If mother goose exists, then I'm going to pluck her. In this debate about mothers, geese, and nursery rhymes, you keep missing the point by telling me that mother goose probably does not exist, or mother goose as I've defined her is a logical impossibility.

I'm going to summarize what I've been saying all along just one more time, even though you should have figured it out on your own by now, then I'm done with this thread: If mother goose exists, then I'm going to pluck her.

Because not only are atheists experts on cool clear logic and the natural guardians of what's rational for humanity, but atheists are also experts on matters of theology.


Atheist: As an atheist I don't have a belief that god does not exist. I simply don't have a belief that he does.

Theist: I have a relationship with a personal god.

Atheist: Oh. In that case you are suffering from an unhealthy delusion and making the claim of a schizophrenic. You should seek treatment from a certified atheist psychologist or psychiatrist who can help you think correctly like us - with the help of heavy antipsychotic drugs if necessary.

Theist: But if a personal god exists, my relationship with him is not a delusion. How can you preclude this possibility if you don't have a belief such a god does not exist.

Atheist. Because I am an expert on theology as well cool clear logic, and take my word for it, a personal god is theologically untenable. Theologically a personal relationship with god is no different than plucking mother goose.

Theist: So you also don't have a belief that mother goose does not exist?

Atheist: I'll have to check that out with my psychiatrist to see if such a belief is allowed by the preists of all that is and isn't rational. Besides I need a refill for my prescription. All I know is that if there were a personal god then he would be a Sky God and we would have bumped into him by now with all our aircraft and such.



PairTheBoard

Okay, maybe I could have chosen a better reply format than "fixed your post," but it is done now, and I'm not retyping it all!

Surprise surprise, I think we are really communicating, PtB. I would never have guessed it -- in this, of all threads!

Take 2:

Theist: "I have a personal relationship with god".

Atheist: "prove it".

Theist: "If a personal god exists then what I pray to is not imaginary."

Atheist: "Right. so if that is true you should be able to give some evidence, especially if he does actually respond to your prayers"

Theist: "But he doesn't act in the same way other beings act. you can't quantitatively measure how he answers prayers scientifically"

Atheist: "So then what proof can you provide that the invisible ethereal being you talk to is any different than any other god or an imagined being?"

Theist: "That doesn't make any sense."

Atheist: "Of course it does. Give me one trait about the personal god you pray to that i couldn't easily ascribe to any other god or an imaginary being."

Because not only are atheists experts on cool clear logic and the natural guardians of what's rational for humanity, but atheists are also experts on matters of theology.


Atheist: As an atheist I don't have a belief that god does not exist. I simply don't have a belief that he does.

Theist: I have a relationship with a personal god.

Atheist: Oh. In that case you are probably deluding yourself.

Theist: So you've constructed a mathematical model with a probability space whereby the Event, "Theist is deluding himself", has probability close to 1?

Athiest: Of course not. I mean "probably" in the sense of "likely" used as a common expression based on my experience with such things.

Theist: So by "probably" you mean a measure of your credence or belief in the proposition that I am deluding myself?

Atheist: Yes. That's about right.

Theist. Then it's your Belief that I'm deluding myself. In that case it must be your Belief that a personal god does not exist. Otherwise we agree that my relationship with him is not a delusion.

Atheist: I don't know if I can say I "Believe" you are deluding yourself. I'll have to check with my psychiatrist to see if such a belief is allowed under tenets of what's rational and not rational.


PairTheBoard

Because atheists are experts in cool clear logic and know they need to be guardians of what is rational for humanity.

Theist: "I have a personal relationship with god".

Atheist: "prove it".

Theist: I pray to god. I believe he exists and hears my prayers but I can't prove it.

Atheist. If you can't prove it then you are just talking to an imaginary friend.

Theist: "If a personal god exists then what I pray to is not imaginary."

Atheist: "Right. Therefore it's not rational to believe a personal god exists."

Theist: "Why not?"

Atheist: "Because if you pray to him and can't prove he exists then you are talking to an imaginary friend whether he exists or not."

Theist: "That doesn't make any sense."

Atheist: "Of course it does. It's got to because I'm the expert on cool clear logical thinking and a guardian for humanity on what's rational while you are making the claim of a schizophrenic. And after all, if god did exist he would be invisible and we can't have that".


PairTheBoard

rather than trying to be subtle, i'll just post the question from mine

So then what proof can you provide that the invisible ethereal being you talk to is any different than any other god or an imagined being?

you seem to be reading a lot into the phrase "prove it". all i want is some reason to believe what you say is true. that is all atheists generally ask for, a non-circular reason to believe what you say is true.

you say "If a personal god exists then what I pray to is not imaginary.", my question is not what will happen if it is true but why it is reasonable to think it is true. you can make any number of epistemic conditions under which your actions are valid but unless you can show that your conditions are met your conclusions are unimportant.

Have you forgotten your conversation with Aaron W. already?


PairTheBoard

yes, and not every theist is Aaron W. also Aaron W made no claims about prayer, just about meaning, and we never resolved the difference about jumping from a god that created the universe and potentially grants meaning to one that answers prayers and fits a given religion.

Theist: I have a personal relationship with god.

I suggest you look at the massive volume of explanations provided in your conversation with Aaron W. on the

nih-nominee

thread for why no Theist will ever satisfy you on this question. If Aaron W.'s extraordinary communication skills cannot convey the explanation to you then I'm quite certain I would be wasting my time trying. If you really think the "personal relationship with god" question does not fall in the realm of the worldview he describes then I suggest you specifically bring it up to him there.


PairTheBoard

Aaron W gave an excellent explanation as to why it is good and provides meaning to believe in god. i understand the reason he believes it, because he believes meaning is an inherent property. i haven't seen evidence for the assumptions he makes but they are his to make. all the reasons for why it is beneficial to believe in god speak nothing to the veracity of the claim. if you are willing to say you believe because you find it useful then go ahead but that doesn't explain how you can think your prayers are actually answered by the specific god you believe in and not another. finally, i am talking to you, not him right now.

do you really see the standard you set when you have no problem picking at others' arguments but refuse to answer questions about your own beliefs and defer them to someone else?

In that thread, Aaron W. went to great lengths to develop and explain to you the concept of Worldview and why the assumptions you make in your Worldview exclude from your criteria for evidence, any reasons a theist could possibly have for believing a personal god exists. Despite Aaron's extraordinary communication skills you evidently missed the concept completely.


You seem to think you have a right to insist others jump through whatever posting hoops you feel like demanding. Address my arguments all you like. But my personal beliefs are just that. Personal.

You worry about the standard you set with your posts and I'll worry about mine. But while you're in such a demanding mood you might ask if you demand enough of yourself setting a standard for being open minded and giving opposing views fair and serious consideration. When Aaron W. has graced you with such patience, thoroughness, and excellence in explaining some difficult and to you novel concepts, have you really taken time to study and absorb them? Or as you so flippantly responded "yes" to my question, have you forgotten your conversation with him already?

I'm quite sure Aaron will tell you he has a personal relationship with god. Maybe you can start by telling him he is making the claim of a schizophrenic - unless his god is not "invisible".

PairTheBoard

if aaron w thinks his prayers are answered by god then i think he is delusional because there is no conclusive evidence for this very easily testable claim. if aaron's world view is based on a philosophy of meaningfulness then i get what he is saying though i don't agree with it. i'll at least give pletho and the like credit in that they say what they mean in no uncertain terms. but i think it would be advisable for you not to criticize other's beliefs if you aren't willing to have your own criticized. you are telling everyone why they are wrong but won't say what you think is right.

More misrepresentation. What I've done is point out where those claiming to be weak atheists have been making assertions of strong atheists.

btw, You have yet to retract the statement you made on the "i don't understand atheists thread". You said that anyone who said they had a relationship with a personal god (invisible entity) was making the claim of a schizophrenic.

Now you want to qualify your statement with more terms you can argue about for page after page of interegative posts. You are the one who refuses to say what he means in no uncertain terms.

I suggest you engage Aaron W. on this. He seems to have the patience of Job to deal with you.

PairTheBoard

I don't think you understand what a theist means by God answering their prayers. I think you should research it. We can only answer these incessant questions you have so much. Particularly since they're mostly repeat questions and you don't seem to be able to retain or process the answers. Plus you always deny the personal experience element which is absurd. The personal experience element is the most critical. Its mostly why you practice faith. So to discard it as untestable is unreasonable. We have no way of judging your experience when you eat ice cream but when you say it tastes good we accept it. We don't say its not testable. We don't say you're delusional because we don't like ice cream. We simply accept it. Now the more intelligent go an additional step. They try to approximate the experience until they experience it also. Sort of like developing a taste. You could develop a taste for say wine. Initially you don't enjoy wine much but with time you develop a taste for it. Is that unreasonable? Is that beyond comprehension and delusional? No, it simply takes repeated attempts or practice.

Hope that helps.

i believe what i said was with regard to people who think they communicate with god in a literal sense, as in "god told me to ____". if that isn't what i said i apologize for my vagueness but as i recall that was the focus of the discussion, people who claim to literally communicate with god.

furshade: Your statement is a non-sequitor
Pair the Board: But someone else said it too.
Furyshade; What Aaron said was a non-sequitor too.
Pair the Board: Aaron speaks more eloquently than I can

Furyshade: Train off the tracks
Pair the Board: right with yea

That was not the focus. That was what you tried to shift things to rather than simply retract your original statement. Now you're shifting again to "answered prayers". You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about but you're still quite certain the theist must be delusional somewhere or another. Or is it schizophrenic?

PairTheBoard

okay, i will retract all previous statements i have made and say this because i haven't cataloged everything i've said and don't want to leave loose ends-

If you believe that an incorporeal being speaks to you personally in a literal sense or has the ability to respond to your wishes and you cannot provide conclusive evidence that this being exists, nonetheless communicates with you and answers your wishes, then you exhibit traits of someone that would be classified in any other circumstance aside from religion as delusional if not schizophrenic.

Theist: "I have a personal relationship with God!!!"

Atheist: " um....ok."

Theist: "If a personal God exists then what I pray to is not imaginary."

Atheist: "I suppose. If by personal God you mean one that has the ability to hear every human word and thought on earth."

Theist: "So if personal God like that exists then you agree what im praying to isn't imaginary and he can hear me."

Atheist: "Sure i guess"

Theist: "Good then you should believe in my personal God because he is real!!!"

Atheist: "I cant just force myself to believe in your personal God."

Theist: "But all you have to do is believe in him!!!"

Atheist: "Like i said i can't i force myself to believe in your personal God."

Theist: "But if you don't believe in my personal God you wont get to join him in the afterlife."

Atheist: "How do you know your personal God wants belief? And how do you know he has an afterlife?"

Theist: "I just do."

Atheist: "But how? Did he tell you?"

Theist: "No. He wrote a book called the bible and through his word and belief in him you can be saved!!!"

Atheist: "Oh thats your personal God, no thank you he kills to much for me and my morals to accept even if he's real"

Theist: "How dare you judge my personal God with the morals he gave you, you're going to go to hell"

Atheist: "um...ok"

Roland32 >> Introduces the word "non-sequitor" to the thread for the first time in a totally irrelevant way hoping form will trump the lack of logic.


PairTheBoard

that's pretty close to the comment that started this ( I think).
you said -
I took it at the time along these lines, " why do we say you're nuts if you claim the communication is by voice, but not nuts if it's in morse code or by celestial ESP or something? god can't speak? There seems lots of biblical acceptance that he can. therefore.... "
Not putting words in your mouth, but it's something I've always wondered about ... if we weren't culture weighted we'd expect those claiming non-verbal communication to be more suspect, they are carrying a double load so to speak.

PTB asks - It's not a unique thought ... books are written on the topic. From the above, we could ask why they aren't titled "what's so special about voice" or some such.

For the record, this is the original post by furyshade. Post 73 on the "i do not understand atheists" thread. It was a reply to Batar.

Originally Posted by batair
"If you said you had a personal relationship with "A God" and assigned no specific attributes to that God i don't think many would care. The problems start when theists tell atheists they must believe in him or obey specific rules based on their personal relationship with him and knowledge of him."




PairTheBoard

alright, but can you agree that my point implied that i was referring to a personal relationship that involved communication? in th second part of the post i clearly talk about voices tell you to do good or bad things, yes i realize i was vague in the first part but you can see where i was going.

i admit that i conflated people who claim a personal relationship with those who believe they communicate, it was an honest mistake with no intended malice. though i don't claim to understand how the two are different i see how many theists make the distinction now.

I thought that's what you meant too and he agreed if someone claimed to hear the voice of God they are schizophrenic.