You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

nozzferrahhtoo

To my absolute shame now, I went through a phase of actively liking Brian Kennedy. Went to some of his gigs and all.

For some reason in my youth I mapped my favourite singers onto the holy Trinity. So Van Morrison was god, David Gray was the Holy Spirit, and Brian with his hair was of course Jesus.

Not sure that is AT ALL relevant to anything, even Diana Ross, but it just came back to me like a bad kebab after a feed of drink.

Some of Vans best music was his religious stuff though. Gotta give him that. "In the Garden" can still bring me skin orgasms (which is, with music, actually a thing in science now).

mickuhaha

antiskeptic wrote: »

That presupposes I am not evidencing - probably due to preconcieved notions you have about what evidence is relevant.

You, in all probability, want evidence dealing with arguments like fine tuning or irreducible complexity or an Ark that can float? Direct and arguable according the normal methods. Or perhaps you prefer philosophical type argument? I don't know, but along those lines? This is the kind of evidence you suppose could potentially cause you to believe.. if there was a God

If only it worked that way (and I am pretty sure it doesn't).


So how does it work.

Take, for example, that story earlier of our alcoholic reaching end of self and believing he was at end of self. I can't evidence to a person that they are at end of self. It is the state they are in when they reach end if self that evidences end of self to a person.

If that is the route into salvation, then you might see that the evidence you want aren't the kind of evidences that produces belief.

Now we could go look at the bible to see if that is indeed is what the bible says regarding the route to saving belief. We haven't time. But even if you believed that the bible said what I say, that isn't a belief that saves. It would be just an intellectual assent on your part regarding a theological point.

And so, I evidence what I consider worth evidencing. Take our alcoholic story again. Because IF it is true that the route proposed (end of self) is the actual way of salvation THEN what I have said is evidence. Even if you don't believe its true, even if you don't give it your theological assent.

And that evidence can have worth;

- having read the story, a person is aware of the possibility that salvation isn't a matter of believing in some lofty spiritual thing. Or believing without evidence. They'll forget the story quickly, but it is in there nonetheless. Pauldia just reminded me of a story (real) I told on here 4 years ago. A story about a helium balloon. Stories go in (which is why Jesus told stories presumably)

- for someone who has long railed against the idea of believing without evidence or who has railed against having to god-knows-how believe in super spiritual stuff, this story might interest. The idea that salvation occurs through everyday nitty, gritty down to earth life, without any reference to ughh .. religion... might be a novel idea. Novel in a world of "You have to believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour. Believe and be saved!!"

- the story might come to mind when someone, you even, finds themselves down the bottom of the barrel and are grasping around desparately for escape. "What was it that antiskeptic said?"

I say this because that latter is precisely what happened me. A mickey mouse tract given me, which found use as a coffee cup place mat for a week or two and was then stuck in the bookcase for many years. Only to be reached for and pulled out and read when I hit the bottom of the barrel.

Trust me. There is method in my apparent madness 😉


I'll get back to your post later. Gotta go

Kind of strange the same conditions for a person to find god are also the condition a person must be in for effective brainwashing.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43v54S_zPQ

Awe man that was funny.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mine too. The theists claim all foxholers. The atheists deny all foxholers

Which atheists? I have not heard them deny that? I have only heard them deny the absolutist claim that there are NO atheists in foxholes. There are many. You appear to be putting words in peoples mouths. Again. Quite the MO for you at this stage. That said though it....

antiskeptic wrote: »

Q.E.D. on the aforementioned atheist position.

.... and this one are two different positions entirely. So the QED does not hold. At all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. But all prayers down foxholes motivated so??

If you say so. I certainly didn't. Only a sith, and some christians, deal in absolutes it seems.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Experienced soldiers would be a bit more empathic than you.

Some would. Some wouldn't. Soldiers experienced or otherwise are not identical. They are as individual as you and I or anyone else. However if you were to compare me to the soldier reciting the mantra you offered I would say he was many levels below me in this regard and seemed from his chosen words to be interested in nothing and nobody but himself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We have this ongoing problem about you supposing yourself immune to that which comes natural to man. Not saying you wouldn't do as you say. But I gather than no man really knows how he will react until he's in that foxhole.

You would do well not to make any assumptions about me. Least of all about how many times I have been in situations where my life was seconds away from ending, or being ended. Or how I acted in those moments.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not a biblical quote that I can recall.

That, amazingly enough, is why I at no point said it was

Usually when I am citing something form the Bible, I mention it is from the bible. If I say "theists" you can assume it is something I have heard from theists.

I think you just like filling out your post with content at this point to make them longer. So if you have nothing to say you just manufacture something that has nothing to do with... well... anything. "Ah I cant reply to what he just said here so.... what can I say as filler.... ah i will point out it is not a bibical quote even though no one anywhere said it was.... sure thatll give me something to type at least. Gotta get the word count lads! Quantity over quality and all that!!!!".

sydthebeat

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let me put it this way. You are saying in effect:

The pathway to your salvation, if it required your believing something in order to be saved, would have to take the route

1st place the evidence before me
2nd then I will believe.
.

interesting conundrum

however the one big flaw in this argument is, in order to accept that there is a risk of salvation or not, you need to step onto the path.

if i dont believe in this notional salvation, why would i step onto the path?

Raconteuse

corks finest wrote: »

Yes he exists end of ðŸ‘

A really short post without punctuation stating god exists and no evidence, just "end of"? Well that's me convinced.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hard to know what "step onto the path" involves though. Although I am what people call an "Atheist" (though I rarely use that term to describe myself unless context really demands it, I have generally no use for the label) I have explored religious claims and the perceived basis for them more than most. Talked to theist after theist, read book after book, attended churchs and services galore from numerous religions ("black" masses with their soul music being so far my favourite, followed closely by Quaker weddings), engaged with testimonies and religious art of all forms.

I have stepped onto the path more times, and in more ways, that many if not most non-believers.

But for some theists "step onto the path" involves the one thing I will not, nay can not, do. Which is to accept the premise first, and fit the evidence second. Because I simply cant, but also because I know how that works. Confirmation bias and retrospective evidence are powerful things. Driving everything from many forms of religious faith, to many forms of conspiracy theory and alternative medicine and more.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"In the Garden" can still bring me skin orgasms (which is, with music, actually a thing in science now).

Never called them that, but good to know that the involuntary shiver that runs through you when you're moved by a piece of music is in fact a class of orgasm. Me and Joan Armatrading, whod've thunk it

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure its the scientific term for it

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure its the scientific term for it

Makes you wonder whether a devoutly religious person being moved spiritually is in fact experiencing a similar kind of reaction. I imagine we all have our triggers.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Makes you wonder whether a devoutly religious person being moved spiritually is in fact experiencing a similar kind of reaction.

I have heard religious people, and former religious people like Dan Barker, talk at length about the experience of speaking in tongues. And just from their personal subjective description of the experience it does sound like there is a large over lap to things like that, yes.

I love the scene in the Blues Brothers in the Black Mass when Belushi has his religious experience. Many of the experiences I have had with live music have felt like that, short of the actual thinking there was a god bit.

I went to one of their masses. And shortly after went to a catholic service. Man they are worlds apart aren't they? Like the Muse in the film Dogma says "You Catholics don't celebrate your faith, you mourn it." Great film. Watched it 4 times in one day when I first saw it.

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

interesting conundrum

however the one big flaw in this argument is, in order to accept that there is a risk of salvation or not, you need to step onto the path.

if i dont believe in this notional salvation, why would i step onto the path?

The use of the word pathway wasn't intended to mean it is something that you chose to step onto.

Pathway merely means sequence of operation. In this case, the sequence is evidence leading to belief.

As it happens, everyone is on the pathway so there is no need to chose to be on it. Evidence is being presented, people are responding to it this way and that. And sin is in there, a cataylst of sorts.

[Btw, for evidence we might just as easily say 'truth'. When you say evidence around here, folk can't help going empirical verifiable.]

Anyway, everyone is set trundling down the path towards salvation. One possible outcome is that a person reaches the end of their ability to be self sufficient / self directed. The aim of the truth is to drive a person to end of self and then make a person aware that's where they have arrived, to make them believe thats where they are.

"It is true I am end if self. I am convinced. I have every bit of evidence I need to leave me in no doubt that my self sufficiency has run out of road. That I most certainly believe"

They don't believe in God at this stage. Or they might believe in a god.


No matter. The criterion for salvation is met: they believe they have run out of road. Salvation follows. God turns up and they believe in God.

The other outcome is that a person finds ways to avoid arrival at end of self sufficiency / self direction. The way this is done is to suppress truth. To wriggle and bend and deny it and spin it. Since the truth is the thing that leads a person to understand and believe that self sufficiency is a myth, suppression and avoidence, denial and spinning of truth means they never arrive at this belief. Criterion is not met.

Damnation naturally follows.

So. All on the path. All exposed to truth. All denying and wriggling to some degree. Many denying and wriggling to the bitter end.

Salvation is the default destination (since all are set on the path leading there). You don't have to do anything as such to be saved. Truth is done unto you and if not evaded, you will reach end of ability to self direct your life, you will hit the bottom of your personal barrel. You will believe and you will be saved. Truth will bring you there.

Damnation: just the product of a persons absolute refusal to allow the truth in so that it can do its work. Or as the Bible puts it:

"They refused to love the truth and so be saved."

The action involved is the persons. An action of will. Refusal to be saved effectively.

mickuhaha

antiskeptic wrote: »

The use of the word pathway wasn't intended to mean it is something that you chose to step onto.

Pathway merely means sequence of operation. In this case, the sequence is evidence leading to belief.

As it happens, everyone is on the pathway so there is no need to chose to be on it. Evidence is being presented, people are responding to it this way and that. And sin is in there, a cataylst of sorts.

[Btw, for evidence we might just as easily say 'truth'. When you say evidence around here, folk can't help going empirical verifiable.]

Anyway, everyone is set trundling down the path towards salvation. One possible outcome is that a person reaches the end of their ability to be self sufficient / self directed. The aim of the truth is to drive a person to end of self and then make a person aware that's where they have arrived, to make them believe thats where they are.

"It is true I am end if self. I am convinced. I have every bit of evidence I need to leave me in no doubt that my self sufficiency has run out of road. That I most certainly believe"

They don't believe in God at this stage. Or they might believe in a god.


No matter. The criterion for salvation is met: they believe they have run out of road. Salvation follows. God turns up and they believe in God.

The other outcome is that a person finds ways to avoid arrival at end of self sufficiency / self direction. The way this is done is to suppress truth. To wriggle and bend and deny it and spin it. Since the truth is the thing that leads a person to understand and believe that self sufficiency is a myth, suppression and avoidence, denial and spinning of truth means they never arrive at this belief. Criterion is not met.

Damnation naturally follows.

So. All on the path. All exposed to truth. All denying and wriggling to some degree. Many denying and wriggling to the bitter end.

Salvation is the default destination (since all are set on the path leading there). You don't have to do anything as such to be saved. Truth is done unto you and if not evaded, you will reach end of ability to self direct your life, you will hit the bottom of your personal barrel. You will believe and you will be saved. Truth will bring you there.

Damnation: just the product of a persons absolute refusal to allow the truth in so that it can do its work. Or as the Bible puts it:

"They refused to love the truth and so be saved."

The action involved is the persons. An action of will. Refusal to be saved effectively.

What about people not aware of your religion or god how can they find the path if they are never made aware of it. Is the religious beliefs they hold that are different to yourself valid for the purpose of entering salvation.

antiskeptic

mickuhaha wrote: »

What about people not aware of your religion or god how can they find the path if they are never made aware of it. Is the religious beliefs they hold that are different to yourself valid for the purpose of entering salvation.

Good questions.

As has been pointed out, the state of belief a person has to be brought to occupy, in order to be saved, isn't a religious one. It doesn't involve God or religion or spirituality as far as the person is concerned.

I gave the example-case of the alcoholic arriving down the bottom of the barrel. Their belief that they have reached end of ability to self direct (in the event they believe that) has no reference to God or religion.

No awareness of God is required. They might not have heard of Christianity (say the person belings to some remote tribe who can produce alcohol)

End of self can arrive through an infinite number of ways: sickness, unemployment, approaching death, loss of loved ones, ones own sin (rather, the fruit reaped) plays a big part too.


As to finding the path? Well, as I say, they are on the path to start with so there is no finding to be done there. Nor is there need to figure out how to navigate the path to salvation. Rather, being on the path means you are subjected to a process which aims to obtain an overall answer from you. The 'questions' are set (as it were) and you give your responses.

For example. A central enquiry God is making if us has to do with attitude towards love. And so there are infinite love-situations we are exposed to in life and we respond to them. Sometimes we love and sometimes (due to selfishness) we don't love.

As you might appreciate, love has many sub components. Humility, generousity, kindness, patience compassion, self sacrifice are all derivatives of love. If you are kind you love, if you are patient you love, etc.

All day long the question is posed to us (don't we encounter opportunity to love the whole day long?). All day long too, our responding this way and that. With love and not love or more often, a mix of same.

-

As for other beliefs contributing to the process? I think they can and do. If you dissect them you often see the same 'demand' placed by them on their adherents. To be kind, to love neighbour as self, to do unto others. Athiests here regularily point that out. Indeed secular systems place those same demands on adherents and you will hear atheists on here expressing themselves as not needing religion in order to try to live according to core tenets of religion.

'We recognise we ought to love neighbour as self. And we can endeavour to do so without the religious trappings" they say.

Such belief systems, though man-made, are derived from Gods call on man. The reason they are made at all, is that man is aware (made aware by God) that there is good and bad. He is also urged to be good and not bad. And so a man-system is erected by which the man, who has a tendency towards serving self, can be declared good (or good enough). A kind of self certification. I recall a survey done whereby people were asked to score themselves 1-10 concerning their being bad or good. 7 was the overwhelming score, even amongst serious criminals. Not perfect but hey! who's perfect? Good enough to get a 1st or 2:1 in the event.

Beliefs useful? Perhaps, since they may aid a person focus on their falling short and aid arrival at end of self. Perhaps not, since they may aid a person into thinking they are good enough. Or if not good enough, that a way is provided by which their black marks can be wiped out. Or can be counter-balanced by their good works (like carbon credits). Or there is a way by which they can come back in another life and have another crack.

There is no end to the inventiveness!

Common feature amongst them all is that a perfect score of 10 isn't required. Which is unsurprising: man knows that he can't score a 10. And so he designs systems that don't demand a 10. And a system that doesn't demand a 10 allows man room to do as he wants: self direction.

[It follows that a system that doesn't demand anything other than what the man is prepared to do out of himself, allows for the most self-direction of all. Come on down, secular athiesm with its "what's right for me is right". Man made belief gone supernova!]

Personal performance based belief systems of all sorts (including personal performance based Christianity) have common features. The oughts and ought nots at their root are all the same. Unsurprisingly they have a common ancestor - the call of God's system in man which cramps man's style. And so drives man to create an ersatz, but tolerable , workable system for himself



Ultimately, what a persons belief system is, is irrelevant. Everyone has a self-serving belief system is the bottom line. Although disguised in many, many forms, it is the same opponent as far as Gods way of salvation is concerned.

So: God vs self serving, self direction, self sufficiency.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I love the scene in the Blues Brothers in the Black Mass when Belushi has his religious experience. Many of the experiences I have had with live music have felt like that, short of the actual thinking there was a god bit.

I went to one of their masses. And shortly after went to a catholic service. Man they are worlds apart aren't they? Like the Muse in the film Dogma says "You Catholics don't celebrate your faith, you mourn it." Great film. Watched it 4 times in one day when I first saw it.

Much the same, I've been to a few outstanding gigs recently and do find myself emotionally moved by them. I enjoy a reasonable amount of religious and religiously inspired music too FWIW. Whatever about the specifics of the belief in many cases there's no denying the sincerity with which it is held and expressed.

Dogma also remains an all time favorite in our household.

antiskeptic

I have said that there is nothing a person need do in order to be led to end of self by the truth and so be saved. And this is true.

However there is something to be not done. Not suppress the truth.

To give a simple example.

You do something you know ought not be done. The truth tells you ought not to do it. But you want to do it: you're self directing and self directing does what it wants to do, not what ought to be done. What ought to be done is someone elses directing. So you suppress the truths' restraint and do what you ought not do.

And get whatever tainted reward the sin was offering.

Then comes guilt or shame or regret (or negative response, if its another person you've wronged). Shame and guilt is a product of truth. It informs you of what is true: what you did was wrong. This by way of uncomfortable feelings, dawning realisation and even physiological reaction (e.g. blushing, stammering).

A wronged person's negative response is, in turn, also a product of truth revealed to them. They have been wronged and they know that's true. And they react justifiably, by of righteous anger or shunning you and the like.

You can't change the fact you did wrong. Truth now tells you that you ought apologise, ought restore, ought give back what you took.

But self doesn't like this either. To admit a wrong would involve self having to step off the throne. Or give up the tainted rewards being enjoyed. And so, truth is again suppressed so that self can continue to do as self wants: maintain its supremacy, maintain its self interest.

And so self justification. Or saying its only a little thing. Or that they deserved it. Or finders keepers losers weepers. Or even that it didn't happen. Anything but 'sorry'. You see it very clearly with politicians these days "if by chance I caused offence then I do apologise" hinting that the offence taken is an unreasonable offence, or the offence taken the other persons fault. Anything but fess up. Self at work to maintain self supremacy.

I am not saying that you can work yourself into not suppressing and so be saved. Rather, observing how you suppress and how difficult it is to not suppress and noting the difference in outcomes when you suppress and don't suppress is informative.

It won't save in itself, but it will tend you towards end of self. If only because you will continue to suppress, no matter what anyone says and no matter how hard you try not to suppress. You will observe yourself in the grip of something you cannot actually control.

Suppression of truth is an 'evil' and will certainly bring more trouble as your wrongdoings dig a deeper hole for you. But it's not all bad news, for trouble is raw material in the breaking of an insistence on self sufficiency and self directing of own life. As our alcoholic friend found out.


"There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile"

Thank God for trouble!

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

However there is something to be not done. Not suppress the truth.

You're on an atheist forum. For many if not most posters here, the broadly accepted truth is that there is no god or gods. I have yet to see any other poster on this forum that considers your line of argument reasonable or credible. Your posts come across as an attempt to replace the truth as understood by others here with your unsupported religious rhetoric in your quest to save some souls. At the same time you're quite clear in not being willing to countenance any arguments that suggest your own beliefs are false. From a secular perspective I find this type of proselytising both obnoxious and disrespectful.

Before going further with this thread can I ask you one very simple question. Are you willing to countenance the possibility that there is no god?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You're on an atheist forum. For many if not most posters here, the broadly accepted truth is that there is no god or gods. I have yet to see any other poster on this forum that considers your line of argument reasonable or credible. Your posts come across as an attempt to replace the truth as understood by others here with your unsupported religious rhetoric in your quest to save some souls. At the same time you're quite clear in not being willing to countenance any arguments that suggest your own beliefs are false. From a secular perspective I find this type of proselytising both obnoxious and disrespectful.

Before going further with this thread can I ask you one very simple question. Are you willing to countenance the possibility that there is no god?

I occupy the exact same position you claim you occupy: going where the evidence (as available to me) points. I have said I would countenance no God .. and have exampled brain and a jar as one possibility. I think it unlikely. As so you for a shift from your position.

So by all means make your points. But when it comes to standard options put forth, its a question of whether they swallow up my view or whether my view swallows them. Thus far, the latter is my conclusion. An example being my comments on the commonality found amongst all gods and secular beliefs. That they are all essentially doing the same thing.

Of late I have being outlining a process which accommodates the "there are no gods" view. It being able to save whilst a person maintains there are no gods .. is an example of this swallowing up.

I would be slow to call the view that there are no gods a "truth" whatever about the qualifification added to it.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would be slow to call the view that there are no gods a "truth" whatever about the qualifification added to it.

You might well be slow in this regard, but again let me remind you that you are in an atheist forum, based around the broadly held belief that there is no god or gods. Your protracted, invariably esoteric, often incoherent arguments across this and many other threads largely serve to reinforce rather than challenge that position. Starting threads based on pondering the nuance of a biblical passage on a thread titled "You know God exists" in this forum is discourteous to the extent it borders on trolling. Just my opinion, but the attitude and approach in threads such as this and the LGBT nonsense thread serves to highlight why an ever increasing number of people in this country reject religion entirely.

Bigboldworld

I cannot understand how people can say with certainty that there is or isn’t a god, it’s really an opinion regardless of the evidence or the argument for or against. We can’t possibly know for certain, I believe there are certain conundrums such as this that are just beyond the limits of human intelligence or comprehension.

In my younger years I read and read many books on philosophy, spent years on this conundrum but in the end i still had no concrete answers either way. Many brilliant minds dedicated their lives to answering this question, some went mad, in the end they left volumes of work but no definitive answers.

Personally, I’m approaching my elder years but I have never lost my fascination for the planet we live in and constantly have this ‘’what the f is going on here feeling, trees, water, the sky, the ozone layer, the air we breathe, to me it all suggests thought/blueprints behind how the planet ticks and don’t get me started on the universe however I accept could be completely wrong and everything could be a complete accident.

Great thread and a fascinating topic that will encourage debate until the end of time.

smacl

Bigboldworld wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can say with certainty that there is or isn’t a god, it’s really an opinion regardless of the evidence or the argument for or against. We can’t possibly know for certain, I believe there are certain conundrums such as this that are just beyond the limits of human intelligence or comprehension.

Rather than certainty I think more in terms of probability. I'm of the opinion that in all probability Christian mythology is entirely specious as are other previous and current religions.

I also think that religion seeks to curtail our imagination and sense of wonder. If I look at the multitude of things I don't understand and wonder how they came to be, God did it is in no way a satisfactory or reasonable answer.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Just my opinion, but the attitude and approach in threads such as this and the LGBT nonsense thread serves to highlight why an ever increasing number of people in this country reject religion entirely.

My opinion is that a large number of unbelievers, previously driven to utilize a them-serving god have exchanged that god for one with a lower bar to surmount. Namely, secularism.

Who wouldn't plump for an option that made it easier to do as you please? Seems a no brainer to me.

antiskeptic

Bigboldworld wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can say with certainty that there is or isn’t a god,

It's not actually that complicated.

If you consider a being capable of creating all that sounds like it produces a degree of jaw-dropping in you.

It beats me then, why would you suppose it difficult for that same being to demonstrate his existence to us, in a way and time of his choosing and for a (logical) purpose of his choosing? In a way that isn't via the empirical way?

Your difficulty is saying that God cannot evidence himself to a person non-empirically. When you should actually suppose it a doddle!

Folk around here insist empirical, verifiable evidence is the only way this being can demonstrate himself. All else is delusion and imaginary friends.


"We, the possibly created, are saying what our possible creator can and cannot do. Unless our possible creator conforms to how we say our possible creator evidences itself to us, then our possible creator doesn't exist"

Can you see a hint of making a god in own image and likeness? A god to serve mans needs? To the point where they've designed a god who can't, in their view, exist. Why would they need to create a god who can't exist?

Part funny. Part tragic.

In my younger years I read and read many books on philosophy, spent years on this conundrum but in the end i still had no concrete answers either way. Many brilliant minds dedicated their lives to answering this question, some went mad, in the end they left volumes of work but no definitive answers.

its like looking for your keys. No matter how long you look in the wrong place you'll never find them.

Best that can be said is that you are looking.

Personally, I’m approaching my elder years but I have never lost my fascination for the planet we live in and constantly have this ‘’what the f is going on here feeling, trees, water, the sky, the ozone layer, the air we breathe, to me it all suggests thought/blueprints behind how the planet ticks and don’t get me started on the universe however I accept could be completely wrong and everything could be a complete accident.

There's a man who might read the verse at the top of the OP and go 'SNAP!"

Great thread and a fascinating topic that will encourage debate until the end of time.

There was a warning in that first verse too. You haven't time to debate it til the end of time.

sydthebeat

Bigboldworld wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can say with certainty that there is or isn’t a god, it’s really an opinion regardless of the evidence or the argument for or against. We can’t possibly know for certain, I believe there are certain conundrums such as this that are just beyond the limits of human intelligence or comprehension.

I had a huge discourse in my head ready to go, but I've thought otherwise and would just direct you towards the exploration of self realisation. To me, this will offer a place between the being an absentee, non interventionist god, and the concrete logical place of "evidence continually shows there is no god" arguments.

To me, we are all our own gods.

Other belief systems would claim this is ego and narcissism, but actually its as full understanding as is possible in the situation we are provided with.

Self realisation is actually spiritual rich.
It's not agnostic or atheistic... But can actually be both at the same time.

Christianity needs is to put our faith in a separate detached spiritual being that doesn't obey the laws of our consciousness... Which is abhorrent to our evolution of thought.

Self realisation can actually exist within the bounds of Christian faith, Hindu faith, buddasim, Islamic faith AND agnosticism at the same time.

Perhaps its the one thread that actually ties all these belief systems together and all one has to do is step back and consider themselves and their fellow man.. And ironically its when you are comfortable to reach the absence worry about these, that you being the path to self realisation

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Me and Joan Armatrading, whod've thunk it

I think her wife might want a word with you.

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

I had a huge discourse in my head ready to go, but I've thought otherwise and would just direct you towards the exploration of self realisation. To me, this will offer a place between the being an absentee, non interventionist god, and the concrete logical place of "evidence continually shows there is no god" arguments.

To me, we are all our own gods.

Other belief systems would claim this is ego and narcissism, but actually its as full understanding as is possible in the situation we are provided with.

Self realisation is actually spiritual rich.
It's not agnostic or atheistic... But can actually be both at the same time.

Christianity needs is to put our faith in a separate detached spiritual being that doesn't obey the laws of our consciousness... Which is abhorrent to our evolution of thought.

Self realisation can actually exist within the bounds of Christian faith, Hindu faith, buddasim, Islamic faith AND agnosticism at the same time.

Perhaps its the one thread that actually ties all these belief systems together and all one has to do is step back and consider themselves and their fellow man.. And ironically its when you are comfortable to reach the absence worry about these, that you being the path to self realisation

I wouldn't argue that self realisation is a common thread in all religions, including personal (self) performance Christianity. Self realisation places its core reliance on self to obtain it. Self sufficiency. Self determination. The very things I was speaking of.

Christianity, as I have been describing it (and much of what I say is mainstream ) sees us as being realised by God. He must do it because we cannot. We are helpless in the matter.

I would contend therefore, with the claim that self realisation is a thread that runs through Christianity. When it categorically does not.

sydthebeat

antiskeptic wrote: »

. We are helpless in the matter.

Upon this very point we differ the most.

I often exhault you for your singular views here (whether I agree or disagree) in my own time.
In this however I fundamentally disagree.

And its a very simple disagreement.

I don't believe we are helpless.

To be helpless is to be dependent.

I believe being independent, in the full knowledge and comfort of who we are (and who I am) is strength... Not helplessness.

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

Upon this very point we differ the most.

And on this point lies the.crux of the issue as laid out by me in these last few days.

It is the very heart of the matter.

The Fall. The very first 'sin' or departure from a dependency on God we were designed for

The result of the Fall. All men infected with the same thing the first man infected himself with: a desire for self determination, independent of God

No surprise that on this point we would differ the most. It is THE point.

To be helpless is to be dependent.

Indeed. And the mechanism I have been laying out sees us so. Dependent even unto God being the one to save us, if we are to be saved.

The insistance on maintaining independence is, given it the crux of the issue, ultimately the very thing which sees us damned (better said, left detached from God and what he represents (love, kindness, joy, peace, etc.) forever.

I don't believe we are helpless

You are in good company. No one does until such time as they reach the bottom of their own personal barrel. At that point they firmly believe otherwise. And are saved.

There is a certain flavour of 'go knock yourself out with your independence' in what God says. He is not being flippant: independence has bred all kinds of unholiness and He is holy. But he knows too, that knocking yourself out with your independence is the only way for you to be deflected from the desire to be independent.

Not for nothing the prodigal son's father giving his son the freedom to leave and go live as the son willed. He didn't know if his son would come back. But he knew the trouble going his own way would cause him. And that that might make him come back.

I'm not being flippant either when I say too, go knock yourself out. I did and thankfully I ended up back home. Hope you do too.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not actually that complicated.

If you consider a being capable of creating all that sounds like it produces a degree of jaw-dropping in you.

It beats me then, why would you suppose it difficult for that same being to demonstrate his existence to us, in a way and time of his choosing and for a (logical) purpose of his choosing? In a way that isn't via the empirical way?

Your difficulty is saying that God cannot evidence himself to a person non-empirically. When you should actually suppose it a doddle!

Folk around here insist empirical, verifiable evidence is the only way this being can demonstrate himself. All else is delusion and imaginary friends.


"We, the possibly created, are saying what our possible creator can and cannot do. Unless our possible creator conforms to how we say our possible creator evidences itself to us, then our possible creator doesn't exist"

Can you see a hint of making a god in own image and likeness? A god to serve mans needs? To the point where they've designed a god who can't, in their view, exist. Why would they need to create a god who can't exist?

Part funny. Part tragic.




its like looking for your keys. No matter how long you look in the wrong place you'll never find them.

Best that can be said is that you are looking.



There's a man who might read the verse at the top of the OP and go 'SNAP!"



There was a warning in that first verse too. You haven't time to debate it til the end of time.

So do you believe in Allah, Buddah, Unicorns, leprechauns, The Loch Ness Monster? How about Thor, Odin, Ganesh, the flying spaghetti monster?

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So do you believe in Allah, Buddah, Unicorns, leprechauns, The Loch Ness Monster? How about Thor, Odin, Ganesh, the flying spaghetti monster?

Whatever god that man creates to in order to ..

a) sustain his self directed life

b) compartimentalise his need to deal with his wrongdoing, his need for meaning and his need to deal with his impending death...

..exists.If only in the mind of the god-inventor.

You'll say the truth is materialism and include God in this list of gods above

I'll say the truth is God and include materialism in this list of gods above.

-

Regarding your bolded piece. Point? You insist as I outline. I insist on evidence however it arrives. Since the gods above (and materialism) haven't evidenced themselves AND because they are explained by God, who has evidenced himself, I have no reason to suppose they are real.

What you think of you saying how a possible God ought evidence himself? You say 'jump' and God says 'how high'

Think you have things the wrong way around.

Might I suggest that you will believe, if you are brought to belief, in any way God chooses you believe. It would be a little difficult to argue then, that you don't believe because you haven't the empirical evidence that would satisfy an unbeliever. A believer arguing that he doesn't believe?

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whatever god that man creates to in order to ..

a) sustain his self directed life

b) compartimentalise his need to deal with his wrongdoing, his need for meaning and his need to deal with his impending death...

..exists.If only in the mind of the god-inventor.

You'll say the truth is materialism and include God in this list of gods above

I'll say the truth is God and include materialism in this list of gods above.

-

Regarding your bolded piece. Point? You insist as I outline. I insist on evidence however it arrives. Since the gods above (and materialism) haven't evidenced themselves AND because they are explained by God, who has evidenced himself, I have no reason to suppose they are real.

What you think of you saying how a possible God ought evidence himself? You say 'jump' and God says 'how high'

Think you have things the wrong way around.

Might I suggest that you will believe, if you are brought to belief, in any way God chooses you believe. It would be a little difficult to argue then, that you don't believe because you haven't the empirical evidence that would satisfy an unbeliever. A believer arguing that he doesn't believe?

There is as much evidence for leprechauns and unicorns as there is for your (or any other) "god". Why would you dismiss other peoples beliefs while simultaneously arguing that your beliefs are right?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

My opinion is that a large number of unbelievers, previously driven to utilize a them-serving god have exchanged that god for one with a lower bar to surmount. Namely, secularism.

Who wouldn't plump for an option that made it easier to do as you please? Seems a no brainer to me.

Most religious people in this country and many others are also secularists, as evidenced by recent election results. Even within the microcosm that is the boards Christianity forum, this is the case. I set up an open poll some years back asking those who were Christian whether they were also pro secularism, where 73% were. Remember that secularism aspires to freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The only religious people who this doesn't suit are those who would seek to impose their religion on others, which is a small minority of those who identify as Christian.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is as much evidence for leprechauns and unicorns as there is for your (or any other) "god". Why would you dismiss other peoples beliefs while simultaneously arguing that your beliefs are right?

It was in the section you bolded. Because God has evidenced himself??

Back to the God you have created. The one who must dance to your empirical evidencing tune. Anything to say?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Back to the God you have created.

The irony. You are the lone keyholder to the palace of wisdom. And others must grovel accordingly.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was in the section you bolded. Because God has evidenced himself??

You claim he has, maybe to you? But there are BILLIONS of people, In fact the vast majority who have no evidence, In fact i would go as far to say that your evidence is nothing more than mass brainwashing.

Back to the God you have created. The one who must dance to your empirical evidencing tune. Anything to say?

What "god" are you talking about? I don't believe in any "god" never mind have I created one in my mind to fill some void as you seem to have done.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think her wife might want a word with you.

Off topic, but looking back, the last three gigs I went to were all lesbian lead singers or solo artists, and have to admit to getting the feel-good shivers in all of them at some point or another. There's some dubious correlation in there somewhere that I ain't gonna touch :pac:

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You claim he has, maybe to you? But there are BILLIONS of people, In fact the vast majority who have no evidence,

So what. Since when did relative quantity matter?

What "god" are you talking about? I don't believe in any "god" never mind have I created one in my mind to fill some void as you seem to have done.

The God who can't exist (to your thinking) because you have decided the boundaries for his existence. The hand that rocks the cradle .. as it were.

That God, by not being permitted to exist, supports the god that does exist: materialism

That is: by eliminating any competition, your god, materialism, is left intact.

It is the process whereby you eliminate the competition that is suspect. It's almost childlike in its transparency. Define existence in such a way that isn't met by God and hey presto!, God doesn't exist.

Ever see a child bury their head in a cushion, thinking that by doing so, you can't see them. You're doing that.

antiskeptic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The irony. You are the lone keyholder to the palace of wisdom. And others must grovel accordingly.

Hardly lone.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what. Since when did relative quantity matter?





The God who can't exist (to your thinking) because you have decided the boundaries for his existence. The hand that rocks the cradle .. as it were.

That God, by not being permitted to exist, supports the god that does exist: materialism

That is: by eliminating any competition, your god, materialism, is left intact.

It is the process whereby you eliminate the competition that is suspect. It's almost childlike in its transparency. Define existence in such a way that isn't met by God and hey presto!, God doesn't exist.

Ever see a child bury their head in a cushion, thinking that by doing so, you can't see them. You're doing that.

Jesus you spout some waffle to try and get a on-point over! Materialism is not my "god" as I have stated, I have no "god"! I don't pray at any alter, i don't pray for things, i don't pray end of story.

What makes you think i am a materialistic person when you have no clue about me?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Off topic, but looking back, the last three gigs I went to were all lesbian lead singers or solo artists, and have to admit to getting the feel-good shivers in all of them at some point or another. There's some dubious correlation in there somewhere that I ain't gonna touch :pac:

The added allure of the unobtainable?

It's a function of sin to desire, most of all, that which is seen as 'holy'. When something is barred, sin within is stimulated the most.

Do not walk on grass

Eat everything but that fruit

Any lover you like (even of all only fantasy) but not a lesbian lover

.. that kind of thing

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Jesus you spout some waffle to try and get a on-point over! Materialism is not my "god" as I have stated, I have no "god"! I don't pray at any alter, i don't pray for things, i don't pray end of story.

What makes you think i am a materialistic person when you have no clue about me?

Materialism. As in all explainable materalistically. By natural processes.

Not a propensity to spend Sundays in Dundrum Shopping Cathedral. (Although something can be said about people's stuffing themselves with material goods. Howard Hughes being a case in point of someone who folowed that rabbit down the rabbithole.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That God, by not being permitted to exist, supports the god that does exist: materialism

That is: by eliminating any competition, your god, materialism, is left intact.

Assuming you're referring to materialism in the philosophical sense, i.e. the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications, you are quite wrong that being an atheist makes you de facto a materialist. There are very many non-material things in this universe that do not rely on a belief in the supernatural. Knowledge, emotions such as a strong sense of wonder, imagination, pure abstracts such as mathematics, philosophy, folk lore etc... None of these thing are material, nobody disputes they exist, and none of them rely on your god nor anyone else's. The same holds true for empiricism where we can clearly imagine things well beyond the bounds of our own experience, whether it be the magic in Harry Potter or, dare I say it, your god.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The added allure of the unobtainable?

It's a function of sin to desire, most of all, that which is seen as 'holy'. When something is barred, sin within is stimulated the most.

Do not walk on grass

Eat everything but that fruit

Any lover you like (even of all only fantasy) but not a lesbian lover

.. that kind of thing

You seem to be projecting just a bit there. What is it with overly zealous Christians and being obsessed with sex? Always seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of it.

I'm all for desire and erotica too for that matter, but the type of music that moves me emotionally doesn't tend to fit that category by and large. Your notions of sin are your own.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Assuming you're referring to materialism in the philosophical sense, i.e. the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications, you are quite wrong that being an atheist makes you de facto a materialist. There are very many non-material things in this universe that do not rely on a belief in the supernatural. Knowledge, emotions such as a strong sense of wonder, imagination, pure abstracts such as mathematics, philosophy, folk lore etc... None of these thing are material, nobody disputes they exist, and none of them rely on your god nor anyone else's. The same holds true for empiricism where we can clearly imagine things well beyond the bounds of our own experience, whether it be the magic in Harry Potter or, dare I say it, your god.

All those things are encompassed by the material. If no material or products of material processes then none of the things you mention.

Wonder, for example, is a product of a materialistic process which produced us: beings capable of wonder. Doubtlessly, there is an evolutionary advantage to it. No?

I wouldn't focus to tightly on the term in any case. Whether materialistic, rationalist, empiricist, we are talking of facets of the same god. A god without any woo!

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You seem to be projecting just a bit there. What is it with overly zealous Christians and being obsessed with sex? Always seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of it.

I don't see anything sexy about desiring to walk on grass you are told you can't walk on.

No focus on sex per se. More a remark about extra desiring the forbidden/unobtainable/holy

I'm all for desire and erotica too for that matter, but the type of music that moves me emotionally doesn't tend to fit that category by and large. Your notions of sin are your own.

It was the singers you were mentioning. Not the music. And so my comment on your remark about the singers.

High emotion + forbidden fruit. Well a powerful mix.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't focus to tightly on the term in any case. Whether materialistic, rationalist, empiricist, we are talking of facets of the same god. A god without any woo!

A god without woo? No special powers at all? Not sure that would meet with anyone's notion of a god other than your own. If you're talking about any object or idea which is the focus of blind worship and mindless adoration, you again need to evidence this happening. All I see is and rather weak attempt to construct a non-existent god that is comparable to your god for the sake of argument, but is in fact no more than a poorly constructed straw man.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

No focus on sex per se.

Sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any lover you like (even of all only fantasy) but not a lesbian lover

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

My opinion is that a large number of unbelievers, previously driven to utilize a them-serving god have exchanged that god for one with a lower bar to surmount. Namely, secularism.

Who wouldn't plump for an option that made it easier to do as you please? Seems a no brainer to me.

Secularism doesn't serve anyone, that's the point. It is also specifically a-religious. Not atheist or anti-theist, just a-religious. Maybe before you try to bait people with such nonsense, you should learn the meaning of simple words?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Folk around here insist empirical, verifiable evidence is the only way this being can demonstrate himself. All else is delusion and imaginary friends.

All else is indistinguishable from delusion. We've been through this several times before, there are theists equally sure of all kinds of fundamentally contradictory beliefs, purely for subjective emotional reasons. You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll say the truth is God and include materialism in this list of gods above.

Do you have any evidence for this?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secularism doesn't serve anyone, that's the point. It is also specifically a-religions. Not atheist or anti-theist, just a-religious. Maybe before you try to bait people with such nonsense, you should learn the meaning of simple words?

The meaning of word depends on the perspective you are coming from. And you are coming from an atheist perspective.



Secularism serves the individual in the process being described by me. For the process beingdescribed sees a 'pressure' installed in the individual by God. A "push back" against the tendency of a person to want to go their own way, to do their own thing, to set their own standard (which can, of course, flex to suit own needs). A push back against the desire to be own god.

The god of cultural Christianity (or any other rule imposing system) forced a certain constraint on a persons desire to be own god. The person had to go to Mass, for example. They had to give up things for Lent. They had to follow the rules and when they broke them, had to go to confession. In short, their desire to be own god had to bow.

The whole point of self-creating or aligning oneself with a false god is to reconcile the inner sense of push back with something that one can express a degree of control over. "I bow here and there (because I feel I ought to bow), but for the rest I am free"

But there is always a desire to get away with less. To reconfigure the god to allow oneself more freedom (for the tension of self as god is to want no constraint, even if sensing constraint). The pro-abortion Catholic, anyone?




Secularism (all views tolerated) helps dismantle the god of cultural Christianity (or any other constraining system) and so diminishes the culturally enforced need to bow. The person is supported in getting up off their knees by the fact that others around them are doing it. There is safety in numbers. Result: the bow need not be as pronounced.

And that's a result!




I've no issue with the dismantling of the god of cultural Christianity. Bowing less and self directing more is sure to bring more trouble and trouble is the stuff of salvation. I'm merely noting the shifting from one god to another god, from the perspective of the workings of the aforementioned process.

All else is indistinguishable from delusion.

In that case, one would imagine you holding an agnostic position. But you do not. You are positive in your statements. It is delusion. Not indistinguishable from delusion

For example here:

We've been through this several times before, there are theists equally sure of all kinds of fundamentally contradictory beliefs, purely for subjective emotional reasons. You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.

Subjective. That's a positive statement. Not an agnostic one.

You are right: we, including you, can't all be right. But that doesn't mean I am not right. You can't tell. But you can't tell doesn't render my experience subjective emotional.

Do you have any evidence for this?

It fits within the workings of the process as outlined, is all. I'm not evidencing the process as true. Just building an consistent process that accomodates the observations. Materialism is the ultimate god in that event.

Is there evidence that materialism encompasses reality? For that you would have to know what reality is.

If it's a case of materialism fitting what we can see, then I would point you to a time when observations supported a flat earth.


-



I have noted an objective: the Bible says that the first sin was the obtaining of self directed, independent-of-God life. Whether you think the Bible fairytale or not, that is what it objectively says.

You can look at the world and decide whether the world conforms to that statement. In other words, would a world full of self directed beings (who are subject to some constraint in their self direction, but who are allowed to sow and reap and develop on the original sin) look much like the world we have today?

I would argue that it would. It would be bad but not as bad as it could be. It would also be evolving sin, taking it to ever new depths.

Consider God's constraint applied to a particular people for a particular purpose. The year of Jubilee every 50 years resetting ownership of the land (a.k.a. resources) back to original position. This to avoid mans natural desire to concentrate wealth (i.e. express his selfishness).

Outside that specifically purposed constraint, "God gave them over in the desires of their hearts". In other words, we're free to run. And what we see when man is allowed to run free is the desire to concentrate and hold onto wealth. So much so, that there is much "old money" around today - wealth that was concentrated from sin centuries past (imperialism). Now we have concentration of wealth gone exponential.

Or the ways in which we seek to dull pain and fill the void left by our departure from intended source of wholeness - connection to God. Consumerism gone mad, drug use of every kind. Distracting entertainment of the most banal kind ("16 channels of sh1t on the TV to chose from" Pink Floyd might have guessed it would become 1600 channels of sh1t. It no longer being possible to chose from, we require algorithms to help us figure out what we might want to watch).

And sex - the holiest of relational connections is naturally the bullseye of sin's targetting. Gradually stripped teased, we've hit the rev limiter, figuring we need some bodily coverage to work titilation. Upskirting, pap photos of women emerging from cars, fashion design to cover just enough. This year more coverage of body to prime the desire for uncoverage. Next year uncoverage to grant that desire. Endless to and fro cycles. Just like a rev limiter.

And what about porn for kids? Spoiling innocence: the fruit most desired by the father of sin, the fruit first stolen back in the garden, the fruit yearned for by paedophiles everywhere (and the many more who haven't, as yet, silenced their God-restraint and who would warn such fruit: "Don't stand, don't stand, don't stand so close to me") is now subject to a full frontal assault.

And we who love going our own way, look into the faces of our innocent kids, saddened and terrified at the knowledge that we can't protect them from a world full of those who, like us, also love going their own way. There's a hint in there somewhere: we find most beautiful that which Fell. And that which we seek and destroy within ourselves. Innocence.

Funny, self-contradicting old thing, the human being.

And our planet. We were given dominion and told to subdue. But the subjection was intended to be a holy subjection and we've have been so unholy (or unwholesome). We have subjected it all right. We've brought it utterly to its knees - insisting it serve our never ending and ever increasing need. For addiction to the consumption drugs that stave off our emptiness are as any drug. The addiction will only ever require more. "More" isn't just the nickname for cocaine. Its the fact behind every bigger and better. Better homes, better cars, better life, more stuff.

We even have a name for it: growth. A.k.a. more. We've built the whole world economy on More.

Now if this last overarching reality and all the ways it expresses ain't evidence, then I don't know what is.

But of course, there is only so fast we can race to the bottom before we fall over. Fast food can only be so fast. Fast fashion can only create new desire so quickly. We can only change kitchen styles: ripping out shaker for gloss finish so quickly. New smartphone design has met the brick wall of inability to offer sufficient kick to a hungry world - something big and new is required. Hey! the fold out phone. But the price of this particular drug might have become too high. No worry, there is a void and someone will think if something to fill it. You can bet a chip in your head, running off your bodies battery will trundle on down the line. Internet straight to brain. Why not?

The process outlined earlier: man, his position before God and the problems he has is theoretical. The question is whether the observations match the theory.

Onward and upward just doesn't cut it for me, even if it does you. The evidence is there for each man to assess. He will assess it in most personal fashion: whether his own race to the bottom is evidence enough for him. Or he can do as you will probably do in response to this post, suppose there is "nothing to see here folks - we will sort it out in time" and insist his free fall off the side of a cliff is a controlled, if somewhat careening road to somewhere.

"They refused to believe the truth and so be saved".

The contention of the verse in the OP is that man is capable of seeing that the kinds of things I have been talking about are patently true. And that if refusing to be brought to belief about truth (whether now or finally, as truth assembles and manifests in his own life), then he is without excuse.

You won't have proof of the truth until such time as you believe the truth, naturally. To believe is to have the matter proven to your own satisfaction, beyond any doubt. Belief is a final destination.

No matter that you don't have proof now, for as C.S. Lewis found out, you are only required to be led. And you are led to belief, if allowing yourself to be led there, not by what the evidence proves but by where the evidence points.

In this post I have pointed. I point you only because he pointed me via this same way. I am but a messenger.

Each mans answer on the matter will be his own. And if that answer is a refusal then there will be no hiding behind a religion ("the priest told me so"). No hiding behind a philosopy ("Plato told me so"). No pointing the finger at anyone but himself.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The meaning of word depends on the perspective you are coming from.

Nope, the meaning of the word is the same regardless of who is saying it, that's how words work.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In that case, one would imagine you holding an agnostic position. But you do not. You are positive in your statements. It is delusion. Not indistinguishable from delusion

For example here:

Subjective. That's a positive statement. Not an agnostic one.

You are right: we, including you, can't all be right. But that doesn't mean I am not right. You can't tell. But you can't tell doesn't render my experience subjective emotional.

It is because your experience is only subjectively emotional that I can't tell if your worldview, based on that experience, is accurate. So, if that applies to everyone (and it does), then to repeat myself:
You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.
It's almost as if we need something non-subjective to raise one proposed worldview above any other.
And I am agnostic to any proposed worldview that I have yet to be told of. But if a novel worldview fails that simple test then I am gnostic that they are indistinguishable from delusion and therefore there is no reason to hold to them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll say the truth is God and include materialism in this list of gods above.

Do you have any evidence for this?

It fits within the workings of the process as outlined, is all. I'm not evidencing the process as true.

:rolleyes: Lets try this again:
Do you or do you not believe your claim that your god is truth?
Do you or do you not believe your claim that materialism is not?
Do you or do you not have any evidence for this?

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it's a case of materialism fitting what we can see, then I would point you to a time when observations supported a flat earth.

And I would point out that the reason we do not hold to a flat earth anymore (bar a few outliers) is because of more materialism (further empirical observations and scientific experiments). That is the strength of materialism (empiricism and science) - we can continue working on something we think is true to confirm if it is true and refine it if it needs to be.