What Convinced you God Exists?

[Lion IRC]

I started with intellectual arguments, but they only go so far. As Dante has it, Virgil (Reason) can only lead you to the gates of paradise, but Beatrice (Grace) leads you in.

There are things that to me are axiomatic, such as some things being better than others, that a coherent concept of goodness exists, and that the world is basically good. That I consider these axiomatic truths is obviously my personal experience, but everyone can only base their conclusions on their own qualia, whatever they are. Sufficed to say, the implied idea of a relativistic morality and the socially constructed idea of virtues and such that only hides Selfish genes or nature red in tooth and claw, seem obviously wrong to me. It was Good, but has become flawed, matches my experience of reality. Further, in a sort of Paschal's wager or "I am for Narnia even if there is no Narnia", it doesn't matter if I am wrong, since I wouldn't want to see the world in that manner anyway. Once I accept that layer to existence, the non-theistic systems don't accord with my experience as well. I have to convince myself that my experience is faulty or illusion, akin to thinking that a table is merely a mess of atoms and not a real structure in front of me. I see no reason to give primacy to abstractions rather than my own qualia. When I once accept the idea of God, experience of the divine really starts.

As CS Lewis said, we can only meet God face to face till we have faces ourselves.

Love that book. (Till We Have Faces.)

 

[Lion IRC]

Interesting that the Op poses the question in the past tense.

What convincED you...as if there is a presumption that everyone starts off with a lack of conviction.

I would have to be convincED...persuaded to change my existing conviction. And I very much doubt atheism has sufficient intellectual ammo to attempt that.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Interesting that the Op poses the question in the past tense.

What convincED you...as if there is a presumption that everyone starts off with a lack of conviction.

I would have to be convincED...persuaded to change my existing conviction. And I very much doubt atheism has sufficient intellectual ammo to attempt that.

Good point. Children are natural theists, actually. It is more that people have to be convinced to not be, as the human baseline is religious - as the near universal cultural existence of religion makes clear.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I started with intellectual arguments, but they only go so far. As Dante has it, Virgil (Reason) can only lead you to the gates of paradise, but Beatrice (Grace) leads you in.

There are things that to me are axiomatic, such as some things being better than others, that a coherent concept of goodness exists, and that the world is basically good. That I consider these axiomatic truths is obviously my personal experience, but everyone can only base their conclusions on their own qualia, whatever they are. Sufficed to say, the implied idea of a relativistic morality and the socially constructed idea of virtues and such that only hides Selfish genes or nature red in tooth and claw, seem obviously wrong to me. It was Good, but has become flawed, matches my experience of reality. Further, in a sort of Paschal's wager or "I am for Narnia even if there is no Narnia", it doesn't matter if I am wrong, since I wouldn't want to see the world in that manner anyway. Once I accept that layer to existence, the non-theistic systems don't accord with my experience as well. I have to convince myself that my experience is faulty or illusion, akin to thinking that a table is merely a mess of atoms and not a real structure in front of me. I see no reason to give primacy to abstractions rather than my own qualia. When I once accept the idea of God, experience of the divine really starts.

As CS Lewis said, we can only meet God face to face till we have faces ourselves.

Thanks for replying. It seems you are saying that at some point personal experience with god fills the gap between a philosophical argument and belief. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thanks for replying. It seems you are saying that at some point personal experience with god fills the gap between a philosophical argument and belief. Correct me if I am wrong.

No, I am saying that any philosophical arguments are only compelling if they accord with your own axioms, which are the product of experience. There are no complete abstract argument devoid from the person musing on it. Any philosophy is accepted or not, depending on whether a person considers it compelling based on their qualia; and likewise, any experience is immediately intellectualised if a person looks back upon it, trying to make sense thereof, and then placed in the framework of their previous held beliefs - often based on experiences.

This is very much that quandary of the fact that you can't experience something while dissecting it. CS Lewis believed that the role of myth, to intellectualise experience in a sense, while experiencing the effects thereof as narrative. There is no hard border here, and this is as true for the atheist as for the theist.

 

[Paulomycin]

Just provide your evidence that all atheists are here to make Christians cry. If your evidence is that i posted again then I don’t think you are being serious.

I am serious as a heart-attack here. Atheist activists are here to set nominal and/or weak believers against their own upbringing. If there are new believers who weren't born into Christianity, then atheist activists are setting them against the solution to existential dread as adults. Across the spectrum, skeptics are the killjoys of life itself.

Are you not an activist? <-- You keep dodging this.
Are you not here to overturn the Christian religion?
Is Christianity not an obstacle to Progressive utopia?
Should Christianity not be subverted, undermined, or destroyed by any means necessary?

 

[HitchSlap]

I am serious as a heart-attack here. Atheist activists are here to set nominal and/or weak believers against their own upbringing. If there are new believers who weren't born into Christianity, then atheist activists are setting them against the solution to existential dread as adults. Across the spectrum, skeptics are the killjoys of life itself.

Actually, life is better for me in every way since I no longer consider myself to be Christian.

Are you not an activist? <-- You keep dodging this.
Are you not here to overturn the Christian religion?
Is Christianity not an obstacle to Progressive utopia?
Should Christianity not be subverted, undermined, or destroyed by any means necessary?

WWG1WGA..... AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa aaaa aaaaa aa..........

 

[Paulomycin]

Actually, life is better for me in every way since I no longer consider myself to be Christian.

Then why do you frequent Christian forums to continue picking at the scab?

WWG1WGA..... AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa aaaa aaaaa aa..........

Can you answer the question without randomly mashing the keyboard?

 

[HitchSlap]

Then why do you frequent Christian forums to continue picking at the scab?

Off and on for years... joined when I was a Christian. Back when Erwin ran the place. Remember those days? As Hitch once said, "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

Can you answer the question without randomly mashing the keyboard?

What was your question? I'm happy to answer.

 

[Paulomycin]

Off and on for years... joined when I was a Christian. Back when Erwin ran the place. Remember those days? As Hitch once said, "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

If there are no true convictions to argue for, then why bother?

What was your question? I'm happy to answer.

Are you not an activist?

 

[HitchSlap]

If there are no true convictions to argue for, then why bother?

I'm going to assume you're interested in good faith conversation here, even though you just can't help yourself with loaded questions. A better question may have been, what convictions do you hold?

Are you not an activist?

I'm not an activist.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm going to assume you're interested in good faith conversation here, even though you just can't help yourself with loaded questions. A better question may have been, what convictions do you hold?

I'm going to assume that, as an atheist, you have no objective convictions to speak of. Otherwise, you wouldn't be stalling for time.

I'm not an activist.

Then why are you here? If you say anything remotely resembling "for my own entertainment," then you're truly wasting what little time you have left on this earth. If God does not exist, then there are thousands of more fun things you could be doing outside of CF.

Therefore, I'm not convinced you are not an activist.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because all atheists want to do is make believers cry.

Prove it.

Atheist activists are only here to antagonize religion.

Where's your evidence?

You're the evidence. You're an activist. You're here what, 7 days a week? This isn't much of a challenge, you know.

Okay, so I pop in a lot. And?

Well, I'll take your "funny" rating to mean that's all you've got. You're here everyday too. Can I conclude that you only want to make atheists cry and to antagonize un-religion? That's all the evidence we need to draw these sorts of conclusions, yes yes?

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm going to assume that, as an atheist, you have no objective convictions to speak of. Otherwise, you wouldn't be stalling for time.

Well, I assumed you were disingenuous, now you've removed all doubt.

Then why are you here? If you say anything remotely resembling "for my own entertainment," then you're truly wasting what little time you have left on this earth. If God does not exist, then there are thousands of more fun things you could be doing outside of CF.

I joined CF as a Christian, many moons ago. I'm no longer a Christian. And I find conversation a way to hone my beliefs and attitudes.

Therefore, I'm not convinced you are not an activist.

I don't care what your opinion is of me. You're either interested in honest dialectic, or you're not. Taking an obstreperous approach is your choice.

Adios.

 

[Paulomycin]

Well, I assumed you were disingenuous, now you've removed all doubt.

^ And the stalling continues.

I joined CF as a Christian, many moons ago. I'm no longer a Christian.

Well then, if you were a Christian, then you know there's only one Christian answer to the question, "Why did you go out from among us?"

And I find conversation a way to hone my beliefs and attitudes.

Picking at the scab. If you have objective knowledge of anything disproving the proof of the existence of God, then you wouldn't need to sharpen anything. Forced incredulity doesn't need to be "honed" either. Do you think that repeating ineffective assertions will someday magically make something happen?

I don't care what your opinion is of me. You're either interested in honest dialectic, or you're not. Taking an obstreperous approach is your choice.

An honest dialectic implies an objective "honesty" of some sort. As an atheist, why can't you account for it?

 

[Paulomycin]

Can I conclude that you only want to make atheists cry and to antagonize un-religion?

YEEEEAHHH!!!

 

[Paulomycin]

Can I conclude that you only want to make atheists cry and to antagonize un-religion?

Remember that a "victim group" is homogeneous.

 

[Tigger45]

I really don’t know how to vote because my mind keeps waffling between choosing 1 and 2. It’s like they are interwoven expressions of my life’s experiences.

 

[HitchSlap]

^ And the stalling continues.

Well, we are Team Atheist. It's actually codified in our playbook under section 2, 538B.

Well then, if you were a Christian, then you know there's only one Christian answer to the question,

As a "Christian," you should know there's no "one Christian answer" to anything.

lol

"Why did you go out from among us?"

Ultimately came to the conclusion there were no longer good reasons for my faith.

Picking at the scab.

Do you have a scab fetish?

If you have objective knowledge of anything disproving the proof of the existence of God,

Back to expecting others to prove everything that's never existed? I thought you recognized the folly of your position earlier in this thread. Your line of "reasoning" is why no serious scholar takes your solipsistic special pleading seriously. You want others to believe as you do, then put up, or shut up, as the saying goes.

then you wouldn't need to sharpen anything.

You do you, I'm best at doing me. If it weren't for projection, you'd have no 'jection at all. I recommend you spend less time guessing as to the motive of others, and more time sharpening your syllogisms.

Forced incredulity doesn't need to be "honed" either. Do you think that repeating ineffective assertions will someday magically make something happen?

This is nonsense.

An honest dialectic implies an objective "honesty" of some sort.

Of course. What's the point of discussion if an interlocutor is dishonest?

As an atheist, why can't you account for it?

I can and do account for objective truth. It's the theist who must abide by the whimsical desires of their invisible leader.

 

[Moral Orel]

Can I conclude that you only want to make atheists cry and to antagonize un-religion?

YEEEEAHHH!!!

Is that a joke answer, or an emphatic serious answer? Are all of your interactions with atheists here simply to antagonize them and to try to make them cry?