i am a weak atheist with respect to a general god, some higher power that say created the universe. if you think you talk to an invisible being then you have made a claim of physical reality, that somehow you are being communicated to. now, if you can give some evidence of this or at least show some part of the brain that connects to whatever you think god is then i'll change my mind.

like i said, it is open whether or not that is inherently a bad thing if the voice tells you to do something good. i'm just saying if you believe you hear voices and can't give some external evidence of it that is generally taken outside of any religious context to be crazy.

Huh? I don't need a belief that god does not exist to say that you are praying to an imaginary friend. There may well be a god, but when you make claims about the particulars of a god, such as his capacity to intervene in the affairs of our universe you shoulder some burden for evidence. When you go on to claim that this god has the capacity and desire to have a personal relationship with you, you have shouldered an even larger burden and the evidence provided must go beyond "You can't explain this or that specific phenomenon therefore God loves me."

Considering your penchant for pointing out logical fallacies perpetrated by atheists, I'm surprised you would set up such a glaringly false dichotomy as this. There is a lot of ground to cover to get from

"There is no proof that there definitely is not a God" to

"God listens to my prayers and I'm going to spend eternity with him after I die."

You are misrepresenting what is generally meant by a personal relationship with god. I don't wish to debate your misrepresentation. That aside, you've said nothing to disuade the point that you believe a personal god does not exist. That must be your belief for you to make the assertion you made. Why not just be honest about it and quit hiding behind the skirts of weak atheism.

PairTheBoard

maybe you can describe then what a relationship with a personal god entails.

just because there isn't evidence something doesn't exist does not make it reasonable to believe it does exist. as has been said over and over, i don't have evidence that unicorns don't exist but if someone claims they know they do but don't have any proof will seem crazy to me.

There's a significant difference between these two statements:

i) I don't believe X
ii) I believe ~X

Most atheists fall into the first category, but you're mistakenly putting them all into the second.

A lot of posters have said atheists have shifted between these 2 positions. I'm not sure if its term misusage or whim on the part of the atheist. I never make the complaint because I don't overly care about the distinction but this issue has been noted on this board before by other debaters.

We generally distinguish between theists and deists here. Unless otherwise stated we are usually talking about a theistic god who has some interest in his creation. To be perfectly clear we speak of a personal god who at least hears prayers. If a personal god exists and you are praying to him, then what you are praying to is not imaginary. You are praying to the god that exists. This is the simplest logic. If you insist the prayer is to an imaginary friend then you are displaying your belief that such a personal god does not exist.

Your objections to other claims that might or might not be made are not relevant to the above point.

Weak atheist shift dew to theist shifting between A god and their God. Once you give attributes to A God my percentage of disbelief increases because i believe those are unknown.

Not at all. I'm talking about those who insist people who pray are talking to an "imaginary" friend. Or those who assert people claiming a relationship with god are making a schizophrenic type claim.

Atheists who make such assertions fall in the second category while hiding in the logical safety of the first.

PairTheBoard

you do understand atheists!

if someone tells me they hear voices it isn't saying that i'm sure they don't to say that i don't believe it unless they provide proof. until proof is provided i will treat you like we treat every other claim of people hearing voices guide them.

you make a claim, i say, "unless you have proof, i'm going to file you with everyone else who makes that claim". all you have to do is provide proof of your claim and i am willing to change my belief. i am not making any affirmative claim, i just don't believe you until you give me proof.

I think you're capable of unravelling the spin job you put on it yourself if you want to. If you don't you'll just conveniently forget my explanation anyway.


If someone claimed to know unicorns exist for no good reason I would not believe them. But then I'm not shy about admitting my belief that unicorns don't exist.

This isn't about disagreements you have with people over the role of reason in coming to faith. It's about you making assertions of a strong atheist while claiming to be a weak atheist.


PairTheBoard

Do you expect me to believe you honestly think having a relationship with god means "hearing voices"? Please.

PairTheBoard

So you are saying no theist has ever claimed to have heard the voice of God or that God is communicating with them in some way. Come on Christianity is built on the concept God spoke to the prophets.

LOL...I'm agog.

Don't atheists realize how extremely rare it is for a theist to claim he heard a voice that he attributes to God?

then explain what a personal relationship with god means in no uncertain terms, then this will all get cleared up. my take is that it means you believe you have some communication with god, if i am wrong please give me a better definition.

Here's a pretty good explanation:

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/persrel.html

A Personal Relationship
with Jesus Christ

What does it mean to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ"?

©2000 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.

i read through it and there is very little of anything i'd call a definition or explanation. just a lot of what it isn't and questioning if the terms can describe it correctly. is it possible that you may summarize in your own words what it means to have a personal relationship with god/jesus?

You've read bunny's experience. It generally involves prayer, expressions of gratitude, meditation, possibly a sense of god's presence, and possibly some kind of inspiration or comforting or sense of encouragement or empowerment. Some people get carried away with figures of speech, like Bush used to do. But practically nobody claims to hear voices - except schizophrenics.

Claims made about God doing things physically, like healing or averting storms, are in a different category than the personal relationship with god.

If you really have such a naive understanding of what people generally mean by a relationship with god you should do some research on the subject yourself. I'm sure spendor can provide you with some good links.

But I doubt you will do so nor will this explanation do any good. Your future posts will be as if you never heard it, you will continue to insist on your naive spin job representation for it, and continue making strong atheist assertions about it while hiding behind the logical safety of weak atheism. That is the general approach of those here who preach to us about what is and isn't "rational".

PairTheBoard

An indwelling of the Holy Spirit that you freely act in accordance with.

holy spirit = God = Jesus? don't think pletho is going to like that.

regardless, you say that a relationship with God involves a "sense of god's presence, and possibly some kind of inspiration or comforting or sense of encouragement or empowerment". So, is it my understanding then, that in the relationship with God, these are the things that God uses to communicate back to us?

Can you describe what a "sense of God's presence" means? is it like a feeling of certainty that God exists or what? A sense of peace, a warmth? is it unique?

Also, how do you distinguish between a "kind of inspiration or comforting or sense of encouragement or empowerment" that you get from God and that you get from your own self, a motivational speaker, etc?

This seems like you are simply using semantics to shift the burden of proof. There are an infinite number of supernatural explanations for any given phenomenon. You can either

A) accept them all since you can't concretely disprove any of them

B) pick the one(s) you like the best and accept it/them while discarding the rest without disproving them. I'm not sure how you can then turn around and claim your specific belief(s) must be disproved to be legitimately discarded. So the burden of proof is effectively on anyone who doesn't believe whatever claims you make, regardless of the presence or strength of the evidence supporting those claims.

C) assume that none are valid until presented with evidence to the contrary. This doesn't mean asserting that nothing supernatural exists, simply that even if there exists something supernatural there is no reason to think that anyone has anything accurate to say about it. So the burden of proof is on anyone claiming to make accurate statements about something existing outside of the observable universe.


A is clearly silly. B and C are both arbitrary, but B is terribly inconsistent.

okay, so let's grant that you have these experiences. what god are you experiencing, or is it even the god of any religion? if it isn't the god of a religion, does this god have any definition other than something with which you have a personal relationship.

Unless you believe a personal god does not exist you must allow the possibility that god does exist and is participating in such a relationship. I'll leave it to you to ponder the implications under that assumption. You should be able to do this if you are a weak atheist. However, if you are really a strong atheist, you believe such a personal god does not exist and will be unwilling to contemplate the implications under the assumption that he does.

PairTheBoard

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard
"If you insist the prayer is to an imaginary friend then you are displaying your belief that such a personal god does not exist."


You're not making any sense. Nothing is being proved here except your weakness in understanding the simplest logic.

PairTheBoard