Vladdo,
You’ve had your big bag of utter bollocks wide open today haven’t you. Just to detonate them quickly:
I believe we all experience God and the evidence is Goddodging, which I find numerous exponents of on this forum.
You’ve had this falsified many times already so why bother repeating the mistake? You can’t “dodge” something you’ve been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place. If you think otherwise, why are you a leprechaun-dodger?
One can be an intellectual theist though.
One can be intellectual
and a theist certainly. There have been some fine and nuanced minds in the clergy for example, albeit that they hold beliefs that simultaneously are sound and daft.
God wishing is not the experience a lot of people have when they encounter God vis the writer of I siaih, St Paul (hysterical blindness), Bunyan, HAV Williams.
One of your favourite fallacies that one: reification. You might
think there was an “encounter with god” but you have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that.
Finally the most prominent commentator to testified to Goddodging over a protracted period of time, St Augustine.
He made the same mistake you make of just assuming his premise? You surprise me.
I stated that I have examined the philosophical and existential thoughts of those who would justify remaining in the agnostic/atheist state.
Utter bollocks in a top hat. The only “philosophy” needed to be an atheist is the conclusion that logic and reason are probably better guides to truths than illogic and unreason.
You can be a philosophical theist.
But not a good one. Most mainstream philosophy at least has long since left philosophical theism in its wake.
Once the extistential bulwarks of the agnostic/atheist commitment go.One finds oneself called to a different commitment and the choice is that or to cling for dear life onto atheism/agnosticism.
Utter bollocks in a top hat with a feather in it. There’s no “clingng for dear life” – just an open door to someone finally making an argument that isn't hopeless for his god being other people’s god too.
They would say they they were god wishers who found their wish fulfilled.
If you say every body's a god wisher there are plenty who would say that the discovery of God was not a wishfulfilment but uncomfortable cause to seriously rethink.
More reification. What “discovery”? What you meant to say there was “personal belief” or similar.
Augustine, in his experience, identifies subconscious Goddodging.
Wasn’t he supposed to be brighter than that?
Yearners and dodgers should explore their motivations but goddodgers are often reluctant to, almost by definition
Except of course you’ve yet to identify anyone who
is a “goddodger”. Good luck with it though.
The existential bulwarks of atheism and agnosticism?
The self is or maybe an illusion.
That there may be or is definitely no greater judge of my actions than myself
That ultimately nothing about me or what I do matters.
There may be more
What are the options to atheism or agnosticism apart from theism.?...I can't think of any and unknownism is better known as agnosticism.
A dog’s breakfast of incoherence and half-formed thoughts there. None of these things though are “existential bulwarks” – that ultimately “nothing about me or what I do matters” for example is just rational deduction. What colossal solipsism it must take to think otherwise!
Few of us can as Burn's said "see our selves as others see us".
What warrant do you have for dismissing certain personal experiences as evidence?
It’s “evidence” only of someone having a personal experience. The moment though he overreaches into thinking the narrative he’s come up with to explain it (“god” etc) is therefore true for other people too is when he runs out of gas. The consequence of that would be that there’d be no way to dismiss anyone’s narrative about any experience – leprechauns included. I that really where you want to be?
That sounds then like a circular argument.
Why are certain personal experiences to be discounted?
A Buddhist is talking about things other than what I speak of. Their experiences I move hardly negate mine.
Because they’re evidence of the subjective but not of the objective, obviously. Oh, and you have no idea what Buddhism entails either.
Why should the judgment of other people about yourself be superior to your own?
Why, following on from that, should the judgment of a number of people about you be superior?
Because sometimes that “judgment” comes from greater knowledge and experience than one’s own – in a psychiatrist/patient relationship for example..
I don't believe that is anything but a restatement of the question I asked.
Why should we....over and above our own self judgment, value that of others judgment.
See above. It’s not difficult.
Also social animalism, valuing others opinions, empathy are all it seems switchoffable or at best possessed in various amounts.
You paint too rosy a picture?
Some people have more empathy for others than other people. Some people are sociopaths and have none. So what?
