'Sin'

[Shaker]

He missed out Stalinism, though.

Son, I am disappoint

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't demolish nothing.

First of all you haven't been able to show his experience is delusion, illusion etc.

Secondly if you say his experience isn't evidence that suggests you only accept scientific evidence and therefore that makes you ontologically materialist.....something you are all falling over yourselves to deny being!

What you guys need is a bit of honesty and admit that ontologically and Hillside is going to hate me for this............we are on a level playing field debate wise.

[Rhiannon]

Blimey, Vlad, delusional to the hilt.

[jeremyp]

Ah, dogmatic agnosticism and if you will, intellectual wanking.

THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.

Feynman is asking us to believe that a man of knowledge like himself is at base a simple ignoramus. Self indulgent bollocks.

No, really he is not. If you really think that is his meaning, you need to stop posting on forums with grown ups.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.

Come again?

[Rhiannon]

THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.
No, really he is not. If you really think that is his meaning, you need to stop posting on forums with grown ups.

Vlad claims that anything that anyone says means whatever he wants it to. Haven't you noticed? It's one of the ways in which he lies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

THere's nothing intellectual about your wanking.

Blimey that's an -ism I haven't been accused of by Shaker......Jism.

[jeremyp]

First of all you haven't been able to show his experience is delusion, illusion etc.

Whose experience?

Secondly if you say his experience isn't evidence that suggests you only accept scientific evidence and therefore that makes you ontologically materialist.....something you are all falling over yourselves to deny being!

Again I say "whose experience"? I was merely responding to Sassy's question about what the difference between a judge and a god is.

What you guys need is a bit of honesty and admit that ontologically and Hillside is going to hate me for this............we are on a level playing field debate wise.

We are on a level playing field. I demand the same level of evidence for the divine judge and human judges. The former fails the test, the latter do not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I demand the same level of evidence for the divine judge and human judges.

What do you mean by the same level of evidence........and is the answer just going to confirm you as an ontological materialist?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

There is a lack of honesty and truth about this post.

Outrageous considering the out and out lie that you told about me.

Both Vlad and Hope and sought God and experienced God having done so.

No, they claim to have experienced God. Not the same thing as demonstrating an objectively true God.

What exactly have you done Stephen to find out if God is real?

I have asked believers to show how they know that their experience of God is objectively true. No one has been able to do so.

Now what about that apology?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I'm sorry that is grossly underrepresenting my input.
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.

[/quote[

No people are just saying they you need something to get you from your experience of God to God is objectively real.

All this other shit about methodological materialism is just bluster. No one thinks it but then if they did it would not get you an inch further along the way to an objectively true God.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

My reply is:- Does he support your point and post against Christians or vice versa?

I rest my case. Had he posted from a side not supported by atheists or Christian then we could say he does not discriminate against believers. But his post reflect negatively against Christians and had they not you would not be cheering him on.

Think before you reply. Your support for him shows he is not supporting Christianity or even neutral in his replies.

So you don't understand what discrimination means then?

I would be careful about using words you don't understand in future. There are laws against libel you know.

And you still owe me an apology and retraction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sorry that is grossly underrepresenting my input.
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.

[/quote[

No people are just saying they you need something to get you from your experience of God to God is objectively real.

I'm afraid you asked me for my experience of God and it was given.

I never put up my experience as a Proof and surely if you followed me on this board you would have seen that I frequently say I cannot hand you God or faith.

You have chosen to ignore all of this in favour of a narrative.

Once again I am not offering my experience as evidence of God.

You need your own.

Just like anybody else's experience of Australia is never going to be my experience.

[Stranger]

...
What's going down Guys? Why haven't you got the balls to make the case for naturalism?

Why should we want to?

What is wrong with not knowing? Why do you seem so frightened of not knowing?

I don't know why the universe is and I don't feel the need believe something, anything, rather than simply not know - why should I?

I would be very interested to hear that somebody has found a credible answer, and can offer evidence or reasoning to support their case, but none have done so.


"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

Note the dishonest edit:-

Why should we want to?

"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

Ah, dogmatic agnosticism and if you will, intellectual wanking.

Feynman is asking us to believe that a man of knowledge like himself is at base a simple ignoramus. Self indulgent bollocks.

What utter and complete bollocks!

You seem to inhabit a bizarre world of absolutism.

When somebody says they don't know something, you immediately translate it into some dogma about not being able to or not wanting to know.

Admitting lack of specific knowledge translates into being an ignoramus.

Suggesting that it is better, and more interesting, to admit lack of knowledge than to believe any old crap translates into "dogmatic agnosticism".

Are you simply too stupid to understand what is being said here, or is it wilful misrepresentation?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I'm afraid you asked me for my experience of God and it was given.

I never put up my experience as a Proof and surely if you followed me on this board you would have seen that I frequently say I cannot hand you God or faith.

You have chosen to ignore all of this in favour of a narrative.

Once again I am not offering my experience as evidence of God.

You need your own.

Just like anybody else's experience of Australia is never going to be my experience.

Just as I said you position was earlier then.

If I have an experience like yours and come to believe that God is an objective reality then all that would demonstrate is that I believed in an objectively real God.

No amount of subjective conviction would make it objective.

I would leave the Australia thing out of it if I were you. You didn't come out of it at all well last time, even by your standards.

[Brownie]

Vlad and Hope have had experiences which they thought were from god, that is not the same as it actually being so.

I tried to find god as a kid, but in spite of sincere prayers I never had an sign of its presence. If it exists that doesn't do it any credit whatsoever.

I agree with your first paragraph floo, not discounting Vlad's and Hope's experiences but it is more than possible to have an experience which appears to be one thing and isn't.

Your second paragraph is something you say often but I remember, years ago, when you were quite spiritual and considered yourself to be a Christian?   What happened in the interim?

[floo]

I agree with your first paragraph floo, not discounting Vlad's and Hope's experiences but it is more than possible to have an experience which appears to be one thing and isn't.

Your second paragraph is something you say often but I remember, years ago, when you were quite spiritual and considered yourself to be a Christian?   What happened in the interim?

I have NEVER been spiritual, even when I was a devout Christian. Although I had lost my faith by the time I was nineteen, I did consider myself an out of sight very liberal Christian, more for convenience than anything else. Not a sensible or honest position to adopt, and I dropped it. I now consider myself an agnostic, who admits a god of some sort could exist somewhere, but if so, it is very unlikely humans have any connection with it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just as I said you position was earlier then.

If I have an experience like yours and come to believe that God is an objective reality then all that would demonstrate is that I believed in an objectively real God.

No amount of subjective conviction would make it objective.

Acknowledged and always has been.

Now, no amount of methodology makes something objective either.

[Bubbles]

I have NEVER been spiritual, even when I was a devout Christian. Although I had lost my faith by the time I was nineteen, I did consider myself an out of sight very liberal Christian, more for convenience than anything else. Not a sensible or honest position to adopt, and I dropped it. I now consider myself an agnostic, who admits a god of some sort could exist somewhere, but if so, it is very unlikely humans have any connection with it.

With the ' never' in capitals it makes you sound like some prim old dowager, brows knitted together with disapproval.

Seriously   

Floo! You need to swing on some chandeliers 

Be a bit spiritual, let your hair down......

[floo]

With the ' never' in capitals it makes you sound like some prim old dowager, brows knitted together with disapproval.

Seriously   

Floo! You need to swing on some chandeliers 

Be a bit spiritual, let your hair down......

Why, I am content as I am?

[Enki]

From Sass, Mess. 119:

Gordon, What have you ever done to check if God exists?

That question is for all other atheists too...

I have never come across any evidence/feelings/experience which remotely suggests that a god exists. How on earth can I check whether a god exists when I don't have any feelings that one exists, when my personal experiences do not suggest that one exists or how he/she/it adequately explains such things as pain, suffering, prayer, free will, existence and development of life, meaning of life, origins of the universe etc, which can either be explained fairly reasonably by natural explanations or by simply saying we do not yet have adequate answers to such questions?

Remember, also, that simply looking at people of faith who believe in a god(s) solves nothing as they are such a diverse bunch and their particular faiths are often at odds with each other. So, other than showing that they actually believe in whatever they believe in, this in no way is any sort of evidence that what they believe in actually exists.

So, go on, explain to me a method for checking whether a god exists or not.

Until I do find evidence that a god exists, therefore, I have no reason to believe that one does. Furthermore I am entirely happy in my unbelief.

[wigginhall]

Well expressed by enki.   What strikes me is that the 3-omni type God seems to make no difference to life.   Of course, people who believe in it may feel good or inspired or whatever, but apart from that, where is God at work?   Does he heal people, does he correct wrongs, does he frustrate the dictator and the torturer? 

Well, if he does, he is very discreet!  There is an old joke kicking about, that if you are going to invent a god, you must make sure that his operations are silent, invisible, and imperceptible, result!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Acknowledged and always has been.

Now, no amount of methodology makes something objective either.

Eh!!!

I don't think anyone has said that a methodology makes something objective, maybe I have that wrong and someone has but I'm not aware of it.

Rather, that you need a methodology to establish if it is objective or not.

Again, I don't think you are listening to what people are saying.

[BeRational]

Also, without a methodology you have to accept any and all assertions some of which will be contradictory.

[Brownie]

I have NEVER been spiritual, even when I was a devout Christian. Although I had lost my faith by the time I was nineteen, I did consider myself an out of sight very liberal Christian, more for convenience than anything else. Not a sensible or honest position to adopt, and I dropped it. I now consider myself an agnostic, who admits a god of some sort could exist somewhere, but if so, it is very unlikely humans have any connection with it.

Fair enough, I just got the impression that you were spiritual or 'revisited your spirituality'.
Anyway, on a lighter note, when I enter this forum I have a giggle at the thread title, '' 'Sin' started by floo''!