Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 301 (436240)
11-24-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object
11-24-2007 4:47 PM


quote:
Not only are you a female, but you are also a troublemaker and a spoiled brat.
Take a few hours break, Ray.
When you come back, you will stop insulting people and you will behave like a grownup, or take a longer break.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-24-2007 4:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 301 (436282)
11-24-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by subbie
11-24-2007 6:23 PM


Re: Circular logic
quote:
One must obviously take in to account the nature of something before making assumptions based on blanket conditions.
given that most religions ascribe to their deity the ability and the tendency to use supernatural powers, the fact that no compelling evidence for the use of any supernatural powers has ever been found is evidence that no such being exists, exactly the same as the elephant in the next room that you can't see.
I'm sure you thought that was incredibly profound, except that you're making my argument for me. We wouldn't expect to see God, in the same way you wouldn't see the flea, or the wind, or gravity.
Saying that you've never seen a miracle, and therefore don't believe in miracles, follows the premise. I certainly don't condemn you for it. However, atheists in general are under the assumption of do as I say, not as I do.
For instance, I say that I've experienced God. Obviously that is difficult, if not impossible, for me to prove to you. You might scoff at my faith. But suppose I was color blind. Because I'm color blind, I can't distinguish between red and green-- it all looks the same to me.
Now you go on to tell me all about the color green, and point to an object that is green. I say to you, "What are you crazy? That's red? Dear God, how deluded are you!?"
Now, you know damn well the color green exists. Unfortunately for me, I don't. Does me not believing in it negate the color green? Certainly not.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by subbie, posted 11-24-2007 6:23 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by subbie, posted 11-24-2007 11:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 11:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 153 of 301 (436292)
11-24-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2007 10:31 PM


Re: Circular logic
We wouldn't expect to see God, in the same way you wouldn't see the flea, or the wind, or gravity.
Of course, we can see the flea, if we look closely enough. And we can design instruments that can detect the wind and gravity. Further, my point wasn't that god can be seen or detected directly, but that his existence can be inferred if we see evidence of actions that only god could have been responsible for.
However, if what you meant to say was that god was completely undetectable in any way, including that there is no evidence of his existence through actions that only he could be responsible for, then there literally is no reason to believe that he exists.
But suppose I was color blind. Because I'm color blind, I can't distinguish between red and green-- it all looks the same to me.
Now you go on to tell me all about the color green, and point to an object that is green. I say to you, "What are you crazy? That's red? Dear God, how deluded are you!?"
Now, you know damn well the color green exists. Unfortunately for me, I don't. Does me not believing in it negate the color green? Certainly not.
Sorry, but the point that you're trying to make is completely lost on me. This is the difficulty in arguing purely by analogy. You've got to make your point first, then use the analogy to illustrate the point if necessary. Making your point entirely by analogy makes it very difficult for someone to understand your point.
In your hypothetical, it would be quite easy for me to demonstrate the existence of the color green. I could build an instrument that measures the wavelength of the light that comes off of different objects and show you the readings from that instrument that demonstrate that the wavelengths of the light that comes off a green object are different from that of a red object. Obviously you still would not be able to see the difference yourself, but you'd be able to understand that there was a difference.
I don't dismiss the idea of miracles because I've never seen one. I dismiss the idea because I've never seen any credible evidence from any source that there ever has been one. I have also talked with a number of people who claim a belief in god, and listened to their reasons for doing so. I fully recognize that I have not had all of the experiences in life that other people have had, and recognize that it would be folly for me to come to firm conclusions about the nature of reality based solely on my own limited experiences. I understand that believers have their own reasons for believing. In some cases, I can easily dismiss those reasons as based on faulty reasoning (for example, that god must exist because he created the universe). Other reasons are more difficult or impossible to dismiss (for example, one's own profound life-altering spiritual experience). However, in no case have I ever come across another person's reasons for their own belief that I found compelling enough to accept as my own personal reason for believing.
Certainly you not believing in the color green is insufficient reason for me to reject what I see with my own eyes. And, by the same token, me telling you that the color green exists may be insufficient reason for you to reject what your own eyes tell you. However, suppose 10,000 people, or 10,000,000 people, all tell you that they see the color green, and they can all give the exact same description of it. They can all describe different shades of green, and they can all discern one shade of green from another and agree on the differences between the shades. In that circumstance, it would be rather foolish of you to continue to deny that the color green exists, particularly if medical science can explain why you can't see it but others can.
Now, compare that to god. Sure, lots of people, most people in fact, profess a belief. However, there is no general consensus about what god is like, what characteristics god has, what effects god does or doesn't have in the real world, how to talk to god, whether it's even possible to talk to god, what god does with us after we die, et cetera, ad infinitum. In fact, the list of the things that people disagree on about god is so much longer than the list of things that people agree on that one could make a compelling argument that the lack of consistency or agreement on the basic defining characteristics of god is enough for a rational person to conclude that such a supreme being could not possibly exist, for certainly if he did there would be a great deal more agreement about what he was like than there is.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 10:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 1:59 PM subbie has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 154 of 301 (436294)
11-24-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2007 10:31 PM


Re: Circular logic
As always, NJ, you're one step away from seeing the reason in atheism, but you just can't be bothered to think it through.
But suppose I was color blind. Because I'm color blind, I can't distinguish between red and green-- it all looks the same to me.
Now you go on to tell me all about the color green, and point to an object that is green. I say to you, "What are you crazy? That's red? Dear God, how deluded are you!?"
If you were a reasonable person, though, you would see that everybody who had color vision identified the exact same objects as green. Indeed you could set up tests where you asked people to pick out the green object, and everyone with genuine color vision would pick out the same object.
From that you could conclude that you actually were blind, because the only way so many unconnected people could be picking the exact same object - once purposeful collusion had been excluded - is if they were actually seeing color. In other words, replicability would be your guide to discerning the reality of phenomena you couldn't yourself experience.
When we apply the same reasoning to religion, though, we see another pattern. Everybody who claims to "perceive God" sees something different; something that looks a lot like themselves. There are more than 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone. No religion seems to agree with another. Religions stake out all sides of every possible moral dilemma. It's ok to kill. It's not ok. God hates abortion. God leaves it to individual conscience. God hates fags. God loves gays. Our religion is the only true one. All religions are a path to truth.
If, at the end of your tests, people had chosen every single object as often as any other when asked to point to "green", you might very well reasonably conclude that color vision was a myth and that the people who claimed to have it were delusional, despite their best intentions not to be. Likewise, since everyone who "sees God" sees something completely different, it's clear that "god-vision" is the delusion.
Does me not believing in it negate the color green?
Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean you can't test for it. Just because it's beyond your vision doesn't mean it's beyond your reason. And just because you think you're seeing something, doesn't mean you really are. One in 25 Americans have a serious mental illness. You could be one of them. Maybe I am.
The scientific method is how we verify our own experiences. Sometimes we have reasons to reject them, because we do see things that just aren't there, sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 10:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 301 (436384)
11-25-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by subbie
11-24-2007 11:16 PM


Re: Circular logic
Of course, we can see the flea, if we look closely enough. And we can design instruments that can detect the wind and gravity. Further, my point wasn't that god can be seen or detected directly, but that his existence can be inferred if we see evidence of actions that only god could have been responsible for.
Well, that's the big question. Does anything come in to existence without causation? If not, does it have to be God? If not, does it have to be something beyond matter, space, and time?
Sorry, but the point that you're trying to make is completely lost on me. This is the difficulty in arguing purely by analogy. You've got to make your point first, then use the analogy to illustrate the point if necessary. Making your point entirely by analogy makes it very difficult for someone to understand your point.
Wasn't the analogy obvious? Some people can have experiences completely devoid of outside corroboration. Just because someone else does not have something, doesn't mean that that thing does not exist just because others are unaware of it.
In your hypothetical, it would be quite easy for me to demonstrate the existence of the color green. I could build an instrument that measures the wavelength of the light that comes off of different objects and show you the readings from that instrument that demonstrate that the wavelengths of the light that comes off a green object are different from that of a red object. Obviously you still would not be able to see the difference yourself, but you'd be able to understand that there was a difference.
Yes, that sounds amazingly easy to prove. So quick and easy.
I, as the colorblind man, could just as easily assume that your machine is a garbage-in, garbage-out machine that metes out the functions of your desire.
But really, I could give many more examples. We could use that analogy for the deaf, blind, people with synesthesia, etc.
I don't dismiss the idea of miracles because I've never seen one. I dismiss the idea because I've never seen any credible evidence from any source that there ever has been one.
Well, I think perhaps an easy definition of a miracle is something that defies the laws of physics. Obviously, we are bound by principles and laws that keep things consistent. I fall off a 100-story building, I go splat. If I lived unharmed, there is no earthly explanation for why I should have lived, or even supposing I lived, that I should have broken every bone in my body. People might be inclined to call that a miracle simply because they have no way of rationally explaining it.
Just such a thing has happened on a few occasions. Some parachutists, after their main and reserve chutes fail to deploy, have fallen over 2 miles. Imagine falling for 2 miles at 150 mph. How does one not only live from that, but also walk away unscathed?
Does it mean it was a miracle by God? Are there multiple unknown variables at work that, if combined, would logically explain why they live? I don't know. I wasn't there.
In any case, the point of miracles is that they are exceedingly rare. You wouldn't expect to see a miracle. That's precisely the very reason why it is so special. As CS Lewis once said:
    in no case have I ever come across another person's reasons for their own belief that I found compelling enough to accept as my own personal reason for believing.
    Well, yes, but that seems rather obvious, otherwise you would not still be an atheist if you had.
    Certainly you not believing in the color green is insufficient reason for me to reject what I see with my own eyes. And, by the same token, me telling you that the color green exists may be insufficient reason for you to reject what your own eyes tell you. However, suppose 10,000 people, or 10,000,000 people, all tell you that they see the color green, and they can all give the exact same description of it. They can all describe different shades of green, and they can all discern one shade of green from another and agree on the differences between the shades. In that circumstance, it would be rather foolish of you to continue to deny that the color green exists, particularly if medical science can explain why you can't see it but others can.
    True. But at the same time, millions of people claim that God exists. That doesn't seem to sway you, nor should I expect that it would.
    the list of the things that people disagree on about god is so much longer than the list of things that people agree on that one could make a compelling argument that the lack of consistency or agreement on the basic defining characteristics of god is enough for a rational person to conclude that such a supreme being could not possibly exist, for certainly if he did there would be a great deal more agreement about what he was like than there is.
    I don't see a consensus as necessary only because it limits God. And while I believe that God manifests Himself to people in different ways, there are some things that never change about His personhood. When someone prays to Allah, Shiva, or whomever else, do I believe that they are actually speaking with God? No. When I pray to God, do they think I'm actually speaking to Allah, Shiva, or whomever else? Probably not.
    I am all the more convinced that God is a paradox and an enigma. I can't ever quite get full confirmation about His existence, just as any doubter can't get full confirmation of His non-existence. But isn't that the point?
    Isn't the point to go from complete autonomy from God in pride, to coming to the end of yourself and finally submitting to pick up your cross everyday and follow Him?
    In my own walk I've found that my relationship with Him is like any human relationship; but particularly like a marriage. If you don't invest time in the relationship it will weaken. If you don't devote yourself in sacrificial ways, you will never grow. You will plateau and eventually you will fall away. The relationship will dissolve, and what was once a very clear voice will all but stop.
    When you can no longer hear the voice of God is the surest way to know that you've stepped outside of His perfect will and in to His permissive will.
    I am perpetually haunted by a caveat I once heard.
    If you fail in your devotional life, you will fail everywhere.

    “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 153 by subbie, posted 11-24-2007 11:16 PM subbie has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2007 10:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 156 of 301 (436442)
    11-25-2007 7:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 136 by jar
    11-24-2007 5:09 PM


    Re: Evolution is the alleged positive evidence for Atheism.
    Is that like asking what the positive evidence for not believing in the tooth fairy?
    So a presupposition is the positive evidence or are you saying that Atheism has none?
    Ray

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 136 by jar, posted 11-24-2007 5:09 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 158 by jar, posted 11-25-2007 8:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

    nator
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 157 of 301 (436444)
    11-25-2007 8:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 111 by GDR
    11-24-2007 11:22 AM


    quote:
    I just see this as a discussion about how we view life and the reasons for it. Actually, the fact that we have a curiosity about these things at all is an indication that there is a god.
    Why on earth would curiosity about our social behavior indicate anything at all about the existence of any supernatural anything?
    We evolved to be social animals with really freakishly large, powerful brains. We can think really complicated, abstract thoughts.
    The reason we have curiosity about such things is because we are smart enough to have such a thought and also the ability to articulate it to others.
    It is an enormous, completely uneeded leap to conclude the existence of your view of the Christian God from humanities cognitive abilities.
    quote:
    But he also taught that we are to love our enemies, care for the poor etc. That is what I believe was revealed to him.
    Er, revealed?
    What, do you think it takes divine intervention for someone to figure that stuff out?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 111 by GDR, posted 11-24-2007 11:22 AM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 8:47 PM nator has replied
     Message 161 by GDR, posted 11-25-2007 10:36 PM nator has replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 158 of 301 (436445)
    11-25-2007 8:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 156 by Cold Foreign Object
    11-25-2007 7:53 PM


    Re: Evolution is the alleged positive evidence for Atheism.
    I am asking why you seem to think there needs to be positive evidence to not believe in the tooth fairy?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 156 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-25-2007 7:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 159 of 301 (436454)
    11-25-2007 8:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 157 by nator
    11-25-2007 8:02 PM


    God meme
    quote:
    I just see this as a discussion about how we view life and the reasons for it. Actually, the fact that we have a curiosity about these things at all is an indication that there is a god.
    Why on earth would curiosity about our social behavior indicate anything at all about the existence of any supernatural anything?
    GDR is asking why do we have such conceptions about God with more prevalence than other abstract ideas? He's saying, if people are generally fixated on God, even people that claim not to believe in God, isn't that evidence that something of that order exists?
    Why does the notion of God illicit such strong, negative emotions in many atheists, but warm, comfortable notions in the believer? The fact that such a concept is on the mind is something to consider, is what I think GDR is saying here. I happen to appreciate his reasoning here.
    The reason we have curiosity about such things is because we are smart enough to have such a thought and also the ability to articulate it to others.
    That doesn't explain why God is a common theme among humans, whether pro or con.
    It is an enormous, completely uneeded leap to conclude the existence of your view of the Christian God from humanities cognitive abilities.
    I think it is a completely unneeded leap to conclude that based on our cognitive abilities, that it should explain why the concept of God not only exists en masse, but prevailed through the millennia.
    Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

    “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 157 by nator, posted 11-25-2007 8:02 PM nator has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 160 by jar, posted 11-25-2007 9:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2007 10:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 173 by nator, posted 11-26-2007 7:18 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 160 of 301 (436457)
    11-25-2007 9:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 159 by Hyroglyphx
    11-25-2007 8:47 PM


    Re: God meme
    GDR is asking why do we have such conceptions about God with more prevalence than other abstract ideas?
    Well there is no real evidence that is the case.
    Why does the notion of God illicit such strong, negative emotions in many atheists, but warm, comfortable notions in the believer?
    There is no indication that there is some negative emotion. That's about like claiming people have strong negative feelings about not having a toothache.
    That doesn't explain why God is a common theme among humans, whether pro or con.
    But simple ignorance and fear could easily explain why gods are a common theme among humans.
    I think it is a completely unneeded leap to conclude that based on our cognitive abilities, that it should explain why the concept of God not only exists en masse, but prevailed through the millennia.
    Well, education and knowledge could well explain why the number of gods has decreased as well as the simplification of their nature.
    But the question remains, why is there any need for a positive evidence for atheism?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 8:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 169 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 12:57 AM jar has replied

    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 6202
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 161 of 301 (436460)
    11-25-2007 10:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 157 by nator
    11-25-2007 8:02 PM


    nator writes:
    Why on earth would curiosity about our social behavior indicate anything at all about the existence of any supernatural anything?
    We evolved to be social animals with really freakishly large, powerful brains. We can think really complicated, abstract thoughts.
    The reason we have curiosity about such things is because we are smart enough to have such a thought and also the ability to articulate it to others.
    It is an enormous, completely uneeded leap to conclude the existence of your view of the Christian God from humanities cognitive abilities.
    First off, my statement was that I see the fact that mankind has always looked beyond itself is an indication that there is a god, but it does not tell us anything about that god.
    That thought only leads to theism, it does not lead to Christianity. One comes to Christianity in a completely different way.
    nator writes:
    What, do you think it takes divine intervention for someone to figure that stuff out?
    Frankly I read the Book of Buddha but I know nothing of his society, but in the case of the early Jews it represented a very different world view than that established by their more powerful and sophisticated pagan neighbours.

    Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 157 by nator, posted 11-25-2007 8:02 PM nator has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 174 by nator, posted 11-26-2007 7:20 AM GDR has replied

    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 162 of 301 (436461)
    11-25-2007 10:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
    11-21-2007 10:51 PM


    Silly rabbit...
    I have no positive evidence, because none can exist; instead, it's the negative evidence that supports atheism. There's nothing faith-based about that.
    Argument from Ignorance

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2007 10:51 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 164 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2007 10:43 PM Jon has replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 163 of 301 (436463)
    11-25-2007 10:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 155 by Hyroglyphx
    11-25-2007 1:59 PM


    Re: Circular logic
    I, as the colorblind man, could just as easily assume that your machine is a garbage-in, garbage-out machine that metes out the functions of your desire.
    But that would be a testable assumption. We could insulate the machine from Subbie's desires by having someone else operate it - perhaps, even have you operate it. We could test it on various objects Subbie had never seen before, so he wouldn't have been able to program the machine with fictitious "green" values, and then ask him to identify the green objects before he's seen the machine's results.
    There's a lot of ways to verify the output of the machine. Indeed this is a crucial concern of any science that measures things we can't observe with our five senses. Scientists don't simply put blind faith in their instruments; they have to be verified. We have to be sure that they actually detect what they claim to detect, and scientists have a suite of tools and techniques to ensure this is the case.
    The problem - you've outlined it well, my compliments - isn't nearly as intractable as you suppose. It's simply hard. It's not impossible to see the invisible, scientists do it every day. It's just hard.
    And the same tools and techniques that verify scientific instrumentation disprove the existence of the divine "instrumentation" you're hypothesizing. Unlike your colorblind example, there really is no such thing as what the theists claim to "see." The same techniques that can verify whether the invisible is being seen can verify that it is not being seen, as well.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 155 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 1:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 164 of 301 (436464)
    11-25-2007 10:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 162 by Jon
    11-25-2007 10:37 PM


    It's not the argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance is when you assert the positive existence of something based on the lack of evidence that it doesn't exist.
    You know, like the theists do.
    You need to do a little more homework on your logical fallacies; you keep seeing them where they don't exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; that's how you know when you're out of milk.
    Are you saying you never know when you're out of milk, Jon?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 162 by Jon, posted 11-25-2007 10:37 PM Jon has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 167 by Jon, posted 11-26-2007 12:21 AM crashfrog has replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 165 of 301 (436465)
    11-25-2007 10:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 159 by Hyroglyphx
    11-25-2007 8:47 PM


    Re: God meme
    Why does the notion of God illicit such strong, negative emotions in many atheists, but warm, comfortable notions in the believer?
    For one thing, the abuse we suffer at the hands of believers.
    Why does the existence of atheism illicit such strong feelings of hatred in the believer? Suspicious, no?
    That doesn't explain why God is a common theme among humans, whether pro or con.
    There's nothing common about God. Every individual believer has their own unique ideas about what we call "God"; hardly anyone agrees on that nomenclature. The irreproducibility of religious experience is a significant indicator of self-delusion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2007 8:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024