wdog

SOMMS,

I noticed that you ignored my the main point of my post that refutes your argument, while trying to address others. I realize that it really can't be answered, but you may go on pretending anyway. my point was again,

ME:
also in your last post you said

which is in direct contradiction to a statement you made earlier (on page 5 i think)

If god doesn't care whether or not we think he exists, how could he possibly care if we have a relationship with him? those two statemnets are clearly logically incompatible.

what you are saying here is inane. What it amounts to is saying that this relationship is analogous to having a relationship with an imaginary being. Just like when you are a kid and have an inmaginary friend, it doesn't matter if the friend really exists, just as long as you have the subjective and personal experince. Mature relationships are with beings who are innately real and you have objective proof of existence. Faith and subjective experience are no basis for a relationship.


also your argument about people having to make the first move has to be invalid to people who are never exposed to the 'correct' religion. how about some child born and raised in tibet with no exposure at all to your religion? does god then just sit back and wait? how utterly cruel if the consequence is hell.

Goliath

SOMMS,

Then your argument fails, and you have been soundly refuted.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Biff the unclean

I think he's "playing God" there. Goliath

TerryTryon

SOMMS,
I read the testimony which you offered to justify your claim that the evidence for god is overwhelming. I wrote a counter-testimony in which I claimed that the evidence against god was equally strong, especially given the social rot evident in any Christian community.

The entire corpus of your evidence was introspective and thus unverifiable. I doubt every statement in your account. The basis of this doubt runs from, "SOMMS is a big fat liar," to "SOMMS has had a psychotic episode," to "SOMMS is certainly good at the fine art of self-deception." What could your testimony possibly mean to me? It cannot be verified and there are too many counter interpretations that are more plausible.

My testimony of the frivolity of god-belief was sincere, but it was calculated to be offensive and something for you to dismiss out of hand. It was meant to force you to see that there is no relevant content to either testimony, yours or mine, since they are based on the same specious rhetoric.

You have no evidence for god. The testimony you offer from introspection is barren of evidence, even if it could be verified. This proper attitude malarky is mere cover for god's evident absence.

Sabine Grant

I appreciated your reply to SOMMS until I detected your own lack of objectivity in that last statement. I value objective replies from non theists who will avoid characterization and generalization.
By that statement you seem to deny the validity of experiencing God on a personal level as SOMMS presented his own experience. It then became an argument to feed your belief on " god's evident absence". To you, there is no god whomsoever. But to him, there is. It remains very subjective one way or the other.
I relate to what SOMMS is expressing in the sense that I believe we all have pre existing conditions that may shape our attitudes to accepting the concept of a god or reject it. Some of us handle our humanity at different levels. If we are needy of a god, we will tend to seek the concept.
How do we get needy of a god? a lot of personal introspection and whether or not we can become a better version of ourselves with or without help.
That is where I agree with SOMMS that attitudes can make that difference in the choice we make.
As we face our humanity.

Jobar

Sabine, if you or anyone wishes to seek for a god or gods within themselves, or in the external world, I think none of us have a problem with that. The problem, I think, is that far too many people believe they have found a god inside- and they then try to put it outside. This has unpleasant effects on both the person doing it, because they try to separate themselves from the source of goodness and morality and wisdom (their soul, if you will); and on the people who have to deal with this person insisting that what they perceive as god is god for everyone. SOMMS is doing precisely that, IMO. If you seek in the external world, you must find something objective- and that is precisely what we unbelievers have done, and found nothing.

Jamie_L

SOMMS, I think you misunderstood my intent (which, admittedly I didn't clarify):

What I mean is that the atheist who seeks God but but still concludes atheism has a personal experience with no revelation. Your position makes the assumption that personal experiences that include a claimed revelation should be accepted as truth but that personal experiences that lack revelation are in error. This assumption is unfounded.

I'm not sure that is the heart of the matter, but the answer to the question is 'yes'.

Jamie

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If there is no 'God', then the atheist and the theist both have the exact same experience vis a vis 'God'.

The difference is, the theist thinks (for whatever reason) that some part of his or her experience is the result of the presence of 'God', while the atheist (who may have the exact same experience) doesn't jump to that conclusion.

Keith.

daemon

This does not address the fact that your entire argument is an ad hominem. The attitude of atheists is of no relevence to the potential existence of a god. You can't claim that we don't experience some supernatural entity properly if you haven't even established said entity's existence.

galiel

It's a waste of time. SOMMs is just a Fundie with an irrational dogma. Having a rational discussion doesn't make sense with people who do not believe in the primacy of reason.