Ojuice5001

The supernaturalist cannot demonstrate his knowledge to naturalists because most supernatural claims are nonempirical (at least, most of the plausible ones). He can explain what they are, but if someone adheres to empiricism, they won't be convinced. Which would only casts doubt on supernaturalism if empriricism were demonstrated.

BTW, I am neither Christian nor purporting that "Atheists don't see God because they don't want to." But I do think that that A) if atheists looked at the world differently, they would see the gods, and B) this different way of looking at the world is perfectly legitimate, and true in my opinion.

TerryTryon

If supernatural claims had any kind of congruity, I could see the validity of your point of veiw, Ojuice. Mormons "know" that god is a glorified man of flesh and bone, while other Christians "know" that he is a spirit without body, parts, or passions. Catholics see the afterlife as paradise or purgatory; while Jehovah's Witnesses know that the spirit dies with the body, only to be resurrrected from the memory of god. No supernatural claim has any verification, yet every version has psychos prepared to kill or be killed in its defense.

A competent security guard, trained to know what to look for, nabs thieves with some regularity. Seekers of the supernatural catch nothing more than a kaileidoscope of nonsense. Bits of unverifiable claims reflected in mirrors in ever shifting patterns of chaos. Security guards have disciplined their minds in order to see what they need to see without being distracted; supernaturalists have distracted their minds in order to see what they want to see without discipline.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: TerryTryon ]

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: TerryTryon ]

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: TerryTryon ]</p>

Llyricist

Do you have to write an essay to get a response here??

SOMMS drew an analogy between his reaction to goliath's question and what "God" would do. SOMMS did not answer goliath's question because apparently he didn't like goliath's attitude. To me, that says loud and clear.....SPITE. SOMMS is saying that God will not respond if he/she/it doesn't like your attitude. Therefore, my question stands:

So God is spiteful???

ELECTROGOD

Correction, it's not "an" invisible pink unicorn.
It's "The" Invisible Pink Unicorn!

See for yourself:
<a href="http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm" target="_blank">http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm</a>

rdalin

I don't see what God's existence has to do with the question. What you have said translates to If you believe in God, then you believe in God. If you don't, you don't. That's unquestionably true, but hardly helpful.

Bumble Bee Tuna

How did this topic grow to be 9 pages?

If one has the right 'attitude' toward anything, they can believe it. A person is fully capable of deluding themselves. This holds true for gods.

This topic can be fully rebutted pretty quickly-

1. The evidence of personal revelation is soundly disproven by all the other religions in the world where people came to entirely different conclusions after putting themselves in the "right" mindset.

2. Many people have "truly seeked" with the "right attitude" but they did not find anything. They wanted more than anything to have a relationship with God. Nothing happened.

These points have probably been brought up at least 20 times in this thread but each time SOMMS has ignored them or avoided them. So why are we bothering to discuss it anymore?

-B

TerryTryon

Because it's fun. Like shooting fish in a barrel. It's almost as much fun as debating Jehovah's Witnesses on the doorstep. You can't lose; you can't even be stumped. SOMMS is really off his game this time; most of his answers are of the "I know you are, but what am I?" variety. And he is probably remembering Jesus admonition not to throw pearls before swine.

KJELLMUSIC

Oh, for the same reasons as always. X-ian "logic".
I am amused but also interested when people indulge the religious in their ramblings about god by continuing to engage their "arguements for god". Kind of like watching a dog chase it's tail. For most of the pages the same things are being said over and over. Theists become masters at dodging questions.
Usually after extended in-depth examination of one's religious beliefs one can come to some new conclusions because they have learned or realized something they didn't know but it's bizarre when they just keep arguing the same thing despite the reason and information laid out before them.
Guess they are just too comfortable believing what someone sold them.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Llyricist,
No you don't. Or at least you shouldn't. :^) Thank you for your patience.


No, absolutely not. Notice that if Goliath would have simply asked nicely I would have gladly given him/her my argument. This has nothing to do with spite...merely attitude.


This situation give credence to what I am stating: our knowledge of someone else is very dependent upon our attitude towards that person.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

beliefisbunk

IOW..."If you believe in me strongly enough, I exist."


There are plenty of problems with this. First of all, if you have to believe in something really hard for it to be real - something which is supposedly omniscent - this cancels out all rationale that this something is omniscent. Whereas if it were omniscient, it wouldn't take one's yearning and strong belief in order for it to exist. It would show itself and you wouldn't have to "try" to believe in it.

A millenia ago the belief of god was based on events which today's advance in science and logic would explain quite well. This, of course, restricts present enabling of belief to standards of a pyramid scheme by comparison.