Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

georgeob1 wrote:

You claim that this subjective experience does not exist: she claims it does. On what basis can you assert that your claim is any better than her's?

Perhaps it can be asserted because said 'experience' is 1) only noticed by those that already claim a belief and 2) most 'experiences' are different than any others. Contrast that with the non-religious universal claim of 'no experience' and the numbers speak for themselves.

Questioner wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

You claim that this subjective experience does not exist: she claims it does. On what basis can you assert that your claim is any better than her's?

Perhaps it can be asserted because said 'experience' is 1) only noticed by those that already claim a belief and 2) most 'experiences' are different than any others. Contrast that with the non-religious universal claim of 'no experience' and the numbers speak for themselves.

What would those numbers be?

Intrepid wrote:

Questioner wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

You claim that this subjective experience does not exist: she claims it does. On what basis can you assert that your claim is any better than her's?

Perhaps it can be asserted because said 'experience' is 1) only noticed by those that already claim a belief and 2) most 'experiences' are different than any others. Contrast that with the non-religious universal claim of 'no experience' and the numbers speak for themselves.

What would those numbers be?

Stretch your mind and perhaps you can make a number.

The fact that I cannot explain a phenomenon does not make it rational for me to accept a very specific one advanced without evidence that it is correct.

I would prefer that you back up your claim. Any stretching of my mind will not accomlish this.

Perhaps it can be asserted because said 'experience' is 1) only noticed by those that already claim a belief and 2) most 'experiences' are different than any others. Contrast that with the non-religious universal claim of 'no experience' and the numbers speak for themselves.

Intrepid wrote:

I would prefer that you back up your claim. Any stretching of my mind will not accomlish this.

Fine. I'll do your thinking for you I suppose.

Quote:

Perhaps it can be asserted because said 'experience' is 1) only noticed by those that already claim a belief and 2) most 'experiences' are different than any others. Contrast that with the non-religious universal claim of 'no experience' and the numbers speak for themselves.

If we break the above down:

Those of religious bent that claim subjective experiences exist (according to my claim) typically have differing experiences, thus have differing ideas of what those experiences are.

So let's say MA has a particular view of what her religious experience is. That will be 1.
You also have a particular view.
That would be 1.
Then let's say that the non-religious, for argument sake we'll use Me, Setanta, and Mesquite, all say that there is no-experience.
That would be 3.

1 < 3. Thus I said the numbers speak for themselves.

I'm not saying this is the definitive way things are, I'm offering up a bit for discussion here. Above is the rationale. What's your take? (it's bullsh*t is an acceptable answer)

I suppose that would depend on whether you, Setanta and Mesquite all agree for the same reason.
:wink:

If you could conclusively offer a provable explanation for our origin and existence, and that of the universe as an alternative to such "superstition", then I would join you in your criticism. However, you cannot do so.

Intrepid wrote:

I suppose that would depend on whether you, Setanta and Mesquite all agree for the same reason.
:wink:

I wouldn't think the reason mattered, so long as the final answer were the same. Perhaps that is erroneous pondering.

Questioner wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

I suppose that would depend on whether you, Setanta and Mesquite all agree for the same reason.
:wink:

I wouldn't think the reason mattered, so long as the final answer were the same. Perhaps that is erroneous pondering.

Your theory is flawed. Why wouldn't it matter? Your claim that MA and my reasons may be different and therefore we would be 1 and 1. You claim that you, Setanta and Mesquite would be 3. In fact, you could be 1, 1, 1. Or, 1, 2. Or even possibly 3. Where is the logic?

This does not signify, and it is disingenuous. Unless you have rejected the teaching of the Jesuits, but never told us, you are yourself to be considered a thesist. Therefore, your remarks are covertly in support of your theism.

It is not only unnecessary to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the cosmos, suggesting that it be done is an attempt to enjoin others in an exercise of belief whereby their belief can be discounted as having no more value than the opposing belief.

Intrepid wrote:

Questioner wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

I suppose that would depend on whether you, Setanta and Mesquite all agree for the same reason.
:wink:

I wouldn't think the reason mattered, so long as the final answer were the same. Perhaps that is erroneous pondering.

Your theory is flawed. Why wouldn't it matter? Your claim that MA and my reasons may be different and therefore we would be 1 and 1. You claim that you, Setanta and Mesquite would be 3. In fact, you could be 1, 1, 1. Or, 1, 2. Or even possibly 3. Where is the logic?

I didn't mention your reasons, I mentioned the product of your 'experiences' is different. The product of Set's, Mesquite's and my experiences is the same. You're the one that brought 'reasons' into it.

Those of religious bent that claim subjective experiences exist (according to my claim) typically have differing experiences, thus have differing ideas of what those experiences are.

I don't know whether you are atheistic or agnostic, but I do not see any basis on which your belief can be said to "have more value" than mine.

Is there a difference between ideas and reasons in this context?

I am, in the definition of others, an atheist--but that is not of any importance to me. This statement about a "basis [of my] belief" is yet another attempt to establish an unjustified equivalence. I have articulated no belief here, and do not propose to do so. That is why i have been insisting, literally for pages, that this is a contrast between an assertion of a belief, and a rejection of said belief due to a lack of evidence.

I am unconcerned with a value judgment here, although i will observe that an articulated belief for which no evidence can be adduced has no value for me.

Intrepid wrote:

Is there a difference between ideas and reasons in this context?

Yes. In that context consider an idea to be an interpretation of the said experience.

And to be quite honest, you've offered nothing but a tangle of misleading suppositions thus far. What I proposed is not fool proof, but you've not provided anything of substance yet, merely misinterpreting my statements in an attempt to cast them in a differing light.

Was there anything of substance you wished to throw into the ring?

Howdy Cliff,
I've just glance at your posting in the religious forum. To answer your question, most genuine followers of Christ have receive a command and commission to, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel." I know that can be annoying to many, especially those which don't take a liking to such people. Those feelings of mild hostility toward unbelievers has been going on since the commission was given and will continue until Christ returns. Christ, the Savior came into the world not to bring peace, but a sword. He came to set a daughter against her mother, a son against his father...etc. The offensive of the cross is what determined the demise of many believers in the early church and continues for believers to this day.

Cliff, I intend no offense, sincerely, ok?

Mr. goodthought, I am not offended. But could you make what you are saying a bit clearer, please? It's mumbo-jumbo. Specifically, "Those feelings of mild hostility toward unbelievers has been going on since the commission was given and will continue until Christ returns." Do you mean believers?

Please clarify that one sentence.

Cliff Hanger,

I explained my motives, intent, etc. back on Page 44. If you do not accept it, then you just don't accept it. But my answer stands as I stated it.