Atheism or Theism?

[Smoke]

An atheist can not and will not except the fact that a person has actually received real and undeniable evidence to support their faith and belief which moves their faith and belief beyond faith and belief to be described as I NOW KNOW!

Because it's not known to be a fact. If anything, the way such "revelations" often mutually contradict and condemn each other suggests that they can't all be true. The fact that this belief is "proven" and that belief is "proven" and yet another belief is "proven," and the three contradict one another, suggests that believers, or at least some of them, are willing to accept experiences as "proof" when they aren't proof at all.

 

[crystalonyx]

Individual experiences used as solid evidence would bring the whole of scientific research down. It takes a consensus of opinion(may experiments) for any theory to make it past square one. The same holds true if you're talking about "evidence" for god's existence. It takes more than personal experience to provide proof that a god exists, it would take a worldwide consensus, which will never happen.

 

[Storm]

Please don't get me wrong on this, I am not "proselyting" to Atheists, I respect their intelligence, I understand (given the pretty much total lack of personal god revealing experiences in the world) why people can't or don't believe in God. But still, this is the insurmountable problem, . I think that a person who has had a God revelation or some sort of undeniable experience which to them, proves the existence of God; how can anyone say to them "you can only say you believe you had an experience, you can not say you know you had an experience".
If they are right, then God does exist for everyone; true?
The way I see it.
1. A theist can understand why an atheist believes there is no God.
2. An atheist can not and will not except the fact that a person has actually received real and undeniable evidence to support their faith and belief which moves their faith and belief beyond faith and belief to be described as I NOW KNOW!

Personal experience does not prove the existence of God, it only justifies belief.

It doesn't prove the existence of God because those experiences might well be misinterpreted. God might well be a neurological illusion. That's just one argument.

The Atheist then calls the Theist delusional, unreasonable, demented, or a plethora of other descriptive terms which all attempt to lead the recipient of the God experience, and everyone else to deny that there is a God, even though the person with the experience knows there is a God.

I haven't seen anyone here resort to such pathetic ad hom with you, but if I missed it, you should report them. We have rules against that.

This is therapeutic for me to talk about with all of you. Thank you all.

Welcome.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know that I can add anything that others haven't already said, but...

Atheists are sometimes condescending to theists, just as theist are sometimes condescending to atheists. Atheists don't take theists' personal experiences to show the truth any more than they would with anything else, like unicorns or leprechauns.

Most atheists are fine with theists believing what they want to, as long as they don't try to imply that everyone should believe it because of this particular theist's personal experience. That works the other way around too.

 

[fire]

The entire post was too long to quote, so I picked out some random words...

Let me ask you, There are lots of people who know that The monster of loch ness exists. There are people that know ghosts exist. There are people that know aliens exist.
And there are people that know all about their past life.. There are people who know they see the future..

I asume you believe inall those things as well, considering your own experiences?

Not all, but some to a certain degree. If the person isn't delusional; and I think there are techniques acceptable to all intelligent people which can be used to determine the persons mental state. If the person passes the test, and is found mentally sound. Then what do you do with their experience? I think it is a mistake to classify them as delusional, when clearly they aren't, or their experience as though nothing happened, when clearly it did, since we have declared them as sound of mind.
The question then should be; what did they see/hear/ or experience.
Of course they could be lying, but if not, then what happened to them, begs the question.

 

[BucephalusBB]

The question then should be; what did they see/hear/ or experience.
Of course they could be lying, but if not, then what happened to them, begs the question.

Right.. So no proof here. Or anything I could really work with. I would leave the one speaking of ghosts as information, but that's all I could do. If all other aspects tell me ghosts do not exist, there is little the person seeing them can change, right?

 

[Storm]

ITA that it's simply ad hom to call someone delusional due to personal revelation. In fact, I had a problem with that same ad hom when I first came to this forum, but the mods took care of it for me.

 

[fire]

Personal experience does not prove the existence of God, it only justifies belief.

It doesn't prove the existence of God because those experiences might well be misinterpreted. God might well be a neurological illusion. That's just one argument.
I haven't seen anyone here resort to such pathetic ad hom with you, but if I missed it, you should report them. We have rules against that.

Welcome.

Sorry if I have implied someone here has been rude to me, no one has.

I have another theory, which may be better as a new thread, but here it is.
Lets for the sake of this theory, agree there is a God, and he has communicated with random people. The problem I have with it is that most all, if not all, people extrapolate the message from God to mean, now they are the instrument in God's hand to rule the world and all peoples. It is funny how God always tells them to be the leader with all the money/power/and have many, many wives.

 

[Storm]

Sorry if I have implied someone here has been rude to me, no one has.

Oh, good.

I have another theory, which may be better as a new thread, but here it is.
Lets for the sake of this theory, agree there is a God, and he has communicated with random people. The problem I have with it is that most all, if not all, people extrapolate the message from God to mean, now they are the instrument in God's hand to rule the world and all peoples. It is funny how God always tells them to be the leader with all the money/power/and have many, many wives.

Heh, frubals.

This is exactly why I don't trust second-hand revelation. People get God and themselves confused far too easily.