....they are relying upon translations of translations of translations of oral accounts of edited hearsay accounts...!

2. Eye-witness evidence has been found to be the LEAST RELIABLE form of evidence.....for many if the reasons discussed here - the propensity of humans to see patterns which don't exist and the interplay of emotional needs with the observation if the real world, just to mention a couple....

 

[biggles53]

Ready when you are.

As am I......but I'd go one further.

Give us a description of a spiritual experience and also explain how it could not possibly be mistaken for a delusion, or a piece of wishful thinking......?

 

[HitchSlap]

As am I......but I'd go one further.

Give us a description of a spiritual experience and also explain how it could not possibly be mistaken for a delusion, or a piece of wishful thinking......?

Now you've gone and scared 'em off.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Such as?

Such as?

Such as?

I have independent objective evidence in the reason and logic that we use to debate here. Logic and reason if left to naturalistic origins renders them both to subjective relativity. I have independent objective evidence in the fact that the universe is uniform and intelligible to us. I have evidence that speaks to human dignity and personal identity which transcends naturalistic cause and effect.

I have objective evidence in that the universe reflects the intelligence behind it. I see intelligence in the simplest forms of life. I observe Biblical predictions that can be proven in the the outcomes.

I have independent objective evidence when I have prayed and others see the visual result with me.

I see independent objective evidence in all of your denials.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, people having emotional experiences happens quite frequently. So what? How do you know it was a supernatural spirit that was responsible for it?

How do you know it wasn't?

 

[HitchSlap]

I have independent objective evidence in the reason and logic that we use to debate here. Logic and reason if left to naturalistic origins renders them both to subjective relativity. I have independent objective evidence in the fact that the universe is uniform and intelligible to us. I have evidence that speaks to human dignity and personal identity which transcends naturalistic cause and effect.

I have objective evidence in that the universe reflects the intelligence behind it. I see intelligence in the simplest forms of life. I observe Biblical predictions that can be proven in the the outcomes.

I have independent objective evidence when I have prayed and others see the visual result with me.

I see independent objective evidence in all of your denials.

These are just assertions. We're asking for actual objective evidence that your god/s exist.

 

[HitchSlap]

How do you know it wasn't?

Wasn't what, pink fairies?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you saying that those who experience deities other than your god are delusional? What about the thousands of other gods that people have believed in through the ages? All delusions?

If you consider the majority of religious adherents, those of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism which comes up to billions of people; only Christianity claims a personal relationship with God. Muslims do not have experiences with Allah, they feel they are not worthy and Hindus believe in many many gods but that they all are parts of the whole supreme impersonal god Brahman which has not personal expression to those who adhere to the religion. So of those billions of people only the 1.5 billion Christians claim personal experiences with God. Actually, the number of those who say they have experienced God is unknown. No other religion other than Judaism 914 million) has a personal God that is concerned with and experienced by their adherents out of the top ten religions of the world.

So your assumption that those of other religions have experience of God is unfounded and in fact is wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wasn't what, pink fairies?

Ok, well that is a constructive and intelligent response.

 

[Oncedeceived]

These are just assertions. We're asking for actual objective evidence that your god/s exist.

No they are not just assertions. We know that logic exists, we know that reason exists. We can prove that objectively. We know that the universe is uniform and intelligible, we have evidence to show that.

All those things I list can be shown to be in evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok, well that is a constructive and intelligent response.

Then you've missed the point entirely. It's not up to me to prove they weren't, but it's up to you to prove they were. And while you're at it, maybe you could define "spiritual" before you prove they were real experiences?

 

[HitchSlap]

No they are not just assertions. We know that logic exists, we know that reason exists. We can prove that objectively. We know that the universe is uniform and intelligible, we have evidence to show that.

All those things I list can be shown to be in evidence.

... Therefore god?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you've missed the point entirely. It's not up to me to prove they weren't, but it's up to you to prove they were. And while you're at it, maybe you could define "spiritual" before you prove they were real experiences?

His or mine?

 

[Oncedeceived]

... Therefore god?

Therefore evidence for God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Goodnight all.

 

[HitchSlap]

Therefore evidence for God.

Or the FSM, or fairies, or Romulus, or Thor or Mithras or Bob.

Your argument is from incredulity. You might be entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. In short, you're free to believe what you need to for the sake of your religion, but you're nowhere near having evidence of a god/s. Even your lead apologists Craig and D'Souza admit you can't prove god exists, so not sure why you persist with these assertions?