God says this, and God says that

Some denominations (quite a few really) believe God is still talking.Why should I ask God something irrelevant like your greatest fear? It's trite anyway--that's what we have "psychic" phone lines for. If you want to talk to God you should fast and pray and study until God can talk to you.For someone who does not believe in God, you seem to be one that spends quite a bit of time mocking Him. Probably, this is not helping any attempts at communication. You will have to drop this habit and repent in humbleness first. (Humility is more important than faith, in my experience).I'm not going to try to 'prove' there is a God to you or anyone else. It's not my job to do so. I'm just going to leave that little piece of advice with you.And for all you (or I) know, God has just spoken through two of his servants.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-05-2002]

Thank you. I'm glad because I feel compelled to defend Christianity in general and my faith in particular too often here and it gets uncomfortable. Science is impersonal but religion is not. Plus I think I was too pushy in my last post..

quote:

---

gene - You sound like an aggressive, angry person. Are you truly happy at all?

---

I wonder the same about you. If God isn't real, why do you spend so much criticizing him? Why not say nasty, derogative things about Santa Claus, the Boogeyman, and the Toothfairy as well? I think living in peace with an imaginary(?) being is a lot more healthy than waging war with the same.Coragyps, you are using faulty logic. If somebody on an acid trip claims to have met the president, does that mean that Colin Powell is a junkie? Yeah if you stimulate the right parts of the brain you can replicate spiritual experiences. Doesn't mean the same parts of the brain are not being stimulated by other things, even possibly supernatural influences.

I think, John, most of your difficulty with God is that you're just not an insider.You're not supposed to test God because that is cheating. It's like taking an exam with the answer key. You have to earn your faith through diligence. If you want to walk with God, you've got to find Him first. It isn't hard to start out, it doesn't take long either, but you have to make an effort first, with at least enough faith that you won't immediately reject whatever the result is. You're going to have suspend your disbelief and you're going to have be humble. I don't think that's unreasonable for anyone, I managed just fine. If you refuse to do these things, why should God do your work for you? You earn what you work for just as the believers do. God has done a lot for you already, but you have to make a conscious decision and stick with it to get the best results.Until then, don't expect anything so blatant you can't explain it away as coincidence. I happen to believe that there is "a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven, upon which all blessings are predicated" and it is through adherence to that law that you might find answers to the question of whether or not there is a God, if you would only devote the time and interest to find out for yourself.Otherwise, it's easy for you to post comments like "I can't believe! I'm set up for failure! It's unfair!" when the path is clear for you but you refuse to follow it. I admit having little sympathy for that because it is a consequence of one's own inaction and one's own self-inflicted ignorance. This state of mind amazes me: blame God for your non-belief and, then, don't show any interest in God because you don't believe! It's circularity. It is also an easy way to shirk the knowledge that there are certain obligations in life beyond eating, drinking, and breathing, and that you should be humble.

quote:

---

True, but it does mean that personal "spiritual" experiences alone do not constitute proof of, or even evidence for, the supernatural.

---

Not necessarily. Chemical-induced experiences have a known cause. "Spiritual" experiences do not (but we can speculate). The only thing surgery and chemical induced experiences demonstrate is that there are parts of the brain responsible for "spiritual" experiences. To my knowledge, what sets these off, and why, is not known. Plus, I'm not convinced that chemical/surgical/field induced experiences are the same as religious experiences, even if they do occur in the same regions of the brain.(Interestingly enough, my church councils its members to avoid excessive caffeine and neurological stims because they "block" spiritual things. On these grounds I will at least concede that brain chemistry plays some role in "spiritual" experiences, just as brain chemistry plays a huge role in consciousness but Christians believe a "spirit" or "soul" is kicking around in there as well.)Something is causing those experiences to happen, either way. If I'm not smoking hashish or massaging my brain with a surgical pick on Sunday mornings, I have to wonder, what causes that sensation? How is it, that people new to a religion, "discover" it and know exactly what the missionaries were talking about when they ask about it?And, even if it is entirely biological, is there anything even slightly harmful about it, to justify atheism?

quote:

---

This is the easy answer.

---

John, I have seen your website."Christians are evil" ? You write essays that promote pedophilia? You use your webspace to distribute pornography?And you wonder why God isn't in your life?You sound just like Nos482. Most of your replies were one-liners devoid of any sufficient material at all. I spent actual time writing my post and you will spend time in your replies if you wish to continue the thread. From the Forum Rules: As for the quote on Funkmaster's "god kick": Your argument is circular because you do not believe in God, therefore you see no reason to seek God. If you do not seek God, you will never believe in God.If I had not found a religion I liked, then eventually it would have been expedient for me to investigate Thor. However, Thor is way down the list because his following is somewhat diminished these days. A dead religion is not likely to be the correct religion because the gods (especially the Grecian gods) demanded appeasement. Christianity, however, is thriving.You assertion is not sound.Taken with your (and others, only Primordia Egg has acted appropriately in this thread) bad behavior, and the offensive commentaries on your personal website, are encouraging to me do what I should have done on the first appearance of Nos482: resign. Your comments are remarkably similar to those of Nos. You might want to consider that in the future.As for David unfamous, he is new and is clearly bitter. There is little point in debating him.I'll postpone judgement of the other one (hard to keep up with newcomers).[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

quote:

---

Also, just like the drug addict, you will do anything and say anything to get your 'god-kick'

---

Another ad hominem argument. Why do the resident atheists hate God so much?Perhaps I should resign from this thread, and let the atheists declare victory and leave them to their bigotry pedophilia and pornography.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

Funk: I have debated John before but now I've seen his website. That is a serious factor here.Plus, I expect reasoned replies, not trite one-liners to my comments like "Cute" or "Better than a book told me so" that add nothing to the debate but only serve to insult my intelligence.That's called "Trolling" and it's quite similar to another atheist that was posting here recently, who was eventually banned for what John did in his last post: being inflammatory and not addressing the material.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

Fair enough, I'll stick around a little longer.Is this your website? http://www.hells-handmaiden.comIt's a fair presumption that it is because you keep it in your sig file.If not, let it be known to us that it isn't and my accusations will be moot. Is God non-existant, or have you not gone looking? How do you know there is no God?Admit that you don't know if there is or is not a God and we can move on.

quote:

---

Virtually every culture used such methods at one point or another.

---

But I don't and I'm highly offended by this slander.Guidelines:

quote:

---

Do you habitually duck out when your views are challenged?

---

What challenge? Where is an actual reply worthy of comment?How about you spend an actual paragraph in rebuttal to one of my posts? [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

quote:

---

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?]

---

Even if it is completely naturalistic, does it justify hard atheism? Is there anything actually wrong with it?If not, why the intolerance from hard atheists?

quote:

---

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me.

---

As I said, faith is something you go looking for. It is usually not something you were born with. Why should God give you faith if you have done nothing to earn it? You have to be worthy.

quote:

---

Cute.

---

Thanks, Nos. I always try to be amusing to people who won't condescend enough to give an actual, substantive reply.

quote:

---

Now I am going to get offended. Don't pretend to know what time and effort I have put into finding out for myself.

---

I don't know your background but from what you have placed on the Internet, and the views you link to in your sig file (and personal website?) clearly indicate otherwise.In fact, you seem one step away from being an enemy of God. Here you are, I've done nothing to you and neither has my faith but you are here ridiculing my beliefs as "insane" and (on the website) "evil".You spend too much time on this board fighting theists, and that website is in a completely different league.If my God were real, do you think He would approve of that?I don't see you looking. I see open rebellion and a war against God.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

quote:

---

I would think that the king would cut the insubordination very short. YOUR GOD DOES NOT. Again, this is exactly the point.

---

Then in message 25 he says:

quote:

---

This isn't the guy to who toasted Sodom?

---

That's an internal inconsistency.Is there no God because God allows insubordination, or is there no God because God opposes insubordination? Which is it?The point is undermined.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]

quote:

---

Hard atheism seems difficult to fathom at first - it appears to require as much of a leap of faith as a belief in God (given that you can't disprove a negative)...but on thinking about it further I'd imagine a hard atheist to be closer to someone who thinks the existence of God is about as likely as the Invisible Pink Unicorn e.g I can't prove it, but I believe strongly that there isn't a Goblin outside my front door who's invisible to everyone else and disappears whenever I look outside.

---

How do you 'look outside' in the spiritual sense? You can walk outside and check your doorstep for footprints. The notion of God is not exactly that close to home. Nowhere to look for footprints. A strong feeling that there is a God, and a lot more testimonies out there than there are for your doorstep goblin.Because of that difference, I don't think it's a very good analogy.Plus...this comes down to either there is a God or not a God. We're not limited to whether the object on your doorstep is a goblin, a pink unicorn, a purple dinosaur, or a couple of missionaries for the Jehovah's Witnesses.So, suppose...that if I cannot open my front door, and I cannot walk around outside to see...and yet I am ABSOLUTELY certain that there is NO doormat out front, so certain in fact that I ridicule people who believe in the Doormat simply because there is no evidence for it, is that logical? And is that not an analogy for the atheist at least that is at least as fair as your analogy for the theist?And also, how is this "believe strongly" different from faith? And is it enough to morally justify opposition to religion? That is, to go around criticizing people that believe?

quote:

---

The problem, dear gene, is that what you posted to me was ridiculous and hardly worth the replies I gave.

---

If you say so, Nos.The fact of the matter is that my replies are not "ridiculous", and they are worthy of a real reply or no reply at all.

quote:

---

I spend an enormous amount of time researching and writing my posts, so drop the attitude.

---

Bull. If it takes you a lot of research to type things like, "Cute", "I don't understand your analogy", and "no the easy way out is to get what you believe from a book" then you lack the mental capacity to be here and you should probably go back to elementary school. (Notice the use of the word "if", differentiating this from a
an ad hominem -- because I think when you say you spend time on this board replying I think you're lieing through your teeth. That can be interpreted as an observation or an ad hominem, I'll leave that decision with you.)What pisses me off is that you have the mental capacity to reply, and you have demonstrated that in the past, you're just not doing so now. You've sunk to the level of Jet and Nos, and if you can't do any better, you should excuse yourself from this thread, because at least those two have more humor.

quote:

---

It strikes me that you are avoiding the issues I am trying to raise, and you don't like the logic.

---

Logic? Where?Was it the brilliant reply, "Cute", or was it "Better than getting it out of a book"?Look John, here is your entire post. Look at how much you have contributed! That took you time?What did your post cover?Well: (1) You told me that my logic was "absurd" without rebutting it
(2) I can't prove something, which is great, considering you can't prove anything either (3) Belief in a God is "insane" without evidence...of course you have no evidence for your faith so I suppose
you are "insane" as well.I see nothing but one-liners with no support. Things like, Oh really? Well I say it is, so there! Why don't you offer an actual
rebuttal? You know as well as I do you should spend a whole post on that, not a string of words that is *barely* a sentence.

quote:

---

This isn't in violation of the rule you cite? And what about this?

---

Stating that your articles promote pedophilia is not necessarily an attack, it is nothing but an observation. (In fact, the article itself is entitled, "The emancipation proclamation for pedophiles". You know exactly what you have posted in that article. Youturned my reference to it into an attack when you realized that pedophiles are not a particularly popular segment of the population and that you could possibly take flak for your position. I didn't do anything disrespectful, I made a statement of fact. Whatever opinions others make of you for that is a consequence of your own actions.Perhaps if you find that disrespectful, you should not post articles like to your website. You also have links that appear to contain porn, but I have not verified them. And, finally, your website does indeed say that "Christians are evil", and it also says that "Christians are...stupid", and "Christians are dishonest".
And that is another statement of fact. For confirmation, one need only follow the link. (Hey, I'm giving free hits).Are you going to claim you're not bitter?

quote:

---

I started out believing. I was raised believing.

---

Then you fell. I don't know (or particularly care) how but I can tell you're not living in a state where you can possibly find God.

quote:

---

This is the problematic question.

---

How do I know? Maybe if you will debate I'll tell you.

quote:

---

The problem, dear gene, is that what you posted to me was ridiculous

---

If my comments are ridiculous, where is the rebuttal? You're only repeating yourself, again and again. I don't think you like what you heard. You're never going to gain favor with God by calling me "dishonest", "evil", "stupid", "insane", or "ridiculous". You're never going to find God by being obsessed with lasciviousness and fascinated with underage sex.You can take that as an ad-hominem or a statement of fact.And I do think you're a "sick puppy", just like you think I'm "evil", "dishonest", "insane", and lots of other things I'm sure are going to come out.And by the way, you said you spent 20 years looking for God. I don't buy it. I think you wasted 20 years fighting God, as you say on your website: "I've been doing this for twenty years, I don't lose".For "garbage", you sure seem to duck a lot of points. Here are a few: [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-08-2002]

quote:

---

It seems you visited to gather material for your ad hominem.

---

I don't understand this. I'm only making statements of fact, by mentioning what you have posted on your website. How is it an ad hominem if you stand by what you have written?

quote:

---

I have been looking for my entire adult life.

---

Except for the twenty years you claim to have spent fighting Christians. Except for the time after you posted your website, which undoubtedly reveals a mind not ready for God. If you don't repent and make an honest effort you will never find God, and what's more interesting, is that you will never feel you have a reason to find God because you don't believe.Your reasoning is trapped in a vicious circle.And you don't like this because suddenly I'm trying to figure out why you have failed to find God. Now you know why I take attacks on my faith so seriously, religion is very personal. I'm trying to be nice about this but whatever you have put on your website is publicly viewable and is not beyond scrutiny, and as long as you claim that your "twenty years tearing yourself apart" is evidence against God anything you post that I think might offend God is acceptable evidence in this thread, as it may explain your failure.Your views, your opinions, and anything you tell us about your lifestyle is potential evidence in this thread as long as you continue to cite your personal "quest" for God. As I have told you many times, "religion is personal".

quote:

---

I have said numerous times on this forum that I am technically agnostic.

---

"Atheist: one who denies the existence of God""Agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"( Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary )An agnostic does not claim evidence to determine the existance or non-existance of God. You spend quite a bit of time and effort denying God. You are an atheist. If you were an agnostic you would not be contending that there is no God because you wouldn't claim to know.

quote:

---

Like this bits about promoting pedophilia?? When you post garbage I am not going to waste my time.QUOTE]

---

Then don't "waste your time" posting any reply at all. It only wastes my time with your garbage.

quote:

---

The trick is that once you perform step one, you ARE GOING to see evidence of God or of whatever else you fill into the blank

---

I don't suppose you can prove that, can you?It's just an unsupported assertion. And it does not explain those who do not believe when they begin.

quote:

---

As I see it, your post to me was nothing but an insult my intelligence, right from the get go with 'its because you are not an insider'.

---

You're not an insider. Obviously God is probably not going to want to talk to you. Trying to explain this whole concept to you is like explaining Monet to the blind. Maybe if you would repent, you would fare better. It's your life, but you have no right to claim we're hallucinating just because your attempt to find religion failed, because you gave up, were looking in the wrong place, or lacked the moral fiber necessary. And that latter comment is not an ad-hominem, it is another observation, and it is necessary to this thread; because you have used your personal experiences in an attempt to justify your beliefs. As a result, your lifestyle is up for review, and you have kindly provided me with the ammunition I need.And, incidentally, nothing I say is unfair because you have said worse about "Christians". Not even individuals, but a stereotype. You need to work on your religious tolerance.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, gene. You don't like your faith examined, but you stepped into this of your own accord.

---

And you, likewise. You may back out at any time and I won't speak ill of you, as you always offered me that option. But what you insist are "ad hominems" are now a vital part of this debate and I intend to continue using them.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-07-2002]