Howdy

[Ouroboros]

Eating bandwidth?

And excreting verbosity.

 

Perhaps I have been away from debate for too long. Even though this may not count, I will nibble on the bait until I see the hook. I have a bizarre interest in people who see ghosts, gods and UFOs. Call me a spirituspalaentologist. Who knows? Trout could be the next Joseph Smith. Would anyone want to miss out on the next Donnie and Marie?

The early beginning of Troutism.

[Zaramon]

STOP

 

I know that I am new here but watching this pile-on and name calling is disturbing. Yes, this is a forum dedicated to us ex-christians, but Trout has something to relate to us about his experiences.

To be perfectly fair, we did try to have a dialog with him and asked him about his experiences. So far he hasn't said diddly squat about it. Then he wants to know how we've come to the conclusion that his god is a fairy tale and when we ask for evidence, apparently God picks and chooses who he wants to reveal himself to, but apparently we're supposed to be held accountable for God's whims. So, it's not like we haven't tried, but apparently he thinks we're not good enough like him to receive special proof from the Lard.

I dunno, Trout seems to me to be a jumper. He's on the ledge, ready to jump and not wanting to, just needing the right questions.

 

I want to see how he is able to explain his commitment to a belief in a god. I think the right question might motivate him to give a lucid response. I am interested in his god and our ability to not assume his god is the product of a Gideon Bible. I an interested to see if we can overcome our own paradigms of who or what god is and explore the perceptions of the gods of individuals that come across our paths. I confess openly that I have no belief in a god, but I also confess that I laid down the concept of god imposed upon me by my former fundamentalist xtian beliefs.

 

I am just interested to explore the depths of perception of other peoples realities.

[Zaramon]

Eating bandwidth?

And excreting verbosity.

 

Perhaps I have been away from debate for too long. Even though this may not count, I will nibble on the bait until I see the hook. I have a bizarre interest in people who see ghosts, gods and UFOs. Call me a spirituspalaentologist. Who knows? Trout could be the next Joseph Smith. Would anyone want to miss out on the next Donnie and Marie?

The early beginning of Troutism.

Jeebus I hope not... Kill me first if you see it Han.

[florduh]

I dunno, Trout seems to me to be a jumper. He's on the ledge, ready to jump and not wanting to, just needing the right questions.

They can keep that one for all I care. I say fillet and release.

[Ouroboros]

We can grill him for a while, but smoked is good too.

[ShackledNoMore]

However what you're saying is: I haven't seen evidence for X therefore X = fairy tale.

 

You aren't thinking correctly.

Well THAT does it!

 

Now I'm pretty sure Russel's teapot exists. And Leprechauns. AND Invisible Pink Unicorns.

[Zaramon]

Don't kill the patient folks. I can't afford the pay cut or increase in insurance rates.

[Zaramon]

However what you're saying is: I haven't seen evidence for X therefore X = fairy tale.

 

You aren't thinking correctly.

Well THAT does it!

 

Now I'm pretty sure Russel's teapot exists. And Leprechauns. AND Invisible Pink Unicorns.

And THAT'S how you explain your cuticles and vitriolic fluid.

[Trout XIII]

Don't kill the patient folks. I can't afford the pay cut or increase in insurance rates.

 

I appreciate your words, Zaramon, when Yahweh comes to burn up everyone (except me of course) at this forum, I'll put in a good word for you.

 

I want to see how he is able to explain his commitment to a belief in a god. I think the right question might motivate him to give a lucid response. I am interested in his god and our ability to not assume his god is the product of a Gideon Bible. I an interested to see if we can overcome our own paradigms of who or what god is and explore the perceptions of the gods of individuals that come across our paths. I confess openly that I have no belief in a god, but I also confess that I laid down the concept of god imposed upon me by my former fundamentalist xtian beliefs.

 

I don't know that I have anything that hasn't been hashed over a thousand times, I can certainly understand and identify with the atheist perspective on things. I grew up in a household with an incredibly well read, intellectual father who was a pretty mean tongued atheist. When I was 20 years old I saw years of godlessness melt away overnight in him. I asked him many of the same questions that are being directed my way, he answered them in a similar fashion as I do. He had some sort of "run-in" with God.

 

That's where I am, I've had some sort of communication/connection with God, I can't explain it in any detail, but it seems very real to me none the less.

 

I see no logical flaws in basic theism, however I don't think - from personal experience - that one comes to theism by logic alone. There seems to be an additional component, a supernatural component, if you will.

[Zaramon]

Don't kill the patient folks. I can't afford the pay cut or increase in insurance rates.

 

I appreciate your words, Zaramon, when Yahweh comes to burn up everyone (except me of course) at this forum, I'll put in a good word for you.

 

I want to see how he is able to explain his commitment to a belief in a god. I think the right question might motivate him to give a lucid response. I am interested in his god and our ability to not assume his god is the product of a Gideon Bible. I an interested to see if we can overcome our own paradigms of who or what god is and explore the perceptions of the gods of individuals that come across our paths. I confess openly that I have no belief in a god, but I also confess that I laid down the concept of god imposed upon me by my former fundamentalist xtian beliefs.

 

I don't know that I have anything that hasn't been hashed over a thousand times, I can certainly understand and identify with the atheist perspective on things. I grew up in a household with an incredibly well read, intellectual father who was a pretty mean tongued atheist. When I was 20 years old I saw years of godlessness melt away overnight in him. I asked him many of the same questions that are being directed my way, he answered them in a similar fashion as I do. He had some sort of "run-in" with God.

 

That's where I am, I've had some sort of communication/connection with God, I can't explain it in any detail, but it seems very real to me none the less.

 

I see no logical flaws in basic theism, however I don't think - from personal experience - that one comes to theism by logic alone. There seems to be an additional component, a supernatural component, if you will.

I hear in you the thoughts of my own son. I am one who came to believe that the supernatural is explained by the world of the natural. Science is a dirty word, it is pornography for the 'restofus'. God is such an easy answer if you can throw out all that you do not wish God to be.

 

I believe that your epiphany was quite real to you. I think that I almost had an epiphany once, a glimpse of what makes our sense of being immortal. With all honesty I sit here with chin in hand, having had an hour conversation with my thirteen year old son about what a future is, how we shape it by our effort and thought. I have not taught him to believe an anything more than what he can do for himself and this world. And I await his epiphany.

 

Sometimes, when the sun is shining between the leaves soaked with dew, I think I see god. I think there is reason to believe in an order of matter. But the grass grows, the sun rises, the entire universe behaves as it does without benefit of me or a god. God might have represented him or herself to you in a fashion that only you can understand. And god exists without benefit of definition of either of us. God is the wrinkles of the grey matter that rests in our skulls.

 

If you wish to call that "God" then good for you. Being a son of Oklahoma and a Child of Virginia I can understand the dichotamy of reason and common sense. And being a child of curiosity I long to hear of your epiphany.

 

What is god to you?

[godsfavoritecolor]

I don't know that I have anything that hasn't been hashed over a thousand times, I can certainly understand and identify with the atheist perspective on things. I grew up in a household with an incredibly well read, intellectual father who was a pretty mean tongued atheist. When I was 20 years old I saw years of godlessness melt away overnight in him. I asked him many of the same questions that are being directed my way, he answered them in a similar fashion as I do. He had some sort of "run-in" with God.

 

That's where I am, I've had some sort of communication/connection with God, I can't explain it in any detail, but it seems very real to me none the less.

 

I see no logical flaws in basic theism, however I don't think - from personal experience - that one comes to theism by logic alone. There seems to be an additional component, a supernatural component, if you will.

Sorry about your father. Maybe he suffered from a stroke.

 

Echoing Zaramon

What is god to you?

, how do you define your god with no basic logical flaws?

[Tabula Rasa]

Hi, I'm Trout.

 

I'm pretty sure God exists.

 

I think he does too Trout, I just don't believe he's an omnipotent asshole named Yahweh who tortures people in hell forever for refusing to worship him, or for worshipping another god, or none at all.

 

Whether or not there is a God: "If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell, than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant."

 

If your god exists, I refuse to worship him, because he's a fucking monster.

[Trout XIII]

Hi, I'm Trout.

 

I'm pretty sure God exists.

 

I think he does too Trout, I just don't believe he's an omnipotent asshole named Yahweh who tortures people in hell forever for refusing to worship him, or for worshipping another god, or none at all.

 

Whether or not there is a God: "If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell, than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant."

 

If your god exists, I refuse to worship him, because he's a fucking monster.

 

I would refuse to worship that god as well, TR.

[Neon Genesis]

That's where I am, I've had some sort of communication/connection with God, I can't explain it in any detail, but it seems very real to me none the less.

 

I see no logical flaws in basic theism, however I don't think - from personal experience - that one comes to theism by logic alone. There seems to be an additional component, a supernatural component, if you will.

Expect there's some problems with using personal subjective experiences to prove the existence of God. Those being that your experience was subjective and it was personal, meaning it means nothing to anyone else who didn't have the experience. Let's say I told you that I had a personal experience in which I predicted a major disaster like an earthquake or a hurricane. If I simply told you that I had the experience, you wouldn't expect me to believe you unless I could prove to you that I could predict the future, right? Now let's say that I told you that you can't prove that I did not have the experience. And since you can't prove a negative, that is in this case, my claim that I could predict the future, then you just had to take it on faith that I'm a physic. Then all I had to do was come up with a bunch of excuses to answer your questions about my obvious paranormal experiences. Therefore, since you can't prove I did not have the experience, that means I did have the experience. To quote Thomas Paine from the Age Of Reason

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication—after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him. When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention

 

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

 

When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this—for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so—it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

Muhammed also claimed to have a personal subjective experience when he claimed that the angel Gabriel appeared before him. You claim that there are no logical flaws in theism, so why should I believe you over Muhammed? If there are no logical flaws in theism, then this means you think there are logical flaws in atheism, right? So, if there are logical flaws in atheism, what are they? And if God really wanted us to believe him, why doesn't he tell everyone directly instead of having other people do his dirty work for him? Since God can never seem to have his oh so important messages relayed to us without using a mediator, I can only presume that if God exists, he doesn't care if we worship him or not or he must not exist.

[Trout XIII]

I believe that your epiphany was quite real to you. I think that I almost had an epiphany once, a glimpse of what makes our sense of being immortal. With all honesty I sit here with chin in hand, having had an hour conversation with my thirteen year old son about what a future is, how we shape it by our effort and thought. I have not taught him to believe an anything more than what he can do for himself and this world. And I await his epiphany.

 

That's a scary place to be with children. I certainly know that from my perspective as a Christian it was hard for me to raise free-thinking children, but right or wrong I tried my best to expose them to many belief and non-belief systems and let them decide for themselves what they were going to be when they grew up. I didn't force them to go to church or youth group or any other church function. (Other than the occasional wedding/funeral) I really avoided telling them what they should believe, I wanted them to become adults and become themselves, grow into who they are. They both seem to be healthy well-adjusted people, one attends church regularly, the other does not. I don't speak at length about theism/atheism with them at all. I am of the belief that God communicates with whomever He chooses.

 

Sometimes, when the sun is shining between the leaves soaked with dew, I think I see god. I think there is reason to believe in an order of matter. But the grass grows, the sun rises, the entire universe behaves as it does without benefit of me or a god. God might have represented him or herself to you in a fashion that only you can understand. And god exists without benefit of definition of either of us. God is the wrinkles of the grey matter that rests in our skulls.

 

As a boy, my father made me watch Carl Sagan, lots of Carl Sagan. One thing that I was able to appreciate about Sagan was the way he reverently spoke of the cosmos, he was filled with wonder and joy as he poured out adjective after adjective explaining it's vastness and unpredictability. At the very least, he maintained "wonder" about the whole thing. Many modern theistic thinkers tend to claim they have the universe in a jar and understand it's intricate details. You don't strike me as one of those. Thank you, Zaramon.

 

 

What is god to you?

 

Why not ask a tough question?

 

I guess I'd say, Creator and Sustainer of everything. Much more than that and I'd be speaking of things I have no business trying to explain.

[Trout XIII]

Since God can never seem to have his oh so important messages relayed to us without using a mediator, I can only presume that if God exists, he doesn't care if we worship him or not or he must not exist.

 

Perhaps He chooses to communicate to only certain people? Perhaps you aren't one of those people?

[Antlerman]

Oh this is just crap. Go play your game elsewhere troll. Bye.

[Heimdall]

Perhaps He chooses to communicate to only certain people? Perhaps you aren't one of those people?

Perhaps certain people choose to lie and say that he communicated with them (for reasons of personal fame and wealth). Do you choose to communicate only with certain of your children and do you communicate with them secretly so that the other children have only their word (without your backing) as to what you said and want? A deity that did such should expect his other children to doubt his very existence and for very good reason. If he/she/it choose to communicate/desired worship and we were created in his/her/its form (spiritually/physically/mentally), he/she/it would know to speak to us all, not just "favored" individuals. Sorry your contention makes no logical sense at all - Heimdall

[Neon Genesis]

Perhaps He chooses to communicate to only certain people? Perhaps you aren't one of those people?

You're avoiding my question. Why should I believe that God had an experience with you but not Muhammed? Simply saying you had the experience is not enough. You have to present evidence. If you have no evidence or are incapable of presenting evidence, then your claims of experience are totally worthless and you're wasting our time. Besides, doesn't the bible say God shows no partiality to anyone? Why is he showing partiality to you by revealing himself to you but not us? Or are you saying God lied? You're still refusing to answer the question. Simply saying that God chooses who he wants to appear to does not answer the question as to WHY HE CHOOSES to appear to some people if he really wants us to believe. If you refuse to answer why, you're a troll that's wasting our time.

[chefranden]

Since God can never seem to have his oh so important messages relayed to us without using a mediator, I can only presume that if God exists, he doesn't care if we worship him or not or he must not exist.

 

Perhaps He chooses to communicate to only certain people? Perhaps you aren't one of those people?

 

So what has God told you? Has he given you something useful like the plans to a faster than light space ship? Perhaps he told you where that missing sock was?

[Abiyoyo]

Perhaps He chooses to communicate to only certain people? Perhaps you aren't one of those people?

 

I see your getting roasted here Trout, and I probably will as well; but I agree. If we are talking Bible God, for Bible God, then it is only fair to point out that Bible God does usually ''choose'' the people He wishes to communicate with. But... then usually Biblically, He shows signs to most of His people. So, maybe the question here should be, Why doesn't He show His creation any signs? Which is impossible to answer really, because it is based on the individual interpretation from the person that asked the question; thus making it an individual inquiry, making it a matter of if that person is a ''chosen'' vessel or not. So, back to the general. The cold fact is that to many people, God does show them signs, which would make the inquiry of God showing a group a sign pointless. Then, you have to determine what kind of sign would be sufficient, which is a whole other conversation.

 

So, yes, Biblically, God choses certain ''chosen'' ones to communicate through, and seems He also choses when to show signs to His creation.

[Trout XIII]

Perhaps He chooses to communicate to only certain people? Perhaps you aren't one of those people?

You're avoiding my question. Why should I believe that God had an experience with you but not Muhammed? Simply saying you had the experience is not enough. You have to present evidence. If you have no evidence or are incapable of presenting evidence, then your claims of experience are totally worthless and you're wasting our time. Besides, doesn't the bible say God shows no partiality to anyone? Why is he showing partiality to you by revealing himself to you but not us? Or are you saying God lied? You're still refusing to answer the question. Simply saying that God chooses who he wants to appear to does not answer the question as to WHY HE CHOOSES to appear to some people if he really wants us to believe. If you refuse to answer why, you're a troll that's wasting our time.

 

Maybe I'm not getting my point across. If God is all powerful, He can communicate with anyone He so chooses. MAYBE, He doesn't delegate the revelation of Himself to anyone else. Perhaps He has revealed Himself to some in such a way that they can be assured of His existence yet incapable of demonstrating His existence to others?

 

According to the Bible, God knocked Paul down in the middle of the road and said, "Why are you persecuting me?" If God is all powerful He could do that to everyone, He chooses not to, His universe, His rules.

[Zaramon]

Briefly, this is why I find the word theology a misnomer. To leave the brand of theology one is discussing unlabled creates a nasty mess for discussion. One should speak from the framework of say Muslim theology or Jewish theology or Christian or whatever reference they use to package their particular notions of god.

 

Happy Motoring!

[Neon Genesis]

The cold fact is that to many people, God does show them signs, which would make the inquiry of God showing a group a sign pointless. Then, you have to determine what kind of sign would be sufficient, which is a whole other conversation.

 

So, yes, Biblically, God choses certain ''chosen'' ones to communicate through, and seems He also choses when to show signs to His creation.

A fact? Since when? What signs are those and what evidence do you have of that? And no, the bible doesn't count as a sign. If it's a fact, why don't you try to win Randi's million dollar prize? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html And how is it pointless for God to show a sign to everyone just because he showed a sign to some people? That's like saying since a judge has evidence a criminal is guilty, then it's pointless to show the rest of the court the evidence. Your argument would never fly if you were trying to prove something in a court of law.

[Rhia]

I have only one response to this whole friggin' thread:

 

*face-palm!*

 

Now back to the regularly scheduled debauchery!