|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 25, 2018 0:44:40 GMT 10
You seem to me Occam's to be leaning more toward being a deist than a theist. In answering those nitty-gritty questions, you might be able to clarify your view for me. Speaking as someone who once thought he was a Christian, I can say that I never experienced anything like a "voice" ... It is of interest to me if others have a different experience. The Baptist church that I used to attend was all about a personal relationship with the creator of the universe ... I never really had that experience. People use that term too loosely. Ive never heard an audible voice, but some things happen with me that are too specific to be coincidences. I've also had spiritual encounters so vivid they couldn't make me an unbeliever. So I really am no different than an atheist. We both base our conclusions on our personal experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 25, 2018 21:37:45 GMT 10
Its not a question of your invitation to query, rather your intent to be objective about the answers you are given. Your questions don't come from a place of genuine curiousity, but of malice. You said it yourself in the past, nothing could convince you to be a theist. That doesn't sound like the open minded individual you are pretending to be. If you think those questions are based on malice, that's your problem, because they are not. I can't win. You want a serious discussion but when I try to get down to the real nuts and bolts, you accuse me of malice. When it comes to religion that has been your pattern.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 26, 2018 23:10:08 GMT 10
... Ive never heard an audible voice, but some things happen with me that are too specific to be coincidences. I've also had spiritual encounters so vivid they couldn't make me an unbeliever. So I really am no different than an atheist. We both base our conclusions on our personal experiences. Well, it's good to know that I haven't missed out on an experience then. There seems then to be no "special" communication that I missed out on. So, it boils down to "coincidence" and warm and fuzzy feelings which get attributed to "God". That helps to solidify my decision to become an atheist. It's all subjective. Thanks for sharing your experience. Your experience is subjective, not mine. Interpretations are subjective. We all filter information through our own personalized lens, and none of our lenses are crystal clear. There is always some personal spin that comes into play. Even when it comes to your decision to be atheist. People are apt to stick with where they start, unless they have reason to modify their perspectives. When it comes to interpretations, every person tends to believe theirs is correct and definitive. The hardest thing to change, is a person's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 27, 2018 1:34:39 GMT 10
Your experience is subjective, not mine. ... Wow! I'm going to frame that one! I thought you'd like that.đ
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 28, 2018 10:17:23 GMT 10
Actually, more to the point: WHO, OR WHAT CREATED GOD?
Failure to come up with a plausible or proven answer to that question gives credence to the default concept of god being a delusion in the human mind.
Perhaps that is why religionists feel the desperate need to stick a label, such as athiest on those who refuse to believe their bullshit god exists without real proof.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 28, 2018 16:14:56 GMT 10
KTJ has found an occupied lift to fart in. Go to the naughty boys' corner and write "atheist" with correct spelling a thousand times.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 29, 2018 7:43:57 GMT 10
Actually, more to the point: WHO, OR WHAT CREATED GOD? Failure to come up with a plausible or proven answer to that question gives credence to the default concept of god being a delusion in the human mind. Perhaps that is why religionists feel the desperate need to stick a label, such as athiest on those who refuse to believe their bullshit god exists without real proof. You are assuming a linear timeline that only exists in our universe. Einstein proved Time is relative. No Time, means no Cause and Effect. Ergo, God could be an Uncaused Cause. And I don't see a problem with saying that God is Infinite, when atheists had been saying the same thing about the universe for years.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 29, 2018 7:45:02 GMT 10
KTJ has found an occupied lift to fart in. Go to the naughty boys' corner and write "atheist" with correct spelling a thousand times. He's athier than thou, he is the Athiest.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 29, 2018 9:57:00 GMT 10
No Time, means no Cause and Effect. Ergo, God could be an Uncaused Cause. Hahaha.....that's just like Kellyanne Conway's âalternative factsâ bullshit to explain away Sean Spicer's lies on behalf of Donald J. Trump.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 29, 2018 10:30:27 GMT 10
I knew KTJ would find a way to bring his Trump obsessions into it
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 29, 2018 11:02:23 GMT 10
Hey, well if the man wishes to post dark-ages âalternative factsâ clap-trap, then that is the best kind of replyâŠ
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 29, 2018 11:02:31 GMT 10
No Time, means no Cause and Effect. Ergo, God could be an Uncaused Cause. Hahaha.....that's just like Kellyanne Conway's âalternative factsâ bullshit to explain away Sean Spicer's lies on behalf of Donald J. Trump. If mainstream science can be considered "alternative facts", then I guess so.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 29, 2018 11:48:27 GMT 10
Fair question! Thank you for asking! The answer is: not in the way this board has been trolled over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 0:06:00 GMT 10
Not while people (such as KTJ) are putting zero serious thought into the repetitive crap they are posting.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 0:08:31 GMT 10
I'm getting to the point that people's views are so entrenched that it is futile to keep arguing. Nothing to do with "trolling" which surprisingly (?) is actually more often than not initiated from the religious side. (Although the guy from across the ditch has never been interested in any logical points at all - I grant you that.) It is inherently futile to argue about religion since each side comes from a subjective viewpoint, despite the claims to the contrary. The question does God exist, is not a subjective question. He can't exist for some, and not for others.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 21:13:46 GMT 10
Your opinion about it is irrelevant.
Truth is truth even if no one believes it; a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 21:41:54 GMT 10
1. You just conceded my statement that the God question is objective, not subjective. 2. "Does God exist", is a separate question than "Which God exists", you have to answer the prior, before you can even attempt the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 21:55:53 GMT 10
We're back to the same old story again aren't we? You say the only real God is the one you believe in. Pretty darn subjective. Most of the deities you've listed are Polytheistic, and are not mutually exclusive. And secondly, that is once again a separate question. First you have to get past the idea of whether God exists, before you can explore which God exists. Does God exist, is still an objective yes or no question.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 22:24:35 GMT 10
So your interpretation is subjective, not the question. ...and no, I said my experiences were different than yours.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 23:53:12 GMT 10
The question can be as objective as you want. The answer is subjective. No, because truth isn't subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2018 23:54:09 GMT 10
So your interpretation is subjective, not the question. ...and no, I said my experiences were different than yours. I had very similar experiences to yours. I even went to the "mission fields" on the strength of it too ... just like you. However, I now look back at it all as being sucked into a delusion. I freely admit it - I was deluded. I wasn't talking about just mission fields. And no one's experiences are exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 9, 2018 12:15:35 GMT 10
Actually, more to the point: WHO, OR WHAT CREATED GOD? Failure to come up with a plausible or proven answer to that question gives credence to the default concept of god being a delusion in the human mind. Perhaps that is why religionists feel the desperate need to stick a label, such as athiest on those who refuse to believe their bullshit god exists without real proof. "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering"
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 9, 2018 17:20:19 GMT 10
Actually, more to the point: WHO, OR WHAT CREATED GOD? Failure to come up with a plausible or proven answer to that question gives credence to the default concept of god being a delusion in the human mind. Perhaps that is why religionists feel the desperate need to stick a label, such as athiest on those who refuse to believe their bullshit god exists without real proof. 1. Learn the correct spelling: atheist. If you're dyslexic then say so and I'll be charitable and not give you a hard time. Q. Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? A. He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog. Boom boom! 2.Religionists aren't ipso facto "desperate". They can be among the most serene "together" people you're ever likely to meet. Mahatma Gandhi was one such. So was Martin Luther King Jr. So is Desmond Tutu.
|
|