Food for thought for Christians

[Walt Zingmatilder]

C'mon Vlad - Stephen's friend is making his claim on the same basis as yours, which results in different views of the divinity of Jesus. Now, and putting aside the risk that you both might be wrong, on what basis should we favour your claim over that of Stephen's friend?

C'mon Gordon at the moment all that is being offered is an absent friend.Get him on.
You say he is offering it on the same basis,but with all due respect that comes from an atheist who has shown a willingness to bunch all gods with the same disdain.

I have taken the most reasonable line here which is  get Stephen to transmit messages to and from me and his friend . You and Steven have just offered atheism wearing a kippah.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only thing that needs chivvying is you.

How can tell between mutually exclusive claims when they are based on personal experience?

If we agree that one of us is wrong. As I have no difficulty with that.
If you say that we cannot find out who is wrong then that is a different matter.

You say he receives his belief religiously.
Why does he he not receive it philosophically instead?

You do not know.

Get the man on otherwise all you are offering is atheism with a Kippah.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Not going to happen is it. He can't accept that people can have genuine religious experiences that are just as fervently held but are mutually exclusive to his because he would have to admit that personal experience is not a useful method for determining the objective truth of the religious claims.

Quite so. When you cut through all the lying, the irrelevance, the straw men and the abuse all Trollboy has left is, "it's true because I really, really think it's true".

Wigginhall described him as "a fucking disgrace".

I see no reason to disagree.

[Gordon]

C'mon Gordon at the moment all that is being offered is an absent friend.Get him on.

If he wishes to join then we'd love to see him here.

You say he is offering it on the same basis,but with all due respect that comes from an atheist who has shown a willingness to bunch all gods with the same disdain.

We aren't talking about me, Vlad, we're talking about your claim and that of Stephen's friend and why we should prefer yours to his: to we get an answer?

I have taken the most reasonable line here which is  get Stephen to transmit messages to and from me and his friend . You and Steven have just offered atheism wearing a kippah.

Atheism isn't the issue here: the issue is the comparison between two theistic claims: remember!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If he wishes to join then we'd love to see him here.

We aren't talking about me, Vlad, we're talking about your claim and that of Stephen's friend and why we should prefer yours to his: to we get an answer?

Atheism isn't the issue here: the issue is the comparison between two theistic claims: remember!

Yes but the dogmatic shutdown and the melodramatic touch of Bluehillside coming on periodically like some spymaster touching his ear while whispering into yours and Stephen's make this an unmistakeably doctrinaire antitheist gig.

Another Goddodge accomplished.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

If you say that we cannot find out who is wrong then that is a different matter.

[quote/]

No I have asked you how you can know who is right or wrong. What is the method for verifying that your experience reflects reality?

That is al that is being asked of you.

You say he receives his belief religiously.
Why does he he not receive it philosophically instead?

You do not know.

Get the man on otherwise all you are offering is atheism with a Kippah.

He is merely an example of someone who makes claims on the same basis as you but contradictory ones. Are you really saying that you were unaware of this situation before I mentioned my friend?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Another Goddodge accomplished.

By you.

I have given you the opportunity to explain how you can be certain you are not mistaken in attributing your experience of God to the reality of an objective God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By you.

I have given you the opportunity to explain how you can be certain you are not mistaken in attributing your experience of God to the reality of an objective God.

if this isn't, as Gordon says, about atheism stop posturing as a virtual Jewish believer and get the real one to answer.

[Gordon]

Yes but the dogmatic shutdown and the melodramatic touch of Bluehillside coming on periodically like some spymaster touching his ear while whispering into yours and Stephen's make this an unmistakeably doctrinaire antitheist gig.

Another Goddodge accomplished.

All you need do, Vlad, is give a civil response to a civil question: the only dodging going on here is yours.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

By you.

I have given you the opportunity to explain how you can be certain you are not mistaken in attributing your experience of God to the reality of an objective God.

One of the several oddities about Trolboy's fuckingdisgracery is that, if there is an objectively true god, then presumably "He" would want people to know that so, having chosen His special little helper, why then does Trollboy point blank refuse ever to make an argument of any kind to that effect?   

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

if this isn't as Gordon says about atheism stop posturing as a virtual Jewish believer and get the real one to answer.

I don't believe his claims either.

Are you seriously suggesting that he is the first person you have heard of that feels he has a profound experience of God that contradicts yours? Seriously that is unbelievable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All you need do, Vlad, is give a civil response to a civil question: the only dodging going on here is yours.

Stephen has said that either his Jewish friend and I are wrong. I have not disagreed with that. What I disagreed with is  there being no way of him finding out who is wrong for himself. I have never said that experience of God is ever transferrable or empirical and have often said it isn't. I have said that if true God is true for all of us. If there is anything else you want me to answer or help you with please ask.

From my point of view you have your own definition of religion which lumps things together, is reductionist and ultimately incorrect in it's conclusion and guaranteed to dogmatically shut down anything which might challenge the antitheist position and that is as Kubrick would say,  yours, Stephen's and that article Hillsides major malfunction.

Have a nice day.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

What I disagreed with is  there being no way of him finding out who is wrong for himself. I have never said that experience of God is ever transferrable or empirical and have often said it isn't. I have said that if true God is true for all of us. If there is anything else you want me to answer or help you with please ask.

But it is YOU who claims that you CAN know if a claim is objectively true or not based on personal experience.

Or are you now saying that is not the case?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it is YOU who claims that you CAN know if a claim is objectively true or not based on personal experience.

Or are you now saying that is not the case?

Yes I am saying that you can know an objective truth by experiencing it.

I think you are confusing methodology with ontology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon you fool man...

...turns out expecting someone actually to bother making a coherent and consistent argument for his claim of an objective truth before accepting it is actually just your anti-theism dogmatically shutting down his challenge!

Now I see it, it's obvious really. I'm kinda hoping now that if we wait patiently enough the great Trollboy will pull more of these objective facts out of his backside. Maybe the solution to the Syrian crisis for starters, or perhaps a cure for childhood cancer. Failing that, at least the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park next Saturday would ease the old finances a bit.

After all, surely it can't be that Trollboy's magic intuition works for one fact but not for any others can it?

Can it?   

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Yes I am saying that you can know an objective truth by experiencing it.

I think you are confusing methodology with ontology.

Round and round it goes.

But you accept that you can be mistaken in that experience don't you?

[Gordon]

Stephen has said that either his Jewish friend and I are wrong. I have not disagreed with that. What I disagreed with is  there being no way of him finding out who is wrong for himself.

He can't - it is your claim, and Stephen's friends claim, that we are discussing, and both are based on personal experiences which are intrinsically, well, personal: the question is whether one personal experience is more valid than the other.

I have never said that experience of God is ever transferrable or empirical and have often said it isn't. I have said that if true God is true for all of us. If there is anything else you want me to answer or help you with please ask.

-

We have: what are the limits of personal experience and how should be accept or reject claims that are similar in one sense (personal experience) but different in other senses (the divinity of Jesus) - you aren't answering though.

From my point of view you have your own definition of religion which lumps things together, is reductionist and ultimately incorrect in it's conclusion and guaranteed to dogmatically shut down anything which might challenge the antitheist position and that is as Kubrick would say,  yours, Stephen's and that article Hillsides major malfunction.

Our views aren't the issue - we're talking personal experiences of the divine, remember!

Have a nice day.

You too Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes I am saying that you can know an objective truth by experiencing it.

No you can't - you can only know a subjective truth. For it to be an objective truth you would need to know that everyone else experiences it in the same manner, and you cannot know that.

Our experiences only tell us about 'true for me' not about 'true for everyone', i.e. subjective truths not objective truths.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

He can't - it is your claim, and Stephen's friends claim, that we are discussing, and both are based on personal experiences which are intrinsically, well, personal: the question is whether one personal experience is more valid than the other.
 -

We have: what are the limits of personal experience and how should be accept or reject claims that are similar in one sense (personal experience) but different in other senses (the divinity of Jesus) - you aren't answering though.

Our views aren't the issue - we're talking personal experiences of the divine, remember!

You too Vlad.

Mr Anoo,

Rushing around a bit this afternoon but this from Gordon is the words I would have liked to have used.

Oh, and have a good day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Round and round it goes.

But you accept that you can be mistaken in that experience don't you?

But you can also be right about it hence my statement about the unreliability of the unreliability of experience.
Hillside may if he chooses to do so remember our discussions about what I called his dependence on the psychological incompetence of humanity.

However so far such psychological incompetence is a dogmatically held position and when pressed its support comes at base from ontological naturalism confused as methodological naturalism i.e. medical science. Given this I am justified in a demand for proof of the objective truth of ontological naturalism. This is never touched on and avoided giving antitheists the air of 'shut up theist Pig dog, ve ask ze questions around here''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No you can't - you can only know a subjective truth. For it to be an objective truth you would need to know that everyone else experiences it in the same manner, and you cannot know that.

Our experiences only tell us about 'true for me' not about 'true for everyone', i.e. subjective truths not objective truths.

Do objective truths have to be experienced? I don't know.

[Gordon]

But you can also be right about it hence my statement about the unreliability of the unreliability of experience.
Hillside may if he chooses to do so remember our discussions about what I called his dependence on the psychological incompetence of humanity.

However so far such psychological incompetence is a dogmatically held position and when pressed its support comes at base from ontological naturalism confused as methodological naturalism i.e. medical science. Given this I am justified in a demand for proof of the objective truth of ontological naturalism. This is never touched on and avoided giving antitheists the air of 'shut up theist Pig dog, ve ask ze questions around here''

Here we have it, yet again: Vlad's retreat into his personal lexicon of terms he doesn't really understand, mixed in with a dash of childish insults.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He can't - it is your claim, and Stephen's friends claim, that we are discussing, and both are based on personal experiences which are intrinsically, well, personal: the question is whether one personal experience is more valid than the other.
 -

We have: what are the limits of personal experience and how should be accept or reject claims that are similar in one sense (personal experience) but different in other senses (the divinity of Jesus) - you aren't answering though.

Our views aren't the issue - we're talking personal experiences of the divine, remember!

You too Vlad.

The trouble is Gordon is that without Stephen's friend we cannot assess the similarity of religious experience or whether his friend has had a personal divine revelation of jesus non divinity or whether he merely holds that philosophically.

The problem is your generalisation AND SIMPLIFICATION AND YES shoehorning to fit your approach.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Here we have it, yet again: Vlad's retreat into his personal lexicon of terms he doesn't really understand, mixed in with a dash of childish insults.

Presumably he thinks (inasmuch as he's capable of thinking anything) it gives him somewhere to hide from his inability to answer a perfectly simple question. The problem though with Trollboy just re-defining words to suit his purpose is that there's no basis on which to engage with him. Am I a materialist? Yes, according to the standard definition. Am I a materialist within the meaning of Trolboy's just made up version of the term? Pretty much no-one is I'd have thought.

And so it goes.   

When confronted with such a badly disordered, non-functioning intellect allied to a near pathological mendacity what choice is there therefore but to ignore it? 

[Gordon]

The trouble is Gordon is that without Stephen's friend we cannot assess the similarity of religious experience or whether his friend has had a personal divine revelation of jesus non divinity or whether he merely holds that philosophically.

The problem is your generalisation AND SIMPLIFICATION AND YES shoehorning to fit your approach.

Of course we can, Vlad.

Since we know that your claim and that of Stephen's friend differ in respect of the divinity of Jesus there is nothing to stop us teasing out a method, with your help, of comparing different claims of personal experiences of the divine. I happy for you to set out your method and we'll go from there, since presumably you have some basis for preferring your personal experience to that of Stephen's friend: don't you?.