Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Even if the infinite of spiritual truth revealed itself to you, then there is no guarantee that you would agree with, surrender to and dedicate your life to its guidance. I see demands for proof as an insincere and convenient excuse.
Neither you nor anyone have disproven the infinite on this forum. Defiant brats denying their maker with a bunch of mental gymnastics isn’t proof of anything other than the evil of such perps!
"All you have is mere belief."
Not true, mere belief becomes living faith when it shapes the mode of living. I have the evidence of my experience with God within. I've seen God work in the lives of others."All you have is mere belief."
Mere belief is invalid because it lacks EVIDENCE. This is a basic concept that pushers of ancient mythology seem to HATE!
Sincerely search within? What does that mean specifically? Intently look around for a god in the recesses of the mind with the expectation of finding one? If you have that attitude, you're already a theist. Do that with an open mind - one ready to reject the notion of a god if the evidence is insufficient to support it, one sincerely searching for the truth rather than what he hopes to find - and one concludes that he is experiencing his own mind.
Apologists hide behind the idea that something that can't be detected can exist. If you have no better evidence for gods than warm feelings within, then maybe that's because that's all that what you call a god is. They don't seem to understand that the absence of evidence isn't just a minor objection, but the proper basis for unbelief. What you have are intuitions that are fallaciously considered evidence for a god. If you look deep within and with sincerity, you can confirm that all you have is a feeling and a conclusion about its origin that you can't justify.
You need evidence that the feeling that you assume is a god is actually a god and not just a feeling.
Translation: loosen your standards for belief and stop trusting your own judgment. Does your mind tell you that an idea in incoherent or immoral? Deflate your ego and just accept that if the books says it, you should believe it. Subordinate your will.
He's a critical thinker. He doesn't let his "heart" (emotions, imagination) think for him. He uses his higher centers - in this case, critical thought centers - to direct the passions.
Is that an argument for a god? It sounds like a description of human psychology.
Claiming to know anything about gods is theological arrogance.
Of course he does. So do I. It's been explained to you what the draw is. But religion has convinced you that atheists are evil, and so you impute some find of base purpose in the skeptic.
I have what is as close to the truth as I will ever have. It was revealed through mindful living, which led to the accumulation of a set of beliefs that have served me well. It was revealed while experiencing nature and generalizing on that experience. Of course, I doubt that we mean the same thing by the word truth. We have different criteria for using that word.
This is (in part) why I'm an antitheist. Look at what it teaches.
That is only because you do not have any evidence. All that you are are bad arguments. Irrational beliefs cause people to try to blame others. If people ask me how we know that evolution is a fact I can show them. With observations, evidence, and logic. You have nothing but blame shifting.
If you cannot understand basic logic and reasoning that is not our fault. That you have failed to meet your burden of proof has been explained to you endlessly. That your reasoning is very often self contradictory has been explained to you endlessly. That you cannot support the use of your own holy book has been explained to you endlessly.
God is a subjective experience. If you don't want to cooperate with God then don't.
I have consistently maintained that spirituality is a subjective experience. Atheists hide behind the demands of subjective proofs.
Number one rule, quotes without sources and links are worthless in a debate. One can and should ignore claims that are just cut and paste nonsense. Second your opening statement amounted to you admitting that all that you have is confirmation bias. You would not believe a Hindu or a Muslim that only had confirmation bias, why should anyone believe you?
Your claim of confirmation bias is just confirmation bias of your own. Spirituality is a subjective experience; but you have a thick head and cannot seem to understand that!? We cannot prove the God experience to you objectively, and you know that! If you ever want to find the God of subjective experience then you will need to do that on your own rather then hide behind your demands which no one can meet and run away claiming victory.
Your forgot Dragon Ball Z
I never meant to imply that NDE studies offered proof of the afterlife. I personally believe there isn't an afterlife and that NOTHING so far proves an afterlife. I just meant that scientists have acknowledged that survival of the consciousness is a subject that science has wanted to delve into--typically they wouldn't touch anything supernatural with a 10-fot pole but there were enough anecdotes from varied people that made it an intriguing study. I don't believe they found any evidence to support the conclusion that consciousness survives death.
My objection is that Christians don't make a disclaimer stating that what they're saying is a matter of faith, not fact. But of course their no. 1 priority is to get people to believe in and accept Jesus at any cost, even honesty. I've often wondered about that. For them is it a matter of sincerely believing people's lives would be better with a millstone like Jesus around their necks or is it a case of misery loves company? I'd put my money on the latter.
Atheists don't go out of their way to say, "There is no God". It's only in reaction to Christians saying, "There is a God." If Christians kept their mouths shut and didn't try to convince everything that walks on two or four legs that they need Jesus then there wouldn't be a need for atheists say "Jesus is imaginary" would there?I would disagree with that if that said atheist declared, "There is no God!", or that science proves there is no God. Both are matters of faith, and likewise is bad faith and bad science.
Again, atheists don't act, they react. If Christians would just keep their gd mouths shut atheists would have no need to exclaim, "There is no God."
Yes and Joseph smith was clearly lying and making stuff up . and we show that to be true.
Ok So
It is funny (and telling) that you are intencionally finding creative ways to avoid the burden proof
No, when I have the burden of proof I supply it. But for you to demand it you must act as an honest interlocutor. You free up others to ignore you when you do not do what you demand of others.
He did not claim that. Why did you misinterpret his post in that manner? Remember what I said about being an honest interlocutor? That means that you need to respond to what was said. Not what you wish was said.
But we know that some of them were not. That is demonstrable. Some of them clearly made things up. The author of Matthew is well known for it. And this is a claim of yours that again would put a heavy burden of proof upon you. You cannot claim to have that evidence if you cannot support it.
Pretty much anything is possible. Is it probable, is the better question.
We don't even have eyewitness testimony. We have hearsay reports. Never mind that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Never mind that we don't even have that. Never mind that we don't even know the identity of the people providing these reports. Never mind that we can't even interview the people providing these so-called reports. Never mind that some of them copied large swaths of this "reporting" from other so-called witnesses. Never mind that just because someone is able to identify a location that existed at the time they existed, doesn't mean that every single other thing they say is accurate and true. You still seem to be arguing the Spider Man defence on that one.