Atheism or Theism?

[fire]

Originally Posted by fire
I have always found it baffling, the on slot of criticism from atheists when a theist or more specifically, a Christian says they have had a personal witness from God of his existence. You can use all the logic, learning, experience and wisdom in the World to explain to the person why they didn't experience a true manifestation from God, but still, HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE they didn't communicate with God? Just because you know/think/surmise that there is no God doesn't make it so. "some things are true whether you believe them or not" (city of angles).

I have never had a discussion in the above topic with out everyone involved becoming like rabid dogs attacking each other. Clearly it isn't possible for both to be right, or true! I guess that is why the discussion always goes bad, each is fighting for their reality. I personally, don't understand the Atheist's. They always belittle and have a condescending attitude for Theists who make the claim of having some sort of personal proof of God's existence. I acknowledge the fact, there are many, many delusional people in this world, but it is possible to have had personal proof that there is a God; in my opinion.

 

[Storm]

It's been my experience that the vast majority of atheists are perfectly respectful of personal experience so long as you don't try to use it as a proselytization tool. IOW, if you say "this is why I believe," they're cool. If you say "and you should too" they get justifiably upset.

 

[BucephalusBB]

................. but it is possible to have had personal proof that there is a God; in my opinion.

And therefor you accept completelly. For an atheist it is impossible to have personal proof for that wich is not there. Of course there is a difference between accepting and respecting. This is not bound to atheist, but differs per person. I also know some theists who would even recognize atheists exist.

And like Storm said, it all goes well untill theists use their experiences as proof for others.. Because it can never be proof for others..

 

[Charity]

I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone but I don't care if someone believes me or not......but I had a personal experience as a child, before I ever knew any Bible, verses, scriptures or etc.....I probably only went to church with my grandfather a couple of times because I was very young. This experience was God, and I can never deny it or even try to explain it in any other way. The atheists that I have used this example to have been skeptical as I would expect them to, but they were very nice about it and I did appreciate that. I may not agree with their way of thinking, but I repsect how they feel and would never try to approach them in any type of debate as far as converting them...........

Charity

 

[Phasmid]

Originally Posted by fire
I have always found it baffling, the on slot of criticism from atheists when a theist or more specifically, a Christian says they have had a personal witness from God of his existence. You can use all the logic, learning, experience and wisdom in the World to explain to the person why they didn't experience a true manifestation from God, but still, HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE they didn't communicate with God? Just because you know/think/surmise that there is no God doesn't make it so. "some things are true whether you believe them or not" (city of angles).

I have never had a discussion in the above topic with out everyone involved becoming like rabid dogs attacking each other. Clearly it isn't possible for both to be right, or true! I guess that is why the discussion always goes bad, each is fighting for their reality. I personally, don't understand the Atheist's. They always belittle and have a condescending attitude for Theists who make the claim of having some sort of personal proof of God's existence. I acknowledge the fact, there are many, many delusional people in this world, but it is possible to have had personal proof that there is a God; in my opinion.

I'm hurt... I thought I was quite a nice atheist. I respect people's beliefs, I simply don't believe them myself. The way I see it, this world is real. I can see, hear, touch and experience this world in all kinds of ways. I know this place is real and that I exist in some form or another and that I'm faced with this environment. I don't, on the other hand, know whether god exists and from what I can see, it's a very unimportant question. If there is a god, he certainly doesn't care what humans get up to. So why don't we all just try and sort out the world OURSELVES and then when we're all on equal footing, we can debate whether there is a god who loves us all.

 

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by fire
Clearly it isn't possible for both to be right, or true

Why not?

 

[BucephalusBB]

Why not?

Because you still see them fighting.. hence the word "clearly"..
You could have thought about that yourself Stephen

 

[sandandfoam]

Because you still see them fighting.. hence the word "clearly"..
You could have thought about that yourself Stephen

The fact there are theists and atheists who disagree (or fight) I don't think makes it clear that both can't be right.

 

[BucephalusBB]

The fact there are theists and atheists who disagree (or fight) I don't think makes it clear that both can't be right.

Even though I disagree with you, I don't think he meant it my way. I think he meant that both can't be right because they don't want both to be right. wich is the reason they fight.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think he meant that both can't be right because they don't want both to be right. wich is the reason they fight.

aha, thanks

 

[BucephalusBB]

aha, thanks

Ehr, well, this is only what I think that he thinks. I must add here that I do not actually know what he thinks

 

[Phasmid]

0_o ???

They can't both be right because there either is a god (theists are right)... or there is not (atheists are right)... that's what I thought... never mind...

 

[sandandfoam]

0_o ???

They can't both be right because there either is a god (theists are right)... or there is not (atheists are right)... that's what I thought... never mind...

Why need your reality be the same as mine? It appears evident to me that people experience different realities, in an infinite universe it doesn't surprise me that there are an infinity of realities and that some of these should appear contradictory to my finite mind. The apparent contradiction is a function of my mind rather than of reality.

 

[Phasmid]

... I'm too tired to get into that...

 

[Fluffy]

Atheists and theists can both be right:
Theist: I believe in God
Atheist: There is insufficient evidence to justify my belief in God
are not contradictory.

 

[crystalonyx]

The thread premise is bogus, in that theists justify their belief by faith, not evidence, where for atheists it is the other way around. Since they are both using different standards for justification, they cannot be compared.

 

[Sententia]

Atheists and theists can both be right:
Theist: I believe in God
Atheist: There is insufficient evidence to justify my belief in God
are not contradictory.

Right. Those are personal beliefs and personal statements. The problem comes when you interface the two.

Theist: Why do you Deny god when he so clearly exist.
Atheist: There is not an evidence to prove an existance. I do not know that god exists.
Theist: I do.
Atheist: How?

...

This is when most discussions go south. In america its compounded daily by the media and the majority of the country. I probably drive past 20 churches or so just to get to work. Most of them have taken to signs or banners proclaiming various beliefs or challenges.

People will generally discuss virtually any topic and will often bring up religion or state their beleifs in ways that usually could quickly devolve because of drastically different beliefs.

The majority of times the differnce in beliefs is drastically overstated... religious beleif normally comes into play only personally and in most general situations does not really matter.

Most atheists will say "There is no god" in the sense that there is no evidence to support a god but in theory their could be. Its just the chance of such is too small to take into consideration. Theists will normally argue the exact opposite in both conclusion and forms. There is a 100% chance that god exists... Two such drastically opposing viewpoints could brew conflict if discussed. (Thus one of the big social rules on things not to discuss... ) hehe

Regarding the way an atheist will discount others claiming such... based on the chances that such a diety exists, the probability of it being a personal god that appears to people in burning bushes or speaks directly to people becomes even more unlikely. It can be postulated that if such an event is possible an atheist can not be certain that a person did not really have such an event. There is no proof either way. This is true but if a person really did have such an event many other things with extremely low chances of being so would also be proven true and largely what would be proven varies from belief system to belief system and is very subjective.

Theists often see this as an atheist being open to accepting that they as a theist can have an experience that can not be proven and can state that to an atheist with the expectation that an atheist must accept that he can not know and must make their judgement based on the plausibility of the story and the person telling it. Not everyone but that particular argument has been used a few times hehe.

If not this expectation they enjoy saying by your own logic you can not say I did not have such an experience. This particular argument I often see as disingenuious. By your own logic you are claiming an event you have no proof of but want to use it to justify some point in your argument knowing full well you are presenting a fallicious argument. (A few actually by burden of proof comes to my mind)

Yes there is a chance that god appeared and spoke to you and told you something and you - in no way misinterpretted and know it to be what it was in the same way there is a chance a Leprechaun teleported into your car and spoke with you and then poof just vanished or that fairies float in the woods and care for all the woodland animals but are invisible and can only be seen if you believe. (In fact the latter two are likely more plausible.)

 

[Sententia]

The thread premise is bogus, in that theists justify their belief by faith, not evidence, where for atheists it is the other way around. Since they are both using different standards for justification, they cannot be compared.

I agree of course but I was just presented with the argument that a theist who communicates with god and because god speaks to them - can in effect - they justify their beleif on evidence and not faith. Largely thats what my above argument addresses.

 

[fire]

It's been my experience that the vast majority of atheists are perfectly respectful of personal experience so long as you don't try to use it as a proselytization tool. IOW, if you say "this is why I believe," they're cool. If you say "and you should too" they get justifiably upset.

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,

if you say "this is why I believe," they're cool. If you say "and you should too" they get justifiably upset

. 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!

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.

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

 

[BucephalusBB]

Please don't get me wrong on this, I am not "proselyting" to Atheists, ......2. An atheist can not and will not except ........ undeniable evidence to support their faith and belief which moves their faith and belief beyond faith...... I NOW KNOW!

The Atheist then calls the Theist delusional, ....... even though the person with the experience knows there is a God.

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?