View this page "Red, Hot, Love"

[Drafterman]

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[Checkers]

chx
if this is a window into your line of thought then...

this reminds of of the quote i read in TG's posts.
"love is a friendship on fire" ...and when the fire goes out the
friendship is destroyed.

conclusion, you guys have no idea what Love is!

same for your perception of 'hot' and 'red' - what about boiling
water, how red can that be.

there is more to what you use here in your analogy than meets the eye.
it is a whole collection of senses plus more. the senses are always
the same for all of us. words are what this is all about. words are
there for us to communicate those senses. we don't learn what heat is
or the color of heat (more a mix of warm colors but actually it is the
cool colors that are hotter) no one teaches you what love is, Love
happens (if you are fortunate)

only an open heart can know God. yea yea, your probable comment "as in
open heart surgery" bah! fools.


On Jul 29, 4:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 12:24 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
> if this is a window into your line of thought then...
>
> this reminds of of the quote i read in TG's posts.
> "love is a friendship on fire" ...and when the fire goes out the
> friendship is destroyed.
>
> conclusion, you guys have no idea what Love is!
>
> same for your perception of 'hot' and 'red' - what about boiling
> water, how red can that be.

Not at all. What are you going on about?

>
> there is more to what you use here in your analogy than meets the eye.
> it is a whole collection of senses plus more. the senses are always
> the same for all of us. words are what this is all about. words are
> there for us to communicate those senses. we don't learn what heat is
> or the color of heat (more a mix of warm colors but actually it is the
> cool colors that are hotter) no one teaches you what love is, Love
> happens (if you are fortunate)
>
> only an open heart can know God.

Why should I believe that?

> yea yea, your probable comment "as in
> open heart surgery" bah! fools.

>
> On Jul 29, 4:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

> > work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Checkers]

On Jul 29, 6:45 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 12:24 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > chx
> > if this is a window into your line of thought then...
>
> > this reminds of of the quote i read in TG's posts.
> > "love is a friendship on fire" ...and when the fire goes out the
> > friendship is destroyed.
>
> > conclusion, you guys have no idea what Love is!
>
> > same for your perception of 'hot' and 'red' - what about boiling
> > water, how red can that be.
>
> Not at all. What are you going on about?

chx
i had the exact same reaction reading your OP

> > there is more to what you use here in your analogy than meets the eye.
> > it is a whole collection of senses plus more. the senses are always
> > the same for all of us. words are what this is all about. words are
> > there for us to communicate those senses. we don't learn what heat is
> > or the color of heat (more a mix of warm colors but actually it is the
> > cool colors that are hotter) no one teaches you what love is, Love
> > happens (if you are fortunate)
>
> > only an open heart can know God.
>
> Why should I believe that?

chx
you don't have to believe anything i say. feel free to explore. no one
convinced me, i discovered the 'open heart approach' on my own. at
first i felt kinda foolish back then but i was pesrsistent to know
this 'God', somewhere, somehow it just happened and ...seek and you
will find.

>
> > yea yea, your probable comment "as in
> > open heart surgery" bah! fools.
>
> > On Jul 29, 4:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love
> > > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> > > work.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 1:35 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 6:45 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 12:24 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > chx
> > > if this is a window into your line of thought then...
>
> > > this reminds of of the quote i read in TG's posts.
> > > "love is a friendship on fire" ...and when the fire goes out the
> > > friendship is destroyed.
>
> > > conclusion, you guys have no idea what Love is!
>
> > > same for your perception of 'hot' and 'red' - what about boiling
> > > water, how red can that be.
>
> > Not at all. What are you going on about?
>
> chx
> i had the exact same reaction reading your OP

Well, between responding to gibberish and answering questions I'd
rather to the latter. But if babbling on makes you feel good, so be
it.

>
> > > there is more to what you use here in your analogy than meets the eye.
> > > it is a whole collection of senses plus more. the senses are always
> > > the same for all of us. words are what this is all about. words are
> > > there for us to communicate those senses. we don't learn what heat is
> > > or the color of heat (more a mix of warm colors but actually it is the
> > > cool colors that are hotter) no one teaches you what love is, Love
> > > happens (if you are fortunate)
>
> > > only an open heart can know God.
>
> > Why should I believe that?
>
> chx
> you don't have to believe anything i say. feel free to explore. no one
> convinced me, i discovered the 'open heart approach' on my own. at
> first i felt kinda foolish back then but i was pesrsistent to know
> this 'God', somewhere, somehow it just happened and ...seek and you
> will find.

Ok, but why should I believe that only an open heart can know God?

[semi]

quote:
So, you say you "experience" the Holy Spirit? Good for you, but you
have no way of knowing.

reply:
To many Christians, saying "you don't know" when it comes to spiritual
truths is like being a liar the same way an atheist might supposedly
feel a Christian has no way of knowing what they believe is true.

I read your last response to me in another topic and you say that if I
see a rock and come to the conclusion that the rock is there, that was
me using reasoning. Perhaps why we view differently on such an example
may lead to some root in our differences with views on Christianity
and Atheism.

The example should have portrayed a person viewing the rock and
automatically coming to the conclusion that it's there without even
questioning it. The person may see the rock and just sit on it, but
didn't even question whether they were imagining its existence. I do
not see how that is reasoning at all. Experiencing the existence of
the rock seems rather intuitive in such a case.

Now, suppose the same person goes home and wonders if what he sat on
was really a rock or whether it was his imagination. He can use
reasoning to come to a conclusion, but how does he know if his reason
is proof? In fact, it's quite possible he can reason in the end that
it was his imagination, or because of lack of proof in language for
the experience of consciousness, he may conclude that he doesn't know
if it was a real rock or not. But that conclusion is useless in
comparison to his intuitive experience and interaction with the rock.

On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 1:56 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> quote:
> So, you say you "experience" the Holy Spirit? Good for you, but you
> have no way of knowing.
>
> reply:
> To many Christians, saying "you don't know" when it comes to spiritual
> truths is like being a liar the same way an atheist might supposedly
> feel a Christian has no way of knowing what they believe is true.

How can admitting that you don't know be a lie?

>
> I read your last response to me in another topic and you say that if I
> see a rock and come to the conclusion that the rock is there, that was
> me using reasoning. Perhaps why we view differently on such an example
> may lead to some root in our differences with views on Christianity
> and Atheism.

I don't see how you can NOT think that an example of reasoning. The
*REASON* you believe a rock is there, is because you see it.

>
> The example should have portrayed a person viewing the rock and
> automatically coming to the conclusion that it's there without even
> questioning it.

That doesn't mean reason isn't involved. It just means that it is
intuitive.

> The person may see the rock and just sit on it, but
> didn't even question whether they were imagining its existence. I do
> not see how that is reasoning at all.

Just because you don't see why it is reasoning doesn't mean it isn't
reasoning.

> Experiencing the existence of
> the rock seems rather intuitive in such a case.

Sometimes reasoning can be intuitive. Sometimes not. That something is
intuitive has no bearing on whether or not it is reasonable.

>
> Now, suppose the same person goes home and wonders if what he sat on
> was really a rock or whether it was his imagination. He can use
> reasoning to come to a conclusion, but how does he know if his reason
> is proof?

He can't. All forms of logic are essentially a gamble, as they rest
upon unprovable axioms. This is unavoidable.

> In fact, it's quite possible he can reason in the end that
> it was his imagination, or because of lack of proof in language for
> the experience of consciousness, he may conclude that he doesn't know
> if it was a real rock or not. But that conclusion is useless in
> comparison to his intuitive experience and interaction with the rock.

If this is the topic you wanted to talk about, why not continue it in
that thread? I fail to see what this has to do with the page.

>
> On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

[Checkers]

chx
honesty between two is worth more than anything. the only way I can
demonstrate this in our physical world is the Love my wife and I have.
we just confirmed (is that the english word) our love after 30 years
on the 1st of July, True Love. this is the aproach we must have to God
as well. He loves us already and just wishes us to Love Him back out
of free will. when you know true love, you know God.
BTW my wife declared herself a child of God, we pray together now.

[semi]

On Jul 29, 2:02 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:56 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > quote:
> > So, you say you "experience" the Holy Spirit? Good for you, but you
> > have no way of knowing.
>
> > reply:
> > To many Christians, saying "you don't know" when it comes to spiritual
> > truths is like being a liar the same way an atheist might supposedly
> > feel a Christian has no way of knowing what they believe is true.
>
> How can admitting that you don't know be a lie?

A person may admit they don't know if their friend stole from a
store. But they actually may know.

> I don't see how you can NOT think that an example of reasoning. The
> *REASON* you believe a rock is there, is because you see it.

But that's a conclusion he can come to when he goes home and ponders
on the matter. At the time when he decided to sit on the rock, he did
not reason at all. He was just experiencing.

> > The example should have portrayed a person viewing the rock and
> > automatically coming to the conclusion that it's there without even
> > questioning it.
>
> That doesn't mean reason isn't involved. It just means that it is
> intuitive.

This is the definition I'm using from dictionary.com:

direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning
process; immediate apprehension.

> > Now, suppose the same person goes home and wonders if what he sat on
> > was really a rock or whether it was his imagination. He can use
> > reasoning to come to a conclusion, but how does he know if his reason
> > is proof?
>
> He can't. All forms of logic are essentially a gamble, as they rest
> upon unprovable axioms. This is unavoidable.

ok

> If this is the topic you wanted to talk about, why not continue it in
> that thread? I fail to see what this has to do with the page.

When I read your response in that topic, I figured there was no use in
continuing. But reading your page just stirred up some ideas I have on
how I may know such and such. There is an obvious relevance which
could have been intuitive. ;-)

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 2:18 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2:02 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 1:56 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > quote:
> > > So, you say you "experience" the Holy Spirit? Good for you, but you
> > > have no way of knowing.
>
> > > reply:
> > > To many Christians, saying "you don't know" when it comes to spiritual
> > > truths is like being a liar the same way an atheist might supposedly
> > > feel a Christian has no way of knowing what they believe is true.
>
> > How can admitting that you don't know be a lie?
>
> A person may admit they don't know if their friend  stole from a
> store. But they actually may know.

Ok, and is that the case here?

>
> > I don't see how you can NOT think that an example of reasoning. The
> > *REASON* you believe a rock is there, is because you see it.
>
> But that's a conclusion he can come to when he goes home and ponders
> on the matter. At the time when he decided to sit on the rock, he did
> not reason at all. He was just experiencing.

Just because the person may not be consciously and immediately aware
of the reasoning involved doesn't mean reasoning isn't involved.

>
> > > The example should have portrayed a person viewing the rock and
> > > automatically coming to the conclusion that it's there without even
> > > questioning it.
>
> > That doesn't mean reason isn't involved. It just means that it is
> > intuitive.
>
> This is the definition I'm using from dictionary.com:
>
> direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning
> process; immediate apprehension.

Independent doesn't mean exclusive. In fact I explicitly said that

when I said:

"Sometimes reasoning can be intuitive. Sometimes not. That something
is
intuitive has no bearing on whether or not it is reasonable."

That is, whether or not something is reasoning is not dependent (read:
independent) on whether or not it is intuitive. You are trying to
establish a relationship more restrictive then the definition you are
using warrants. You are saying that it if it is intuitive then it
cannot be reasoning. This is not called for.

>
> > > Now, suppose the same person goes home and wonders if what he sat on
> > > was really a rock or whether it was his imagination. He can use
> > > reasoning to come to a conclusion, but how does he know if his reason
> > > is proof?
>
> > He can't. All forms of logic are essentially a gamble, as they rest
> > upon unprovable axioms. This is unavoidable.
>
> ok
>
> > If this is the topic you wanted to talk about, why not continue it in
> > that thread? I fail to see what this has to do with the page.
>
> When I read your response in that topic, I figured there was no use in
> continuing.

Yet... you... continued...

> But reading your page just stirred up some ideas I have on
> how I may know such and such. There is an obvious relevance which
> could have been intuitive. ;-)

But the rock example only supports the topic of my page. We can agree
the rock is there because there is a physical reference point.

[Drafterman]

Honesty is not the issue. What is it with you Christians?! Do you not
realize that there are more options than "Truth" or "Lies"?

> the only way I can
> demonstrate this in our physical world is the Love my wife and I have.

What does that have to do with God?

> we just confirmed (is that the english word) our love after 30 years
> on the 1st of July, True Love. this is the aproach we must have to God
> as well.

Why?

> He loves us already and just wishes us to Love Him back out
> of free will.

How can I verify that?

> when you know true love, you know God.

And how can I verify that?

> BTW my wife declared herself a child of God, we pray together now.

I declare myself King

[looks around]

Nothing happened. So much for the worth of simple declarations.

[Checkers]

chx
what? do you mean other options as in cheating and robbing etc

>
> > the only way I can
> > demonstrate this in our physical world is the Love my wife and I have.
>
> What does that have to do with God?

chx
you don't see the connection? read on

> > we just confirmed (is that the english word) our love after 30 years
> > on the 1st of July, True Love. this is the aproach we must have to God
> > as well.
>
> Why?

chx
because i don't think anyone will dedicate themselves to another if
you are not honest in your approach (lack of an english word)

> > He loves us already and just wishes us to Love Him back out
> > of free will.
>
> How can I verify that?

chx
did you ever try

> > when you know true love, you know God.
>
> And how can I verify that?

chx
nothing will happen if there is no input from you.

> > BTW my wife declared herself a child of God, we pray together now.
>
> I declare myself King

chx
it is one thing to declare yourself king and another if you should do
some effort to behave like one. you need subjects to be a king
anyway ;)

> [looks around]
>
> Nothing happened. So much for the worth of simple declarations.

chx
as i said, where is your kingdom? are you loved or hated by your
subjects? you cannot expect something to happen if i don't believe in
your kingship. this is where you fall short of ever knowing God. your
search for God was never a serious endeavour, ie. you cannot expect
one to respect you just because you want respect, you must somehow
earn that respect. honesty is a good place to start, yes?

[Drafterman]

No, those would be forms of dishonesty. To prevent a days long back-
and-forth of you trying to guess other options, let me dispell the
mystery.

The third option between "Truth" and "Lies" is "Simple, Innocent
Mistakes".

A person can make a statement that is wrong without having that
statement also be a lie.

>
>
>
> > > the only way I can
> > > demonstrate this in our physical world is the Love my wife and I have.
>
> > What does that have to do with God?
>
> chx
> you don't see the connection? read on
>
> > > we just confirmed (is that the english word) our love after 30 years
> > > on the 1st of July, True Love. this is the aproach we must have to God
> > > as well.
>
> > Why?
>
> chx
> because i don't think anyone will dedicate themselves to another if
> you are not honest in your approach (lack of an english word)
>
> > > He loves us already and just wishes us to Love Him back out
> > > of free will.
>
> > How can I verify that?
>
> chx
> did you ever try

How can I try if you keep refusing to tell me how?

>
> > > when you know true love, you know God.
>
> > And how can I verify that?
>
> chx
> nothing will happen if there is no input from you.

Nothing will happen if you keep this fool-proof method for finding God
a secret.

>
> > > BTW my wife declared herself a child of God, we pray together now.
>
> > I declare myself King
>
> chx
> it is one thing to declare yourself king and another if you should do
> some effort to behave like one. you need subjects to be a king
> anyway ;)

You need a God to be a child of God too. So it seems both of our
declarations have the same worth: None.

[Dev]

Well done.

On Jul 29, 8:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love

[semi]

On Jul 29, 2:25 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > A person may admit they don't know if their friend stole from a
> > store. But they actually may know.

> Ok, and is that the case here?

Possibly. The point is, in a discussion b/w Atheists and Christians,
both think the other does not know what they are talking about. So I
do not see much of a point in saying a Christian does not know they
are experiencing God. Others may see your point, but I don't.

> > > I don't see how you can NOT think that an example of reasoning. The
> > > *REASON* you believe a rock is there, is because you see it.

> > But that's a conclusion he can come to when he goes home and ponders
> > on the matter. At the time when he decided to sit on the rock, he did
> > not reason at all. He was just experiencing.

> Just because the person may not be consciously and immediately aware
> of the reasoning involved doesn't mean reasoning isn't involved.

So give me an example of an intuitive experience not involving
reasoning.

> That is, whether or not something is reasoning is not dependent (read:
> independent) on whether or not it is intuitive.

I agree. But there is an obvious distinction between reasoning and
intuition. And the act of intuition does not involve reasoning.

> > When I read your response in that topic, I figured there was no use in
> > continuing.

> Yet... you... continued...

I said "when I read" (past tense), not "when I read" (present tense).
This should have been clear when I said "I figured" (past tense). In
other words, before I saw this topic I figured there was no reason to
respond to your post in the other topic.

> But the rock example only supports the topic of my page.

I now suppose you see SOME relevance of my response to this topic.

> We can agree
> the rock is there because there is a physical reference point.

Then a theist can say God (as a Creator) is there because the physical
reference point is creation. If this is unacceptable, then why have
physical reference points for love?

[Checkers]

chx
sorry dude, this option does not belong in a militant atheist
vocablury, ask dev, he'll tel ya! it is truth or lies by him and his
kin, no inbetweens and no mistakes. in fact not even appologies exist
in their book.

> > > > the only way I can
> > > > demonstrate this in our physical world is the Love my wife and I have.
>
> > > What does that have to do with God?
>
> > chx
> > you don't see the connection? read on
>
> > > > we just confirmed (is that the english word) our love after 30 years
> > > > on the 1st of July, True Love. this is the aproach we must have to God
> > > > as well.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > chx
> > because i don't think anyone will dedicate themselves to another if
> > you are not honest in your approach (lack of an english word)
>
> > > > He loves us already and just wishes us to Love Him back out
> > > > of free will.
>
> > > How can I verify that?
>
> > chx
> > did you ever try
>
> How can I try if you keep refusing to tell me how?

i have told you, make an honest attempt...seek and you shall find.

> > > > when you know true love, you know God.
>
> > > And how can I verify that?
>
> > chx
> > nothing will happen if there is no input from you.
>
> Nothing will happen if you keep this fool-proof method for finding God
> a secret.

chx
not a secret, it is something one must do on his own, not even a
priest can help. if i could find God, then anyone who wishes can also.

> > > > BTW my wife declared herself a child of God, we pray together now.
>
> > > I declare myself King
>
> > chx
> > it is one thing to declare yourself king and another if you should do
> > some effort to behave like one. you need subjects to be a king
> > anyway ;)
>
> You need a God to be a child of God too. So it seems both of our
> declarations have the same worth: None.

chx
there we go, a breakthrough at last. you are 100% correct! you cannot
be a child of God if you don't believe in the one and only creator. no
stone or dead person can be a God but a living God. one must first
find God to be adopted by Him. He is waiting, all one must do is go to
Him.


for the record, i know you are fooling around. my replies to your
posting are for the interested (the lurkers) hope i did not spoil your
'fun'

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 3:05 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2:25 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A person may admit they don't know if their friend  stole from a
> > > store. But they actually may know.
> > Ok, and is that the case here?
>
> Possibly. The point is, in a discussion b/w Atheists and Christians,
> both think the other does not know what they are talking about. So I
> do not see much of a point in saying a Christian does not know they
> are experiencing God. Others may see your point, but I don't.

The point, as always, is to get from Christians this secret method of
determining how they know. They seem very quick to assert that there
exists a method, yet reluctant to articulate what that method is, and
how it can be used. Since you Christians refuse to enlighten the
spiritually ignorent, yet continue to assert the existence of this
method and its supreme important you are essentially forcing us to
wrestle this knowledge from you. Or you could admit that you don't
really know, you just believe.

This is the issue I'm addressing with you in the Chick Tract post, how
you determine that the Bible is truth. Yet, as predicted, you avoid
addressing that issue. Case in point is here. You've since abandoned
that issue, leaving it unresolved, only to come here. I predict that
you will continue to evade the question here, dodging until you can't
dodged anymore, then simply moving on to a differen thread.

>
> > > > I don't see how you can NOT think that an example of reasoning. The
> > > > *REASON* you believe a rock is there, is because you see it.
> > > But that's a conclusion he can come to when he goes home and ponders
> > > on the matter. At the time when he decided to sit on the rock, he did
> > > not reason at all. He was just experiencing.
> > Just because the person may not be consciously and immediately aware
> > of the reasoning involved doesn't mean reasoning isn't involved.
>
> So give me an example of an intuitive experience not involving
> reasoning.

Phobias.

>
> > That is, whether or not something is reasoning is not dependent (read:
> > independent) on whether or not it is intuitive.
>
> I agree. But there is an obvious distinction between reasoning and
> intuition. And the act of intuition does not involve reasoning.

Correction: The act of intuition does not *necessarily* involve
reasoning. The example you provided, however, is not an example
intuition without reasoning.

>
> > > When I read your response in that topic, I figured there was no use in
> > > continuing.
> > Yet... you... continued...
>
> I said "when I read" (past tense), not "when I read" (present tense).
> This should have been clear when I said "I figured" (past tense). In
> other words, before I saw this topic I figured there was no reason to
> respond to your post in the other topic.
>
> > But the rock example only supports the topic of my page.
>
> I now suppose you see SOME relevance of my response to this topic.

More than usual relevance, I admit.

>
> > We can agree
> > the rock is there because there is a physical reference point.
>
> Then a theist can say God (as a Creator) is there because the physical
> reference point is creation.

This is assumptive. Calling the universe "creation" assumes a creator
in the first place. What reason do we have to call the universe a
"creation"?

> If this is unacceptable, then why have
> physical reference points for love?

It isn't our decision. Do you think that everyone just agrees to smile
when they're happy?

[Checkers]

On Jul 29, 9:02 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Well done.

chx
patronizing i see ;)

>
> On Jul 29, 8:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/red-hot-love
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

[Drafterman]

Dev does not speak conclusively for me, so bringing him into the
conversation is just a diversionary tactic. If you want to address the
issue at hand, I can wait.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > the only way I can
> > > > > demonstrate this in our physical world is the Love my wife and I have.
>
> > > > What does that have to do with God?
>
> > > chx
> > > you don't see the connection? read on
>
> > > > > we just confirmed (is that the english word) our love after 30 years
> > > > > on the 1st of July, True Love. this is the aproach we must have to God
> > > > > as well.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > chx
> > > because i don't think anyone will dedicate themselves to another if
> > > you are not honest in your approach (lack of an english word)
>
> > > > > He loves us already and just wishes us to Love Him back out
> > > > > of free will.
>
> > > > How can I verify that?
>
> > > chx
> > > did you ever try
>
> > How can I try if you keep refusing to tell me how?
>
> i have told you, make an honest attempt...seek and you shall find.

And how do I do that? Describe an "honest attempt" give me parameters
on how to "seek".

>
> > > > > when you know true love, you know God.
>
> > > > And how can I verify that?
>
> > > chx
> > > nothing will happen if there is no input from you.
>
> > Nothing will happen if you keep this fool-proof method for finding God
> > a secret.
>
> chx
> not a secret, it is something one must do on his own, not even a
> priest can help. if i could find God, then anyone who wishes can also.

And what is the basis for that claim? How can you know that anyone can
find God?

>
> > > > > BTW my wife declared herself a child of God, we pray together now.
>
> > > > I declare myself King
>
> > > chx
> > > it is one thing to declare yourself king and another if you should do
> > > some effort to behave like one. you need subjects to be a king
> > > anyway ;)
>
> > You need a God to be a child of God too. So it seems both of our
> > declarations have the same worth: None.
>
> chx
> there we go, a breakthrough at last. you are 100% correct! you cannot
> be a child of God if you don't believe in the one and only creator.

That's not what I said at all. Even if you believe in a God you still
need one to exist to be a child of one.

> no
> stone or dead person can be a God but a living God. one must first
> find God to be adopted by Him. He is waiting, all one must do is go to
> Him.
>
> for the record, i know you are fooling around. my replies to your
> posting are for the interested (the lurkers) hope i did not spoil your
> 'fun'

Actually I'm not. I'm trying to get some worthwhile answers out of
you, despite your attempts at resistence.

[semi]

On Jul 29, 3:18 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point, as always, is to get from Christians this secret method of
> determining how they know. They seem very quick to assert that there
> exists a method, yet reluctant to articulate what that method is, and
> how it can be used. Since you Christians refuse to enlighten the
> spiritually ignorent, yet continue to assert the existence of this
> method and its supreme important you are essentially forcing us to
> wrestle this knowledge from you. Or you could admit that you don't
> really know, you just believe.

But you've put yourself into a catch-22 Drafterman. You want to deduce
ALL truth by using logic, but by your own admission logic is faulty.
So even if I use your standards to deduce something I believe is true,
you can find ways to not accept it. And this will be the case not only
for my explanation of truth, but everyone's.

> This is the issue I'm addressing with you in the Chick Tract post, how
> you determine that the Bible is truth. Yet, as predicted, you avoid
> addressing that issue. Case in point is here. You've since abandoned
> that issue, leaving it unresolved, only to come here. I predict that
> you will continue to evade the question here, dodging until you can't
> dodged anymore, then simply moving on to a differen thread.

This is an unfortunate conclusion that you reach, for reasons I've
already mentioned.

> > So give me an example of an intuitive experience not involving
> > reasoning.
>
> Phobias.

Random individual: "I'm afraid of heights because I saw Cliff Hanger."

Unless you are more specific, your examples will continue to fail, and
only by your own standards.

> > > We can agree
> > > the rock is there because there is a physical reference point.
>
> > Then a theist can say God (as a Creator) is there because the physical
> > reference point is creation.
>
> This is assumptive. Calling the universe "creation" assumes a creator
> in the first place. What reason do we have to call the universe a
> "creation"?

What makes you assume that the couple holding hands loves one another?
One may be pretending to love the other in order to get some'in
some'in, or they may be sneakily playing mercy.

> > If this is unacceptable, then why have
> > physical reference points for love?
>
> It isn't our decision. Do you think that everyone just agrees to smile
> when they're happy?

Some people when they are happy may not smile and some people may fake
a smile being happy when "inside" they are sad :-(

[Checkers]

On Jul 29, 9:25 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 3:09 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > for the record, i know you are fooling around. my replies to your
> > posting are for the interested (the lurkers) hope i did not spoil your
> > 'fun'
>
> Actually I'm not. I'm trying to get some worthwhile answers out of
> you, despite your attempts at resistence.

chx
look, there is no secret. you are wanting some formulae or secret
ritual or something. there are no tricks of sort involved. if i told
you there are ticket on sale for a place in heaven, people will stand
queue's for these tickets. it is free, this i find is very hard for
most people to grasp. they indistinctly expect that they must do
something or pay for it (nothing is free attitude) He is waiting and
that's all there is to it. we have parents, they always wait for us
with open arms. all we must do is put our pride, our ego in our pocket
and ask them for help not so. this is the price God expects of us,
that is all. no secrets...why are you looking for some complicated
method when it is a simple 'go to Him, he is waiting with open arms'
does that sound too easy, hmm. well it is so easy. what exactly do you
want to hear, must i make it sound complicated for you to grasp?

ok i tell you what, send me $10 000 and i will share the secret with
you ;) you will be conned out of your money dude and still end up
where you are now with Nada!

tickets are now for sale, send your money to ...(watch this space
fools and wait for the space ship:)

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 3:46 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 3:18 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The point, as always, is to get from Christians this secret method of
> > determining how they know. They seem very quick to assert that there
> > exists a method, yet reluctant to articulate what that method is, and
> > how it can be used. Since you Christians refuse to enlighten the
> > spiritually ignorent, yet continue to assert the existence of this
> > method and its supreme important you are essentially forcing us to
> > wrestle this knowledge from you. Or you could admit that you don't
> > really know, you just believe.
>
> But you've put yourself into a catch-22 Drafterman. You want to deduce
> ALL truth by using logic, but by your own admission logic is faulty.

At no point have I ever said that I want to deduce all truth by logic.
I simply ask for the details regarding this non-logical method
Christians use to establish truth. I have consistently asked for it
from you specifically. Let's see if you have decided to provide the
details, or continue to evade me, shall we?

> So even if I use your standards to deduce something I believe is true,
> you can find ways to not accept it. And this will be the case not only
> for my explanation of truth, but everyone's.

Assumption.

>
> > This is the issue I'm addressing with you in the Chick Tract post, how
> > you determine that the Bible is truth. Yet, as predicted, you avoid
> > addressing that issue. Case in point is here. You've since abandoned
> > that issue, leaving it unresolved, only to come here. I predict that
> > you will continue to evade the question here, dodging until you can't
> > dodged anymore, then simply moving on to a differen thread.
>
> This is an unfortunate conclusion that you reach, for reasons I've
> already mentioned.

Unfortunate, but necessary. Until you provide your method for
determining truth, how can I conclude otherwise?

>
> > > So give me an example of an intuitive experience not involving
> > > reasoning.
>
> > Phobias.
>
> Random individual: "I'm afraid of heights because I saw Cliff Hanger."

If there is a reason behind it, it's not a phobia. Phobia is not
simply a synonym for "fear". Specifically it is an irrational fear.

>
> Unless you are more specific, your examples will continue to fail, and
> only by your own standards.

Your response hardly meets the level of standards I apply to myself.

>
> > > > We can agree
> > > > the rock is there because there is a physical reference point.
>
> > > Then a theist can say God (as a Creator) is there because the physical
> > > reference point is creation.
>
> > This is assumptive. Calling the universe "creation" assumes a creator
> > in the first place. What reason do we have to call the universe a
> > "creation"?
>
> What makes you assume that the couple holding hands loves one another?

I didn't assume they love each other. In fact I explicitly stated that
this was not conclusively the case. I suggest you read my page again.

> One may be pretending to love the other in order to get some'in
> some'in, or they may be sneakily playing mercy.

I addressed this in my page. Read it again.

>
> > > If this is unacceptable, then why have
> > > physical reference points for love?
>
> > It isn't our decision. Do you think that everyone just agrees to smile
> > when they're happy?
>
> Some people when they are happy may not smile and some people may fake
> a smile being happy when "inside" they are sad :-(

You didn't answer the question. Do you think that everyone just agrees

to smile when they're happy?

Oh, and you failed to provide details for your truth-determining
method. Again.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 3:51 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 9:25 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 3:09 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > for the record, i know you are fooling around. my replies to your
> > > posting are for the interested (the lurkers) hope i did not spoil your
> > > 'fun'
>
> > Actually I'm not. I'm trying to get some worthwhile answers out of
> > you, despite your attempts at resistence.
>
> chx
> look, there is no secret. you are wanting some formulae or secret
> ritual or something. there are no tricks of sort involved.

Then why aren't you forthcoming with details? Unless you are being
malicious.

> if i told
> you there are ticket on sale for a place in heaven, people will stand
> queue's for these tickets. it is free, this i find is very hard for
> most people to grasp. they indistinctly expect that they must do
> something or pay for it (nothing is free attitude) He is waiting and
> that's all there is to it. we have parents, they always wait for us
> with open arms. all we must do is put our pride, our ego in our pocket
> and ask them for help not so. this is the price God expects of us,
> that is all. no secrets...why are you looking for some complicated
> method when it is a simple 'go to Him, he is waiting with open arms'
> does that sound too easy, hmm. well it is so easy. what exactly do you
> want to hear, must i make it sound complicated for you to grasp?

Well, obviously I need to do something, otherwise I'd already be a
theist! So, tell me what I need to do to determine "God exists" is
true?

>
> ok i tell you what, send me $10 000 and i will share the secret with
> you ;) you will be conned out of your money dude and still end up
> where you are now with Nada!

This is why Christians are worthy of scorn. Instead of being serious
about what you allegedly consider is the most important thing. You
make jokes at my expernse. Listen, if you truly felt that my soul was
condemend to hell unless I believed, and you had a way of saving me,
and you consider yourself moral, shouldn't you do everything in your
ability to try and educate me? No, you just avoid the question and
make jokes, then wonder why people consider you to be a worthless
piece of flesh.

[semi]

On Jul 29, 3:52 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At no point have I ever said that I want to deduce all truth by logic.
> I simply ask for the details regarding this non-logical method
> Christians use to establish truth. I have consistently asked for it
> from you specifically. Let's see if you have decided to provide the
> details, or continue to evade me, shall we?

I already gave you the logical method with reference to intuition. The
logic is in my description of the experience, not the experience
itself. I don't think most people are trying to be logical with every
experience they go through. And I believe that's a logical statement.
If I eat grapes and I say to myself "This tastes good" that doesn't
mean I have to give reasons to myself why it tastes good. I can just
enjoy the experience and know that I know it tastes good without
actually knowing why.

> If there is a reason behind it, it's not a phobia. Phobia is not
> simply a synonym for "fear". Specifically it is an irrational fear.

It's irrational because the reason does not seem to justify the fear,
not because there is no reason.

> > What makes you assume that the couple holding hands loves one another?
> I didn't assume they love each other. In fact I explicitly stated that
> this was not conclusively the case. I suggest you read my page again.

"Thus, our conception of 'love' is built up in the same manner as our
conceptions of 'hot' and 'red'. Love is more difficult to articulate
because the physical reference points are wide and varied and not
definitive. If I see a fire, I have a high level of assurance that it
will be hot. If I see two people kiss, I have some reason to believe,
though not necessarily conclude, that they are in love."

So how would you know that something is conclusive rather than your
belief? In this case would you conclude the fire is hot? Do you
believe anything is conclusive? Is conclusive synonymous with a very
high belief?

> You didn't answer the question. Do you think that everyone just agrees
> to smile when they're happy?

My answer was obviously "No." But I had a decision in coming to that
conclusion. So I don't see how you can say "It isn't our decision."

> Oh, and you failed to provide details for your truth-determining
> method. Again.

The same way you concluded that two people holding hands does not mean
that they love each other. Why should there be such a burden for me to
explain how I came to a conclusion, when the very thing you write
contains a method very similar?

[Checkers]

chx
for the umpteenth time, i have no secret to share, it is as simple as
being honest in your endeavour to seek God. no secrets, no rituals,
just you and God is all, you and Him on a personal level, period. will
He respond immediately, and hour from now or next year. i don't know.
i suppose it depends how serious one is, yes? i cannot answer for Him.
i'd say if you make a joke of the attempt, the joke will be on you.

it sounds too easy, right! well it is so easy. what do you expect.
what else do you want? i have nothing more. i also thought it was too
easy once long ago, it took about 3 years for the 'reaction' if i can
call it that. for some it takes longer. in fact i was thinking in that
direction in my late teens and my endeavour intensified. i never
looked back since. for some reason i doupted somewhat in the beginning
last year, that was however short lived. dev shocked me back to my
senses at that time...thanks dev! we need the forces of the 'dark
side' once in a while ;)

now i have mugabe to fill in for dev ;)

(i think you'll beat mugabe hands down dev) yuk yuk yuk

>
>
>
>
>
> > tickets are now for sale, send your money to ...(watch this space

> > fools and wait for the space ship:)- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 4:33 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 3:52 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > At no point have I ever said that I want to deduce all truth by logic.
> > I simply ask for the details regarding this non-logical method
> > Christians use to establish truth. I have consistently asked for it
> > from you specifically. Let's see if you have decided to provide the
> > details, or continue to evade me, shall we?
>
> I already gave you the logical method with reference to intuition.

Except you have already shown that intuition and logic (reason) are
independent of one another. Regardless, intuition isn't a "method".
And if the only way a person can "know" God is via intuition then that
hardly seems like a reliable method. It would seem to suggest that I'm
doomed to be an atheist.

> The
> logic is in my description of the experience, not the experience
> itself. I don't think most people are trying to be logical with every
> experience they go through. And I believe that's a logical statement.
> If I eat grapes and I say to myself "This tastes good" that doesn't
> mean I have to give reasons to myself why it tastes good. I can just
> enjoy the experience and know that I know it tastes good without
> actually knowing why.

True. But then again you aren't basing the salvation of other people
on whether or not they believe you.

>
> > If there is a reason behind it, it's not a phobia. Phobia is not
> > simply a synonym for "fear". Specifically it is an irrational fear.
>
> It's irrational because the reason does not seem to justify the fear,
> not because there is no reason.

If the reason doesn't justify the fear, then it's not a reason for the
fear, is it?

>
> > > What makes you assume that the couple holding hands loves one another?
> > I didn't assume they love each other. In fact I explicitly stated that
> > this was not conclusively the case. I suggest you read my page again.
>
> "Thus, our conception of 'love' is built up in the same manner as our
> conceptions of 'hot' and 'red'. Love is more difficult to articulate
> because the physical reference points are wide and varied and not
> definitive. If I see a fire, I have a high level of assurance that it
> will be hot. If I see two people kiss, I have some reason to believe,
> though not necessarily conclude, that they are in love."
>
> So how would you know that something is conclusive rather than your
> belief? In this case would you conclude the fire is hot? Do you
> believe anything is conclusive? Is conclusive synonymous with a very
> high belief?

High enough that objections can be dismissed.

>
> > You didn't answer the question. Do you think that everyone just agrees
> > to smile when they're happy?
>
> My answer was obviously "No." But I had a decision in coming to that
> conclusion. So I don't see how you can say "It isn't our decision."

So, when you're happy you always make a conscious decision to smile?
Interesting.

>
> > Oh, and you failed to provide details for your truth-determining
> > method. Again.
>
> The same way you concluded that two people holding hands does not mean
> that they love each other.

That's not what I said. Listen READ THE PAGE. Why you would think I'm
interested in defending things I didn't say is beyond me.

> Why should there be such a burden for me to
> explain how I came to a conclusion, when the very thing you write
> contains a method very similar?

The thing I wrote (if you bothered to read it) shows how the method
you come to "know" God is definitively dissimilar and exclusive to the
methods we come to know those other things. In order for you to say
that the method you use to "know" God is similar to what I wrote you
would need to be able to identify a physical reference. So where is it?

[Drafterman]

Ok. I've done that and nothing happened so. So what did I do wrong?

[Checkers]

On Jul 29, 11:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 4:50 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> > chx
> > for the umpteenth time, i have no secret to share, it is as simple as
> > being honest in your endeavour to seek God. no secrets, no rituals,
> > just you and God is all, you and Him on a personal level, period. will

> > He respond immediately, an hour from now or next year. i don't know.

> > i suppose it depends how serious one is, yes? i cannot answer for Him.
> > i'd say if you make a joke of the attempt, the joke will be on you.
>
> Ok. I've done that and nothing happened so. So what did I do wrong?

chx
you have a serious grasping/understanding problem in that you never
actually read my writing... the joke is on you. however the lurkers
have read it all, including your write.

this is why i noted your write for the record.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 5:47 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 11:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 4:50 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > chx
> > > for the umpteenth time, i have no secret to share, it is as simple as
> > > being honest in your endeavour to seek God. no secrets, no rituals,
> > > just you and God is all, you and Him on a personal level, period. will
> > > He respond immediately, an hour from now or next year. i don't know.
> > > i suppose it depends how serious one is, yes? i cannot answer for Him.
> > > i'd say if you make a joke of the attempt, the joke will be on you.
>
> > Ok. I've done that and nothing happened so. So what did I do wrong?
>
> chx
> you have a serious grasping/understanding problem in that you never
> actually read my writing...

Exactly what have I failed to grasp or understand.

You said it is as simple as being honest in my endeavor to seek him. I
met your criteria and nothing happen. That means one of several
things:

I performed your method wrong.
Your method is wrong.
There is no God.

Which is it?

[Checkers]

On Jul 30, 12:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:47 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 11:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 4:50 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > chx
> > > > for the umpteenth time, i have no secret to share, it is as simple as
> > > > being honest in your endeavour to seek God. no secrets, no rituals,
> > > > just you and God is all, you and Him on a personal level, period. will
> > > > He respond immediately, an hour from now or next year. i don't know.
> > > > i suppose it depends how serious one is, yes? i cannot answer for Him.
> > > > i'd say if you make a joke of the attempt, the joke will be on you.
>
> > > Ok. I've done that and nothing happened so. So what did I do wrong?
>
> > chx
> > you have a serious grasping/understanding problem in that you never
> > actually read my writing...
>
> Exactly what have I failed to grasp or understand.
>
> You said it is as simple as being honest in my endeavor to seek him. I
> met your criteria and nothing happen. That means one of several
> things:
>
> I performed your method wrong.
> Your method is wrong.
> There is no God.
>
> Which is it?

chx
YOU lied to yourself

[Drafterman]

In what way did I lie to myself?

[Observer]

Observer
Hey Chx Fuck your fictive god and fuck christianity. My wife and I
have been married for almost fifty years and don't need any of that
filthy superstitious shit . We raised our own four kids and had as
many as fourteen others moved in with us over the years. I am proud to
report that they are all extremely successful♦ some with large
families of their own. Superstition not necessary nor tolerated !

We know about love , responsibility , education , and the joy of the
good life. So stick that filthy superstitious filth where the sun
don't shine.

Of the things I don't need in my life or recommend for others the
predominant are drunkenness (alcohol in moderation is OK) Hard drugs ,
and the filth of christianity.


Psychonomist

[Checkers]

chx
just prooved my point, you are a poor liar and worse, you don't even
know you lied to yourself. the joke's on you

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > the joke is on you. however the lurkers
> > > > have read it all, including your write.
>

> > > > this is why i noted your write for the record.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

You were probably the coolest parents on the block :-)

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[trog69]

How hard?

[Drafterman]

Since lying would require that I know about it, you've just proven
that I didn't lie to myself. But I would just like to note that,
instead of helping me, you'd rather mock me. Such a good Christian you
are.

[Lenny]

Hi Checkers, been following this thread with interest and noticed yet
again, a Theist use the now infamous line "seek God" or similar line
"seek God and you shall find Him." Most Theists use this phrase,
obviously because they "think" they have already found God. My
question is simple: if you have already found God, please be so kind
as to provide the address where you found Him. Supposing He has moved
on since you found him there, this would at least be a starting point
for me to continue my search from. Maybe as your Religion teaches, He
is somewhere in outer space (yours' is the cult of the Sky God isn't
it?); in which case you must have a stellar address? Now don't tell me
that this "address" is not in the realm of consciousness or similar
such nonsense. We've been there before with Omprem.

Oh, and BTW, why do Theists always say " I cannot answer for Him" and
do just that on these discussion threads. He certainly isn't answering
for Himself, now is He?

[Checkers]

On Jul 30, 5:18 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Hi Checkers, been following this thread with interest and noticed yet
> again, a Theist use the now infamous line "seek God" or similar line
> "seek God and you shall find Him." Most Theists use this phrase,

chx
why, is it poor english? ok then i will write it my way.
if you have the need to know God then He is already there, you need
not 'look' for Him. if you claim you cannot find Him then you never
even tried because He found you long ago. just say you are not
interested in finding Him and we can rest the case there. i can
understand that if you accept Him then you have a problem with
watching and doing things that He despises. you will argue that he
restricts your freedom of doing the wrong things.

this is all i have to add. for the rest of your post and that of
Drafterman...bah!

> > this is why i noted your write for the record.- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Jul 30, 12:24 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 5:18 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Checkers, been following this thread with interest and noticed yet
> > again, a Theist use the now infamous line "seek God" or similar line
> > "seek God and you shall find Him." Most Theists use this phrase,
>
> chx
> why, is it poor english? ok then i will write it my way.
> if you have the need to know God then He is already there, you need
> not 'look' for Him. if you claim you cannot find Him then you never
> even tried because He found you long ago. just say you are not
> interested in finding Him and we can rest the case there. i can
> understand that if you accept Him then you have a problem with
> watching and doing things that He despises. you will argue that he
> restricts your freedom of doing the wrong things.
>
> this is all i have to add. for the rest of your post and that of
> Drafterman...bah!

There's that Christian love, so warm and fuzzy. You are a testament to
your faith.

[Checkers]

On Jul 30, 6:27 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 12:24 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 5:18 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hi Checkers, been following this thread with interest and noticed yet
> > > again, a Theist use the now infamous line "seek God" or similar line
> > > "seek God and you shall find Him." Most Theists use this phrase,
>
> > chx
> > why, is it poor english? ok then i will write it my way.
> > if you have the need to know God then He is already there, you need
> > not 'look' for Him. if you claim you cannot find Him then you never
> > even tried because He found you long ago. just say you are not
> > interested in finding Him and we can rest the case there. i can
> > understand that if you accept Him then you have a problem with
> > watching and doing things that He despises. you will argue that he
> > restricts your freedom of doing the wrong things.
>
> > this is all i have to add. for the rest of your post and that of
> > Drafterman...bah!
>
> There's that Christian love, so warm and fuzzy. You are a testament to
> your faith.

chx
yeah, good hey, not a single insult or rudeness in that reply.
i can think of a few atheists that would be slinging insults by now.

a good example will be old observer here and i did not even address
him.

and then the more subtle ones as yourself trying to push blame on me
for your own short comings, yes!

:|

[Drafterman]

Not at all. I'm blaming you for your short comings.

>
> :|

[Lenny]

You see, unlike you, I don't waste time looking for things that are
not there and I fail to understand how something that does not exist
can find me. And you are still answering for Him, while claiming that
you can't. What's with that? The invisible cat got His invisible
tongue?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Checkers]

On Jul 30, 9:49 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> You see, unlike you, I don't waste time looking for things that are
> not there

chx
stop the bus!!! now explain to me how you know these things are not
there if you never looked. the problem is that you don't expect to
find anything and that is why you don't even bother to look.

[Lenny]

Simple. You first have to know for sure (or have a high probability)
that something exists and at least what it looks like, before
attempting to find it. The probability for God's existence is either
zero or almost zero, which informs my reasoning ability not to bother
looking. I would rather spend my short time on earth enjoying the
tangible things life has to offer - because I know (by logical
deduction) that I only get one shot at it. You on the other hand seem
quite content to waste your life chasing imaginary "beings" hoping
that "it" will throw a few scraps of "salvation" your way. and not I
have found my salvation in the beauty that reality offers. Try
searching for that some time?

Since you maintain that you have already found "god," let me know when
you find the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. For someone with your
"seeking" abilities, it shouldn't be that hard. And for the last time,
get back on the bus and explain to me why you are still answering for
Him, while claiming that you cannot.

[Lenny]

Correction: remove the "and not" from "I have found salavation..."

[semi]

On Jul 29, 5:12 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True. But then again you aren't basing the salvation of other people
> on whether or not they believe you.

No I'm not, and I don't intend to. You're asking me how I come to the
conclusion of some truths. I gave an answer, and I have yet to see it
rationally refuted.

> > It's irrational because the reason does not seem to justify the fear,
> > not because there is no reason.
>
> If the reason doesn't justify the fear, then it's not a reason for the
> fear, is it?

But because it's a phobia, that does not mean there is no reason
behind it.

From wikipedia.com:

"Many specific phobias can be traced back to a specific triggering
event, usually a traumatic experience at an early age."

Random individual: "I'm afraid of heights because I saw Cliff Hanger
when I was young."

So, I'm still waiting for your example of an intuitive experience not
involving reasoning.

> > So how would you know that something is conclusive rather than your
> > belief? In this case would you conclude the fire is hot? Do you
> > believe anything is conclusive? Is conclusive synonymous with a very
> > high belief?
>
> High enough that objections can be dismissed.

If you would have just said yes to my question (of if it's a high
belief), then that would have been sufficient enough for me. But your
response generates some more questions that I have:

- On what grounds are those objections dismissed? And how do you know
those grounds are conclusive?

> So, when you're happy you always make a conscious decision to smile?
> Interesting.

I never said that. I was referring to your (now supposed) implication
that it's not our choice to have physical reference points for love.
You may not have a choice, but how do you know others don't?

> > The same way you concluded that two people holding hands does not mean
> > that they love each other.
>
> That's not what I said. Listen READ THE PAGE. Why you would think I'm
> interested in defending things I didn't say is beyond me.

You said: "If I see two people kiss, I have some reason to believe,

though not necessarily conclude, that they are in love."

Re-quote:

"Oh, and you failed to provide details for your truth-determining
method. Again."

New Reply:
The same way you concluded that two people kissing is not conclusive
(to you) that they love each other.

> The thing I wrote (if you bothered to read it) shows how the method
> you come to "know" God is definitively dissimilar and exclusive to the
> methods we come to know those other things. In order for you to say
> that the method you use to "know" God is similar to what I wrote you
> would need to be able to identify a physical reference. So where is it?

Creation. You have a problem with that then justify physical reference
points for love.

[semi]

On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

quote:
So what is the point of all of this? The point is in how this relates
to theists "experiencing" the Holy spirit. The problem is that there
lacks a physical reference point. As shown, without a physical
reference point, there is little you can conclude about this
sensation. You can't know that you are experiencing the same sensation
as other people when they say they experience the Holy Spirit. You
can't know that the source of those sensations is the same. And you
can't know that the source of the sensation is accurately described in
whatever dogma or interpretation of dogma you choose to believe.

reply:
Just because someone says they experience the Holy Spirit doesn't mean
that I will agree with them. I will not automatically conclude that
they have, but I wouldn't say that they haven't. So, I don't feel
obligated to justify my personal experience by trying to prove to
myself its consistency with everyone else who says they have that
experience. I may be in agreement with some because we shared the same
experience, but that does not mean I have to be in agreement with all
who claim they had some kind of experience, if I cannot relate to it.
However, because I do not know of their experience does not mean that
I am in disagreement with their experience.

quote:
However, theists tacitly conspire to circumvent this road block. They
simply agree that the source of these sensations is not only the same,
but is described accurately in some ancient text. They have no way of
verifying this, yet, for the purposes of advancing and generating the
appearance of legitimacy, they simply agree that it is the same,
creating the illusion of some truth or fact.

reply:
To me, that is an assumption. I have already implied that I will not
simply agree that these sensations come from the same source. I'm just
one example and I know many other Christians who will agree with me on
that matter as well.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 31, 12:53 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:12 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > True. But then again you aren't basing the salvation of other people
> > on whether or not they believe you.
>
> No I'm not, and I don't intend to. You're asking me how I come to the
> conclusion of some truths. I gave an answer, and I have yet to see it
> rationally refuted.

The truth in your example (that grapes taste good) is a subjective
one. No one can, or should, refute whether or not grapes taste good to
you. But whether or not God exists is an objective truth and the
methods for each do not correlate.

>
> > > It's irrational because the reason does not seem to justify the fear,
> > > not because there is no reason.
>
> > If the reason doesn't justify the fear, then it's not a reason for the
> > fear, is it?
>
> But because it's a phobia, that does not mean there is no reason
> behind it.
>
> From wikipedia.com:
>
> "Many specific phobias can be traced back to a specific triggering
> event, usually a traumatic experience at an early age."
>
> Random individual: "I'm afraid of heights because I saw Cliff Hanger
> when I was young."
>
> So, I'm still waiting for your example of an intuitive experience not
> involving reasoning.

If you are going to quote wikipedia, it would be better for your cause
if you don't ignore significant parts that work against your argument,
such as:

"The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable
desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's
control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a
diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made."

Key words: "unreasonable" and "beyond one's control".

>
> > > So how would you know that something is conclusive rather than your
> > > belief? In this case would you conclude the fire is hot? Do you
> > > believe anything is conclusive? Is conclusive synonymous with a very
> > > high belief?
>
> > High enough that objections can be dismissed.
>
> If you would have just said yes to my question (of if it's a high
> belief), then that would have been sufficient enough for me. But your
> response generates some more questions that I have:
>
> - On what grounds are those objections dismissed? And how do you know
> those grounds are conclusive?

It's a judgement call. I based it on experience. Technically I cannot
discount a person stepping into a fire and going "Brrr!" but the
possibility is so bizzare for me to not seriously consider it ever
happening and, if it does, to doubt the sincerity of the person doing
it.

The problem is, life doesn't fit into neat little boxes where you can
make absolute judgments. But just because things are not subject to
absolute and final judgements does not mean there are not judgements
we can make.

>
> > So, when you're happy you always make a conscious decision to smile?
> > Interesting.
>
> I never said that. I was referring to your (now supposed) implication
> that it's not our choice to have physical reference points for love.
> You may not have a choice, but how do you know others don't?

I don't, and I haven't discounted that some people don't. Again, I
mention such extreme exceptions in the page. I really wish you would
read it.

>
> > > The same way you concluded that two people holding hands does not mean
> > > that they love each other.
>
> > That's not what I said. Listen READ THE PAGE. Why you would think I'm
> > interested in defending things I didn't say is beyond me.
>
> You said: "If I see two people kiss, I have some reason to believe,
> though not necessarily conclude, that they are in love."

Exactly.

>
> Re-quote:
> "Oh, and you failed to provide details for your truth-determining
> method. Again."
>
> New Reply:
> The same way you concluded that two people kissing is not conclusive
> (to you) that they love each other.

And how should that method result in me giving God the benefit of the
doubt that he exists and is accurately described in the Bible?

My caveat that the physical reference points point to, but cannot
conclude, something based on human behavior is merely an admition of
the wide spectrum of human behavior that exists. It is a bell curve
and there will always be individuals at the extreme ends of the curve.
That does not prohibit us from making statistical judgements based on
the overwhelming majority in the middle, so long as we acknowledge
some margin of error.

I fail to see how this translates to an absolute belief in God's
existed, or you will go to hell, with no margin of error. I think you
have misunderstood me at some point. Is it possible for you to explain
your method in your own words?

>
> > The thing I wrote (if you bothered to read it) shows how the method
> > you come to "know" God is definitively dissimilar and exclusive to the
> > methods we come to know those other things. In order for you to say
> > that the method you use to "know" God is similar to what I wrote you
> > would need to be able to identify a physical reference. So where is it?
>
> Creation. You have a problem with that then justify physical reference
> points for love.

What is "creation"?

[Drafterman]

On Jul 31, 1:29 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 10:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> quote:
> So what is the point of all of this? The point is in how this relates
> to theists "experiencing" the Holy spirit. The problem is that there
> lacks a physical reference point. As shown, without a physical
> reference point, there is little you can conclude about this
> sensation. You can't know that you are experiencing the same sensation
> as other people when they say they experience the Holy Spirit. You
> can't know that the source of those sensations is the same. And you
> can't know that the source of the sensation is accurately described in
> whatever dogma or interpretation of dogma you choose to believe.
>
> reply:
> Just because someone says they experience the Holy Spirit doesn't mean
> that I will agree with them. I will not automatically conclude that
> they have, but I wouldn't say that they haven't. So, I don't feel
> obligated to justify my personal experience by trying to prove to
> myself its consistency with everyone else who says they have that
> experience. I may be in agreement with some because we shared the same
> experience, but that does not mean I have to be in agreement with all
> who claim they had some kind of experience, if I cannot relate to it.
> However, because I do not know of their experience does not mean that
> I am in disagreement with their experience.

Nevertheless, somepeople do, and have, justified their experiences or
beliefs based on the "testimony" of others. But the issue still
remains, how do you determine whether or not you and another person
had the same experience?

>
> quote:
> However, theists tacitly conspire to circumvent this road block. They
> simply agree that the source of these sensations is not only the same,
> but is described accurately in some ancient text. They have no way of
> verifying this, yet, for the purposes of advancing and generating the
> appearance of legitimacy, they simply agree that it is the same,
> creating the illusion of some truth or fact.
>
> reply:
> To me, that is an assumption. I have already implied that I will not
> simply agree that these sensations come from the same source. I'm just
> one example and I know many other Christians who will agree with me on
> that matter as well.

If a circumstances doesn't apply to you, then it's safe to say it
doesn't apply to you.

[Checkers]

On Jul 31, 2:29 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Simple. You first have to know for sure (or have a high probability)
> that something exists and at least what it looks like, before
> attempting to find it.

chx
beep, wrong! what does a higgs boson look like? need i say more...ok
then if you insist, how about sterile neutrino's? neither are detected
and yet the scientists will tell you the SN gets fat interacting with
HB and can have a mass of 10to the 20 electronvolts. how is that for a
knockout blow. they don't even know if it exists and yet give it a
mass, yuk yuk yuk. you give up without even wondering, just as well
you not in science. so, what makes a scientist looking for ghosts any
different to me finding God hmmm? bah!

> The probability for God's existence is either
> zero or almost zero, which informs my reasoning ability not to bother
> looking. I would rather spend my short time on earth enjoying the
> tangible things life has to offer - because I know (by logical
> deduction) that I only get one shot at it. You on the other hand seem
> quite content to waste your life chasing imaginary "beings" hoping
> that "it" will throw a few scraps of "salvation" your way. and not I
> have found my salvation in the beauty that reality offers. Try
> searching for that some time?

chx
i enjoy all the good things in life and i have one more luxury than
you have. i reject some things not because God forbids them, i reject
them because i have no interest or desire for them.

> Since you maintain that you have already found "god," let me know when
> you find the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. For someone with your
> "seeking" abilities, it shouldn't be that hard.

chx
indeed, i found them at a very young age. i love the tooth fairy. she
brought me into the world and cared for me until i could care for
myself. she protected me from that nasty santa that never gave me
anything.

> And for the last time,
> get back on the bus and explain to me why you are still answering for
> Him, while claiming that you cannot.

chx
i never left the bus, i just asked to stop the bus. i do not answer
for God, where do you get this idea. i simply state what is in the
Bible, the answers are there. when you ask me something i don't find
in the Bible then i will tell you i cannot answer for God.

[Lenny]

If you are claiming to "be in science" then how come you don't know
the difference between theory, hypothesis, conjecture and religious or
faith based belief. The Higgs Boson is a scientific hypothesis based
on real physical models. Although not detected yet, scientific
experiments to be conducted at CERN may still prove this current
hypothesis be a real possibility. And thus it will eventually become a
valid theory. Religious or faith based belief in a God is neither a
theory, nor a hypothesis and does not even constitute conjecture which
is the weakest of the three. The existence of God is not based on any
empirical models of science. So searching for Higgs Boson is
definitely not the same as searching for God, because scientists can
offer you empiricle evidence for their "nothing as yet". What
empirical evidence can you offer for the existence of your "never will
be?" Yet again, I find a Theist whose disingenuous use of science,
appalling.

If you have found the tooth fairy and Santa, then you have truly found
God. There is a place reserved for you at the Sterkfontein Psychiatric
Facility.

[Lenny]

chx
> i never left the bus, i just asked to stop the bus. i do not answer
> for God, where do you get this idea. i simply state what is in the
> Bible, the answers are there. when you ask me something i don't find
> in the Bible then i will tell you i cannot answer for God.

It's strange how only Theists can find answers in the bible. All I've
ever found are questions. Like for instance, how did this obomination
ever get published? And why do people still read and believe such
rubbish?

[Checkers]

On Jul 31, 11:22 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> If you are claiming to "be in science" then how come you don't know
> the difference between theory, hypothesis, conjecture and religious or
> faith based belief. The Higgs Boson is a scientific hypothesis based
> on real physical models. Although not detected yet, scientific
> experiments to be conducted at CERN may still prove this current
> hypothesis be a real possibility. And thus it will eventually become a
> valid theory. Religious or faith based belief in a God is neither a
> theory, nor a hypothesis and does not even constitute conjecture which
> is the weakest of the three. The existence of God is not based on any
> empirical models of science. So searching for Higgs Boson is
> definitely not the same as searching for God, because scientists can
> offer you empiricle evidence for their "nothing as yet".  What
> empirical evidence can you offer for the existence of your "never will
> be?" Yet again, I find a Theist whose disingenuous use of science,
> appalling.
>
> If you have found the tooth fairy and Santa, then you have truly found
> God. There is a place reserved for you at the Sterkfontein Psychiatric
> Facility.

chx
we have our own 'groendakkies' not too far away filled with nuttie
atheists. thanks for the offer anyway ;)

[Checkers]

On Jul 31, 11:29 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
>
> > i never left the bus, i just asked to stop the bus. i do not answer
> > for God, where do you get this idea. i simply state what is in the
> > Bible, the answers are there. when you ask me something i don't find
> > in the Bible then i will tell you i cannot answer for God.
>
> It's strange how only Theists can find answers in the bible. All I've
> ever found are questions. Like for instance, how did this obomination
> ever get published? And why do people still read and believe such
> rubbish?

chx
i guess it works like this. it became apparent that you are still
searching for the tooth fairy and santa. so i know you haven't found
them. this can be the reason why you lack the ability to find anything
else. i notice you spell santa with a 'S' whaaa ha ha ha ha

allow me to help you. you mom is the tooth fairy and the toppie is
santa ok :) ) now see if you can find your other answers on your own,
yuk yuk yuk

[Checkers]

On Jul 31, 11:22 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> If you are claiming to "be in science"

chx
ummm, i see i missed this. what the heck makes you think i'm in
science? let me enlighten you, by this group's consensus i have a
grade 4 measured from my grammar ;)

> then how come you don't know
> the difference between theory, hypothesis, conjecture and religious or
> faith based belief. The Higgs Boson is a scientific hypothesis based
> on real physical models.

chx
models are not the real thing

> Although not detected yet, scientific
> experiments to be conducted at CERN may still prove this current
> hypothesis be a real possibility. And thus it will eventually become a
> valid theory.

chx
may, possibility, eventually, valid theory!!!

let me pull an atheist on you, i have a valid theory that you owe me a
million Rand, please pay up tomorrow. i need the money for a well
earned holiday

> Religious or faith based belief in a God is neither a
> theory, nor a hypothesis and does not even constitute conjecture which
> is the weakest of the three.

chx amazing hey, even in science things come in three's like
neutrino's

> The existence of God is not based on any
> empirical models of science. So searching for Higgs Boson is
> definitely not the same as searching for God, because scientists can
> offer you empiricle evidence for their "nothing as yet".  

chx
what the f&%#, empirical evidence for NOTHING, show me the NOTHING i
want to see it now! this is one for the book - empirical evidence for
'nothing as yet' hahaha not even a theist like me will dare an answer
like that.

> What
> empirical evidence can you offer for the existence of your "never will
> be?" Yet again, I find a Theist whose disingenuous use of science,
> appalling.

chx
so you claim empirical evidence for your nothing and insist some from
me, God is not a neutrino!

> If you have found the tooth fairy and Santa, then you have truly found
> God. There is a place reserved for you at the Sterkfontein Psychiatric
> Facility.

chx
ok, this i answered

[Lenny]

Checkers, thanks you've answered my question. It's blatantly obvious
that you don't know the difference between theory, hypothesis,
conjecture and faith-based belief. What's also obvious is that sarcasm
is lost on you. No more room in your brainwashed grey matter for
rationality and reason- too full of God. I was warned by other eminent
Atheists on here. Delusion is such a pathetic sad state. Well, if you
revel in it, more power to you...

[Lenny]

I'm sorry for that last bit of sarcasm, but I couldn't resist. Gotta
go, unlike you I only have this lifetime, and times' a-wasting...

> > ok, this i answered- Hide quoted text -

[semi]

On Jul 31, 2:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you are going to quote wikipedia, it would be better for your cause
> if you don't ignore significant parts that work against your argument,
> such as:
>
> "The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable
> desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's
> control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a
> diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made."
>
> Key words: "unreasonable" and "beyond one's control".

Very well. I can accept phobias as a legit answer. But as long as we
agree that once there is a reasonable explanation for the fear, it can
no longer be called a phobia. With this said, a Christian may say that
they are experiencing the Holy Spirit, but it is up to them to prove
why this unction is the Holy Spirit and not something else, as the
bible teaches that they must do this.

> I don't, and I haven't discounted that some people don't. Again, I
> mention such extreme exceptions in the page. I really wish you would
> read it.

I did read it. But for some reason you said in this discussion that it
wasn't our decision.

> I fail to see how this translates to an absolute belief in God's
> existed, or you will go to hell, with no margin of error. I think you
> have misunderstood me at some point. Is it possible for you to explain
> your method in your own words?

I will not because I agree with your methods for the most part. The
thing here is how do I know when I go through an experience and claim
that it's the Holy Spirit, that it's really the Holy Spirit. If I was
to explain it in the language you are using, I would say that it's a
very high belief that I have that results from comparing this feeling
to other feelings and I come to a reasonable conclusion. I am not
trying to argue objectivity through personal experiences, but I'm just
saying that your methods can be used with ones own experience, namely
mines. Thus answering any questions you may have on how I know
something to be true.

> > Creation. You have a problem with that then justify physical reference
> > points for love.
>
> What is "creation"?

So the question I suppose you really want to ask here is if I look at
the stars, for example, and I feel a conviction in my heart that there
is a Creator, how do I justify this conviction? Well, I use physical
reference points. For example, I see man creates things that are
complex, yet we are complex ourselves. And I say to myself that since
man is more complex than the complex thing we make, I think that
something more intelligent than man exists, and I call Him the
Creator. Then I say to myself that when man comes up with some other
theory that negates a Creator, I don't feel the same conviction for
that theory than for the Creator "theory". So I conclude that
experience with logic is better than just logic. Though I do not use
this to conclude that it is the God of the bible, it's a start.

[semi]

On Jul 31, 2:03 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless, somepeople do, and have, justified their experiences or
> beliefs based on the "testimony" of others.

So the next time you refer to "theists" I will not interpret it as
"all theists". Still though, if a Christian was to tell an atheist
that they were in a room by themselves and heard a voice call out to
them from the heavens, the atheist would probably say the Christian
was delusional. However, if the Christian was in a room with witnesses
and they shared the same experience, they can know themselves that
they weren't delusional and the atheist argument of them being
delusional becomes weaker.

> But the issue still
> remains, how do you determine whether or not you and another person
> had the same experience?

Well, when they give me more details of their experience and I see
that the details are very similar to my experience, I will most likely
believe that we shared the same experience.

[Checkers]

On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Checkers, thanks you've answered my question. It's blatantly obvious
> that you don't know the difference between theory, hypothesis,
> conjecture and faith-based belief. What's also obvious is that sarcasm
> is lost on you. No more room in your brainwashed grey matter for
> rationality and reason- too full of God. I was warned by other eminent
> Atheists on here. Delusion is such a pathetic sad state. Well, if you
> revel in it, more power to you...

chx
look dude, i am not even arguing CERN or bosons here. i am taking up
this 'nothing' of yours. there is no place where 'nothing' can be
found. there is always something but never 'nothing, not even in
space. there are minute thingy's found everywhere, they pass through
earth and they pass through you. so to tell me you have empirical
evidence for 'nothing as yet' is crap in the face of having nothing to
show me. let me know when you have something for the nothing as yet.

you see it will explain a lot of the universe if they can find that
theoretical 'nothing as yet' you boast about. space is filled with
something and you call it 'nothing as yet'. all this from someone that
still does not know who santa (with a S) is.

while we at it mr scientist, what flavor will you say this 'nothing as
yet' has. oh never mind that. enlighten me on this empirical evidence
you have. who knows, you may just sway me to the dark side where the
dark energy lurks ;)

ps. why do i get a feeling you googled this!!! the clown want's to
know, yuk yuk yuk

> > ok, this i answered- Hide quoted text -

[Lenny]

Checkers, you're still droning on about "nothing", literally. Like I
said, you don't understand sarcasm. My reference to "nothing as yet"
was a sarcastic reference to the Higgs Boson particle that is being
sought by scientists. I don't pretend to know much about particle
theory or quantum theory either, but it seems to me that Theists keep
quoting this field of science in utter desparation, as some sort of
saving grace for their belief in God. You will never be able to
furnish empirical proof for your God's existence, thus I refer
sarcastically to your "never will be." Do you get it now, Mr IT
Professional who pretends to know about particle physics and accuses
me of Googling it.

Since you still have not indicated your understanding of theory,
hypothesis and faith-based belief, let's get back to it. Scientific
hypothesis makes extremely accurate predictions based on theoretical
models. Successsfull, rigorous and exhaustive testing (experiment) can
render a hypothesis eventually into a fully fledged theory. So what is
a thoery? A theory is a "wide explanatory framework that has reached
the highest standard of confirmation by factual evidence" [Mark I
Vuletic, Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism (http://
vuletic.com/hume/cefec/7-11.html)]. So, this piece of intellectual
horseshit "let me pull an atheist on you, i have a valid theory that
you owe me a million Rand, please pay up tomorrow." is not a theory.
It is as shamefully arrogent as saying "There is a God, now come to
Church and we will show you how he saves your soul, but please pay up
(your tithes that is) first." The existence of God is only faith-
based, it does not even qualify as conjecture. Faith-based belief is
based on 'nothing." God is "nothing." So show me your "nothing" and I
am confident that scientists will be able to show you our "nothing" at
CERN some time in the future.

And what is this fascination with santa with a capital S all about? Is
this your pathetic attempt at being sarcastic?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Checkers]

chx
tell ye this, you can win this one as you gave me something much
better

atheists!!! don't use this _shamefully arrogant_ owing you a million
bucks argument again. this atheist says your method is 'horseshit'
whaaa hahahaha

[Lenny]

Chx, pretty decent of you to not drag this arguement on. Whatever you
think I gave you, it's at least more real than your God and religion.
Cheers for now...

[Drafterman]

On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you are going to quote wikipedia, it would be better for your cause
> > if you don't ignore significant parts that work against your argument,
> > such as:
>
> > "The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable
> > desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's
> > control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a
> > diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made."
>
> > Key words: "unreasonable" and "beyond one's control".
>
> Very well. I can accept phobias as a legit answer. But as long as we
> agree that once there is a reasonable explanation for the fear, it can
> no longer be called a phobia. With this said, a Christian may say that
> they are experiencing the Holy Spirit, but it is up to them to prove
> why this unction is the Holy Spirit and not something else, as the
> bible teaches that they must do this.

And, as my page explicitly shows, showing this is impossible. Thus
someone claiming to have experienced the Holy Spirit is not valid
evidence that such a thing exists.

>
> > I don't, and I haven't discounted that some people don't. Again, I
> > mention such extreme exceptions in the page. I really wish you would
> > read it.
>
> I did read it. But for some reason you said in this discussion that it
> wasn't our decision.

It isn't.

>
> > I fail to see how this translates to an absolute belief in God's
> > existed, or you will go to hell, with no margin of error. I think you
> > have misunderstood me at some point. Is it possible for you to explain
> > your method in your own words?
>
> I will not because I agree with your methods for the most part. The
> thing here is how do I know when I go through an experience and claim
> that it's the Holy Spirit, that it's really the Holy Spirit. If I was
> to explain it in the language you are using, I would say that it's a
> very high belief that I have that results from comparing this feeling
> to other feelings and I come to a reasonable conclusion. I am not
> trying to argue objectivity through personal experiences, but I'm just
> saying that your methods can be used with ones own experience, namely
> mines. Thus answering any questions you may have on how I know
> something to be true.

And how is "The Holy Spirit" ever a reasonable conclusion? Either the
feeling is similar to something you've felt before, in which case the
reasonable conclusion would be that it is something similar to that
feeling, or it is completely new, in which case there is no reasonable
conclusion.

>
> > > Creation. You have a problem with that then justify physical reference
> > > points for love.
>
> > What is "creation"?
>
> So the question I suppose you really want to ask here is if I look at
> the stars, for example, and I feel a conviction in my heart that there
> is a Creator, how do I justify this conviction? Well, I use physical
> reference points. For example, I see man creates things that are
> complex, yet we are complex ourselves. And I say to myself that since
> man is more complex than the complex thing we make, I think that
> something more intelligent than man exists, and I call Him the
> Creator. Then I say to myself that when man comes up with some other
> theory that negates a Creator, I don't feel the same conviction for
> that theory than for the Creator "theory". So I conclude that
> experience with logic is better than just logic. Though I do not use
> this to conclude that it is the God of the bible, it's a start.

It doesn't bother you that this "start" is based on fallacy?

[Drafterman]

On Aug 1, 2:15 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2:03 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nevertheless, somepeople do, and have, justified their experiences or
> > beliefs based on the "testimony" of others.
>
> So the next time you refer to "theists" I will not interpret it as
> "all theists". Still though, if a Christian was to tell an atheist
> that they were in a room by themselves and heard a voice call out to
> them from the heavens, the atheist would probably say the Christian
> was delusional. However, if the Christian was in a room with witnesses
> and they shared the same experience, they can know themselves that
> they weren't delusional and the atheist argument of them being
> delusional becomes weaker.

This argument essentially nullifies the legitimacy of mental health
facilities since you essentially have rooms full of people claiming to
experience things that aren't there. Your logic is that by putting
them in proximity to each other, then this validates their claims and
makes then sane. I'd be interesting in learning more about the
mechanism at work here.

>
> > But the issue still
> > remains, how do you determine whether or not you and another person
> > had the same experience?
>
> Well, when they give me more details of their experience and I see
> that the details are very similar to my experience, I will most likely
> believe that we shared the same experience.

And if the details differ?

[thea]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you are going to quote wikipedia, it would be better for your cause
> > if you don't ignore significant parts that work against your argument,
> > such as:
>
> > "The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable
> > desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's
> > control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a
> > diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made."
>
> > Key words: "unreasonable" and "beyond one's control".
>
> Very well. I can accept phobias as a legit answer. But as long as we
> agree that once there is a reasonable explanation for the fear, it can
> no longer be called a phobia. With this said, a Christian may say that
> they are experiencing the Holy Spirit, but it is up to them to prove
> why this unction is the Holy Spirit and not something else, as the
> bible teaches that they must do this.

And, as my page explicitly shows, showing this is impossible. Thus
someone claiming to have experienced the Holy Spirit is not valid
evidence that such a thing exists.

 

Oh the Holy Spirit exists.  In fact Jesus promised the *Comforter* would come, who is the third person of the triune Godhead, and *Comfort* the disciples after HE was gone.  And when the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost -- Acts 2: *And suddenly there came a sound from heaven like a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting, And there appeared unto them cloven tongues of fire, and it sat upon each of them.  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.*  And this phenomena still takes place today.  Not as often as it once did -- and in most denominational churches not at all.  But every once in a while you still hear of it happening someplace.  And there are divine healings and etc. which take place at the same time.

Be very careful of the way in which you treat the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit does not speak about himself, but HE only witnesses to the Name of Jesus.

thea

When you are in a church service where the Holy Spirit makes an appearance -- there is no doubt -- you know because of the peace that passes understanding is evident.  When two or three are gathered together in the Name of Jesus, the Holy Spirit can be present with them and witness to them that HE is there.  However, as stated the Holy Spirit only witnesses to the Name of Jesus.  thea

[semi]

On Aug 3, 10:07 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn't bother you that this "start" is based on fallacy?

What's fallacy is that I have to appeal to logic for you to understand
reality. What's fallacy is that you assume your existence because you
want to appeal to logic. Reality has an impression on the mind, and it
is established before logic.

[semi]

On Aug 3, 10:09 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This argument essentially nullifies the legitimacy of mental health
> facilities since you essentially have rooms full of people claiming to
> experience things that aren't there. Your logic is that by putting
> them in proximity to each other, then this validates their claims and
> makes then sane. I'd be interesting in learning more about the
> mechanism at work here.

It doesn't make them sane, but the probability of them being sane is
higher than if they were by themselves and had the experience. Hey,
remember, logic has it's flaws and cannot really prove anything. So
essentially, logic cannot prove their sanity either. Unless of course
we can just agree with the fact that truth can be realized
intuitively.

> > Well, when they give me more details of their experience and I see
> > that the details are very similar to my experience, I will most likely
> > believe that we shared the same experience.
>
> And if the details differ?

If the details differ, then I cannot say that I will disagree that
they had an experience. I can just say that perhaps they had an
experience, logically speaking.

[Drafterman]

I guess that's a "No". But if you are going to assert that your answer
need not be logically sound, then I guess we cannot continue because I
find that acceptable.

But there are two issues remaining:

You said you agree with my methods. Oddly enough, I do not remember
abandoning logic in favor of intuition or my personal opinions about
how reality appears to me. I certainly did not intend to give that
impression so if you can point out, specifically, where I gave it, I
will happily correct myself. Otherwise, it would seem that you do not
agree with my methods, since I insist on some sort logic be behind
such reasoning.

Secondly, one of the fundamental axioms of logic is the law of non
contradiction. It would seem that in abandoning logic you would
abandon this, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Why this is important is that in doing away with logic you also do
away with a primary method of excluding the theologies you do. There
are a great number of things you don't believe, how do you, without
logic, support this?

[Drafterman]

On Aug 3, 10:26 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 31, 2:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If you are going to quote wikipedia, it would be better for your cause
> > > > if you don't ignore significant parts that work against your argument,
> > > > such as:
>
> > > > "The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable
> > > > desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's
> > > > control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a
> > > > diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made."
>
> > > > Key words: "unreasonable" and "beyond one's control".
>
> > > Very well. I can accept phobias as a legit answer. But as long as we
> > > agree that once there is a reasonable explanation for the fear, it can
> > > no longer be called a phobia. With this said, a Christian may say that
> > > they are experiencing the Holy Spirit, but it is up to them to prove
> > > why this unction is the Holy Spirit and not something else, as the
> > > bible teaches that they must do this.
>
> > And, as my page explicitly shows, showing this is impossible. Thus
> > someone claiming to have experienced the Holy Spirit is not valid
> > evidence that such a thing exists.
>
> Oh the Holy Spirit exists.

Prove it.

> In fact Jesus promised the *Comforter* would
> come, who is the third person of the triune Godhead, and *Comfort* the
> disciples after HE was gone.  And when the Holy Spirit came on the day of
> Pentecost -- Acts 2: *And suddenly there came a sound from heaven like a
> rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting,
> And there appeared unto them cloven tongues of fire, and it sat upon each of
> them.  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak
> with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.*

Why should I care what the Bible says?

> And this phenomena
> still takes place today.  Not as often as it once did -- and in most
> denominational churches not at all.  But every once in a while you still
> hear of it happening someplace.  And there are divine healings and etc.
> which take place at the same time.

What is your citation for reports of this phenomenon from objective
parties?

> Be very careful of the way in which you treat the Holy Spirit.

Why?

If the Holy Spirit "appears" then what does it look like? I also like
how you say "no doubt" despite having previously posted an article
about skepticism which necessitates doubt. Dumbass.

> When two or three are gathered together in the
> Name of Jesus, the Holy Spirit can be present with them and witness to them
> that HE is there.  However, as stated the Holy Spirit only witnesses to the
> Name of Jesus.  thea

What does that even mean. Can you explain this without using religious
doublespeak?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Creation. You have a problem with that then justify physical
> > reference
> > > > > points for love.
>
> > > > What is "creation"?
>
> > > So the question I suppose you really want to ask here is if I look at
> > > the stars, for example, and I feel a conviction in my heart that there
> > > is a Creator, how do I justify this conviction? Well, I use physical
> > > reference points. For example, I see man creates things that are
> > > complex, yet we are complex ourselves. And I say to myself that since
> > > man is more complex than the complex thing we make, I think that
> > > something more intelligent than man exists, and I call Him the
> > > Creator. Then I say to myself that when man comes up with some other
> > > theory that negates a Creator, I don't feel the same conviction for
> > > that theory than for the Creator "theory". So I conclude that
> > > experience with logic is better than just logic. Though I do not use
> > > this to conclude that it is the God of the bible, it's a start.
>

> > It doesn't bother you that this "start" is based on fallacy?- Hide quoted text -

[thea]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 3, 10:26 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 31, 2:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If you are going to quote wikipedia, it would be better for your cause
> > > > if you don't ignore significant parts that work against your argument,
> > > > such as:
>
> > > > "The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable
> > > > desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's
> > > > control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a
> > > > diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made."
>
> > > > Key words: "unreasonable" and "beyond one's control".
>
> > > Very well. I can accept phobias as a legit answer. But as long as we
> > > agree that once there is a reasonable explanation for the fear, it can
> > > no longer be called a phobia. With this said, a Christian may say that
> > > they are experiencing the Holy Spirit, but it is up to them to prove
> > > why this unction is the Holy Spirit and not something else, as the
> > > bible teaches that they must do this.
>
> > And, as my page explicitly shows, showing this is impossible. Thus
> > someone claiming to have experienced the Holy Spirit is not valid
> > evidence that such a thing exists.
>
> Oh the Holy Spirit exists.

Prove it.

 

The Comforter came at the day of Pentecost and a multitude were saved by the Holy Spirit.  And in the face of two or three witnesses it is proven as fact.  It is recorded in the Bible as fact and had witnesses. 

If you say that this doesn't prove anything -- then the US does not have a constitution either.  But, you say, that is different.  No it isn't - you were not there when they signed it -- so you don't know if they really did or not -- you are living by *faith* if you believe in it.  thea

> In fact Jesus promised the *Comforter* would
> come, who is the third person of the triune Godhead, and *Comfort* the
> disciples after HE was gone.  And when the Holy Spirit came on the day of
> Pentecost -- Acts 2: *And suddenly there came a sound from heaven like a
> rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting,
> And there appeared unto them cloven tongues of fire, and it sat upon each of
> them.  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak
> with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.*

Why should I care what the Bible says?

 

You won't care until the Holy Spirit gives you a chance to believe.  and if you don't accept the chance He gives you, He allows you to go on not believing anything.  Everything we see and think we know is just a figment of our imagination, because it is just an image through our eyes to our brain, and we can't prove that anything is really there -- that's philosophy at U of CA.  But, the Bible says that God Is -- you have a choice to make -- make your choice.  thea

 

> And this phenomena
> still takes place today.  Not as often as it once did -- and in most
> denominational churches not at all.  But every once in a while you still
> hear of it happening someplace.  And there are divine healings and etc.
> which take place at the same time.

What is your citation for reports of this phenomenon from objective
parties?

 

Ken Hagan, Copeland, Carothers, Hunter and if you go back in history you will find stories from Moody in Chicago at the turn of the 1900's - how people could not walk down the street in front of his church without being face down on the sidewalk because of the power of the Holy Spirit.  While Constantine was alive Christianity was seeing miracles.  So it isn't something new - thea

 

 

> Be very careful of the way in which you treat the Holy Spirit.

Why?

 

 

Because the unpardonable sin is the rejection of the Holy Spirit's witness to Christ's resurrection.  thea

The witness of the Holy Spirit is what I am talking about when I say the Holy Spirit makes an appearance.  The people who know Jesus as their Saviour, rejoice, the people who have not yet given their lives to Jesus have condemnation as the work of the Holy Spirit is two fold.  One to bless the blessed and one to bring others to repentance.

If you have not had doubt - you can never have the - know so.  Because you have to come to the place where you are aware of the battle going on between the god of this present age and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Doubt comes from Satan.    Know-so salvation comes from the Lord Jesus Christ. 

 

> When two or three are gathered together in the
> Name of Jesus, the Holy Spirit can be present with them and witness to them
> that HE is there.  However, as stated the Holy Spirit only witnesses to the
> Name of Jesus.  thea

What does that even mean. Can you explain this without using religious
doublespeak?

 

When two or three people are together talking about what Jesus has done or is doing in their lives at the present time, the Holy Spirit comes and lets them know that He is there with them.  It is the presence of the Divine.  It is something that true Christians are much aware of.  thea 

[Drafterman]

On Aug 4, 12:13 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

And why should I care what the Bible says?

> If you say that this doesn't prove anything -- then the US does not have a
> constitution either.  But, you say, that is different.  No it isn't - you
> were not there when they signed it -- so you don't know if they really did
> or not -- you are living by *faith* if you believe in it.  thea

We are not arguing whether or not the Bible exists. I don't disagree
that the Bible was written and exists. I just say that what the Bible
says about the world is not true. The constitution does not make any
statements of fact, it simply presents a guideline by which a group of
people can run a country and is only as valid as the agreement between
the people it applies to.

>
>
>
> > > In fact Jesus promised the *Comforter* would
> > > come, who is the third person of the triune Godhead, and *Comfort* the
> > > disciples after HE was gone.  And when the Holy Spirit came on the day of
> > > Pentecost -- Acts 2: *And suddenly there came a sound from heaven like a
> > > rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting,
> > > And there appeared unto them cloven tongues of fire, and it sat upon each
> > of
> > > them.  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak
> > > with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.*
>
> > Why should I care what the Bible says?
>
> You won't care until the Holy Spirit gives you a chance to believe.

I didn't ask when I should believe, I asked why I should believe.

> and if
> you don't accept the chance He gives you, He allows you to go on not
> believing anything.  Everything we see and think we know is just a figment
> of our imagination, because it is just an image through our eyes to our
> brain, and we can't prove that anything is really there -- that's philosophy
> at U of CA.  But, the Bible says that God Is -- you have a choice to make --
> make your choice.  thea

Ok, but why should I care what the Bible says? (Here's a hint: If
you're not going to answer the question, don't bother responding).

>
>
>
> > > And this phenomena
> > > still takes place today.  Not as often as it once did -- and in most
> > > denominational churches not at all.  But every once in a while you still
> > > hear of it happening someplace.  And there are divine healings and etc.
> > > which take place at the same time.
>
> > What is your citation for reports of this phenomenon from objective
> > parties?
>
> Ken Hagan, Copeland, Carothers, Hunter and if you go back in history you
> will find stories from Moody in Chicago at the turn of the 1900's - how
> people could not walk down the street in front of his church without being
> face down on the sidewalk because of the power of the Holy Spirit.  While
> Constantine was alive Christianity was seeing miracles.  So it isn't
> something new - thea

I can't "go back in history" because I lack a time machine. Perhaps
you can reference some news article?

>
>
>
> > > Be very careful of the way in which you treat the Holy Spirit.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because the unpardonable sin is the rejection of the Holy Spirit's witness
> to Christ's resurrection.  thea

Why?

And how does the Holy Spirit let them know it is there?

What is a "true" Christian?

[semi]

On Aug 4, 10:44 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But there are two issues remaining:
>
> You said you agree with my methods. Oddly enough, I do not remember
> abandoning logic in favor of intuition or my personal opinions about
> how reality appears to me. I certainly did not intend to give that
> impression so if you can point out, specifically, where I gave it, I
> will happily correct myself. Otherwise, it would seem that you do not
> agree with my methods, since I insist on some sort logic be behind
> such reasoning.

I agree with the use of logic so that I can perhaps understand
something in a better sense or communicate it. But essentially, I do
not use logic to know something is real. Children do not use logic to
interact with reality. It's only when they get older that they start
to use logic to better understand and communicate reality.

> Secondly, one of the fundamental axioms of logic is the law of non
> contradiction. It would seem that in abandoning logic you would
> abandon this, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
> Why this is important is that in doing away with logic you also do
> away with a primary method of excluding the theologies you do. There
> are a great number of things you don't believe, how do you, without
> logic, support this?

Notice, I never said we should abandon logic.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 4, 2:01 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:44 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But there are two issues remaining:
>
> > You said you agree with my methods. Oddly enough, I do not remember
> > abandoning logic in favor of intuition or my personal opinions about
> > how reality appears to me. I certainly did not intend to give that
> > impression so if you can point out, specifically, where I gave it, I
> > will happily correct myself. Otherwise, it would seem that you do not
> > agree with my methods, since I insist on some sort logic be behind
> > such reasoning.
>
> I agree with the use of logic so that I can perhaps understand
> something in a better sense or communicate it. But essentially, I do
> not use logic to know something is real. Children do not use logic to
> interact with reality. It's only when they get older that they start
> to use logic to better understand and communicate reality.

Right, and children have imaginary friends, believe in Santa, the
Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. A child's lack of logical
comprehension is what allows them to be duped by more knowledable
individuals, for better or for worse. Children don't reason well and,
conversely aren't reasoned with well.

If you had explained that you would be assuming the mentality of a
child (intentionally or not) then I would have tried a different
approach.

>
> > Secondly, one of the fundamental axioms of logic is the law of non
> > contradiction. It would seem that in abandoning logic you would
> > abandon this, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
> > Why this is important is that in doing away with logic you also do
> > away with a primary method of excluding the theologies you do. There
> > are a great number of things you don't believe, how do you, without
> > logic, support this?
>
> Notice, I never said we should abandon logic.

Notice, I never said you said we should abandon logic. I said you
abanonded logic.

[semi]

On Aug 4, 2:09 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, and children have imaginary friends, believe in Santa, the
> Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. A child's lack of logical
> comprehension is what allows them to be duped by more knowledable
> individuals, for better or for worse. Children don't reason well and,
> conversely aren't reasoned with well.

I was speaking of a child's interaction with reality, not their
imagination. The former is passive in terms of the child's involvement
in convincing themselves of its existence (which is how revelation
usually works). In the same way, Christians are submitting themselves
to a conviction they do not aid to generate. But my point is, they can
interact with reality without using logic to understand it. The logic
can be formed after the reality is experienced.

> If you had explained that you would be assuming the mentality of a
> child (intentionally or not) then I would have tried a different
> approach.

No need to try a different approach since I have made a clear
distinction. As usual you take my analogies out of context.

> > Notice, I never said we should abandon logic.
>
> Notice, I never said you said we should abandon logic. I said you
> abanonded logic.

No I didn't and no I don't. I submit to reality and form logic from
that. Not the other way around.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 4, 10:32 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:09 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Right, and children have imaginary friends, believe in Santa, the
> > Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. A child's lack of logical
> > comprehension is what allows them to be duped by more knowledable
> > individuals, for better or for worse. Children don't reason well and,
> > conversely aren't reasoned with well.
>
> I was speaking of a child's interaction with reality, not their
> imagination. The former is passive in terms of the child's involvement
> in convincing themselves of its existence (which is how revelation
> usually works). In the same way, Christians are submitting themselves
> to a conviction they do not aid to generate. But my point is, they can
> interact with reality without using logic to understand it. The logic
> can be formed after the reality is experienced.

Your point is invalid because children *don't* understand reality. For
them, these things you dismissively refer to as their imagination *is*
part of their reality that they interact with. Regress further. An
infant has no concept of permanence. They don't understand that things
don't cease to exist when they are not in their field of vision. This
is their reality. Yes, they don't need logic to interact with it, but
they certainly don't understand it because their perception is flawed
because they lack the logical backing to understand more abstract
concepts such as permanence.

>
> > If you had explained that you would be assuming the mentality of a
> > child (intentionally or not) then I would have tried a different
> > approach.
>
> No need to try a different approach since I have made a clear
> distinction. As usual you take my analogies out of context.
>
> > > Notice, I never said we should abandon logic.
>
> > Notice, I never said you said we should abandon logic. I said you
> > abanonded logic.
>
> No I didn't and no I don't. I submit to reality and form logic from
> that. Not the other way around.

Except you have yet to produce any sort of logic and, when pressed,
you simply say it isn't necessary. Ergo, you abandon logic.

[semi]

On Aug 5, 8:04 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your point is invalid because children *don't* understand reality. For
> them, these things you dismissively refer to as their imagination *is*
> part of their reality that they interact with. Regress further. An
> infant has no concept of permanence. They don't understand that things
> don't cease to exist when they are not in their field of vision. This
> is their reality. Yes, they don't need logic to interact with it, but
> they certainly don't understand it because their perception is flawed
> because they lack the logical backing to understand more abstract
> concepts such as permanence.

But if you are talking about infants, there is no need to mention
Santa Claus or other beliefs of the imagination. In this case, the
infant is constantly interacting with reality without any use of
reason OR imagination. In the case of a child that believes in Santa
Claus or any other thing in their imagination, they are very active in
convincing themselves in these beliefs. However, they are passive in
convincing themselves of reality's existence. Based on experience, I
find my conviction of God's existence to be very passive when it comes
to me trying to convince myself of it. So, I continue to show you the
logic behind how I distinguish the sense of the Holy Spirit as opposed
to any emotional feeling. You have yet to refute that logic.

[Drafterman]

Each time I bring up logic you say you aren't using it. Then when I
stop you say you are. I will patiently wait until you decide on a
story.

[semi]

I use logic, but interacting with reality does not depend on using
logic. Logic is only used to understanding that reality in a more
abstract sense.

[semi]

I'm also implying that to know something might not only mean
understanding it abstractly. But if you interact with it intuitively,
that's knowing it in a sense, and perhaps a greater sense than
understanding it abstractly.

On Aug 5, 1:06 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

Ok, so you intuit God. Now, this God that you intuitively believe in.
Did you know it to be the God if the Bible before having ever read or
been told about the Bible?

> > story.- Hide quoted text -

[semi]

On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so you intuit God.

I intuit God and I also have a logical basis for my beliefs.

> Now, this God that you intuitively believe in.
> Did you know it to be the God if the Bible before having ever read or
> been told about the Bible?

This intuitive sense of God started when I blew the dust off a Bible
and started reading it on my own. When I look back, my intention was
to read it for the sake of reading something. It was one of the books
that I had, that I never read. So I just decided to read it for that
reason.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 5, 2:22 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, so you intuit God.
>
> I intuit God and I also have a logical basis for my beliefs.

That logical basis is.....

>
> > Now, this God that you intuitively believe in.
> > Did you know it to be the God if the Bible before having ever read or
> > been told about the Bible?
>
> This intuitive sense of God started when I blew the dust off a Bible
> and started reading it on my own. When I look back, my intention was
> to read it for the sake of reading something. It was one of the books
> that I had, that I never read. So I just decided to read it for that
> reason.

This description does not reflect intuition. Philosophically speaking,
inution is untaught and not inferred. What you describe is that the
Bible taught you about God and/or you inferred his existence from it.
Whether or not you remember consciously making a decision, you did
make a decision, which is a reasoning process.

If you truly did intuit God's existence, the Bible would have been
unnecessary.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 5, 2:22 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So, you admit that you came to god some time after starting to read
the bible.

Therefore, you did not truly intuit god, you ended up believing a
version of a god that was written in a book. You were actually
convinced by neolithic writings rather than you intuited god. To have
truly intuited god, you would have done it without a book.

Luckily for you, you did not pick up a Harry Potter or a Norse
mythology book that day or you would be in a mental institution today,
with no Web access... This is what happens to people who believe that
mythical characters, such as Dumbledore or Odin, actually exist.
Again, luckily for you, you happen to believe in a mythical character
that is socially acceptable. In that regards, religion is like
cigarettes. Nicotine is an accepted drug. Nobody can be incarcerated
for selling/using it. Cocaine is a different matter. You cannot be
placed in a mental institution for being a christian who believes in a
mythical figure, but adults who truly believe that harry Potter or
Thor are real can be locked up in mental institutions.
______________________
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence
of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or
never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a
mere ass; he is actually ill."
-- Henry Louis Mencken

[semi]

On Aug 5, 2:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2:22 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, so you intuit God.
>
> > I intuit God and I also have a logical basis for my beliefs.
>
> That logical basis is.....

So you haven't been paying attention all along.

> This description does not reflect intuition. Philosophically speaking,
> inution is untaught and not inferred. What you describe is that the
> Bible taught you about God and/or you inferred his existence from it.
> Whether or not you remember consciously making a decision, you did
> make a decision, which is a reasoning process.
>
> If you truly did intuit God's existence, the Bible would have been
> unnecessary.

Not necessarily. Just because a source influences the mind does not
mean it was influenced by the mind's reasoning process. And just
because a decision was made, doesn't mean reasoning was involved at
that moment. In fact, as an atheist you claim that theists are
irrational in their beliefs, yet they still made a decision to believe.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 5, 3:07 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 2:22 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ok, so you intuit God.
>
> > > I intuit God and I also have a logical basis for my beliefs.
>
> > That logical basis is.....
>
> So you haven't been paying attention all along.

Yes, I have. Each time I press you for your logical method, you
retreat and say that logic isn't used or necessary. The closest you've
come is saying that you use the same methods I do, but I already
showed that to be false.

>
> > This description does not reflect intuition. Philosophically speaking,
> > inution is untaught and not inferred. What you describe is that the
> > Bible taught you about God and/or you inferred his existence from it.
> > Whether or not you remember consciously making a decision, you did
> > make a decision, which is a reasoning process.
>
> > If you truly did intuit God's existence, the Bible would have been
> > unnecessary.
>
> Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily, according to the definition of intuition.

> Just because a source influences the mind does not
> mean it was influenced by the mind's reasoning process.

What does this have to do with intuition?

> And just
> because a decision was made, doesn't mean reasoning was involved at
> that moment.

Actually it does.

> In fact, as an atheist you claim that theists are
> irrational in their beliefs, yet they still made a decision to believe.

Some did, others had that belief instilled upon them as a child.

[semi]

On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, you admit that you came to god some time after starting to read
> the bible.
>
> Therefore, you did not truly intuit god, you ended up believing a
> version of a god that was written in a book. You were actually
> convinced by neolithic writings rather than you intuited god. To have
> truly intuited god, you would have done it without a book.

I was convinced intuitively by the bible, which I believe is the word
of God. The point is, some source claiming to link to God had an
intuitive effect. And this does not only happen the way I experience.
Some claim to have these experiences in other ways. Some people even
believe in God's existence yet they would admit they are in open
rebellion. There are numerous ways people intuit God.

> Luckily for you, you did not pick up a Harry Potter or a Norse
> mythology book that day or you would be in a mental institution today,
> with no Web access...

I've read many tales. Why wasn't I convinced of their stories, but I
was convinced of the bible? The approach I took was the same when I
read them.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 5, 3:07 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> And just because a decision was made, doesn't mean reasoning
> was involved at that moment.

<snip>

If you drive a vehicle, would you mind telling me in which city you
live?

After reading a statement like that, I, for one, do not want to be
sharing the same roads with you while driving or walking around.
After all, you could decide to drive on the sidewalk or the wrong side
of the road without any reason whatsoever, since reasoning is not
necessary in decision-making...

[semi]

On Aug 5, 3:16 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I have. Each time I press you for your logical method, you
> retreat and say that logic isn't used or necessary. The closest you've
> come is saying that you use the same methods I do, but I already
> showed that to be false.

I gave you a physical reference point, namely creation. And I gave you
my reason why I accepted that. All you said was that it was flawed,
but you didn't even say why. Also, you didn't even justify your
physical references for love as opposed to me using creation for God.

> Yes necessarily, according to the definition of intuition.

You are merely pointing out the fact that in order to read a book you
have to reason to understand what it is saying. That is not the same
as reasoning in order to agree with what the book is saying is true. I
did not agree with the bible because I found some kind of logical
framework to believe in the specific things that it taught. That came
after.

[semi]

I didn't say that a decision can only be made intuitively. You are
taking what I say out of context, whether you did it ignorantly or
not.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 5, 3:33 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 3:16 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I have. Each time I press you for your logical method, you
> > retreat and say that logic isn't used or necessary. The closest you've
> > come is saying that you use the same methods I do, but I already
> > showed that to be false.
>
> I gave you a physical reference point, namely creation. And I gave you
> my reason why I accepted that. All you said was that it was flawed,
> but you didn't even say why.

We couldn't get to that point because, rather than asking why it was
flawed, you as I said, shied away from logic:

semi: Creation

Drafterman: What is "creation"?

semi: So the question I suppose you really want to ask here is if I

look at the stars, for example, and I feel a conviction in my heart
that there is a Creator, how do I justify this conviction? Well, I
use physical reference points. For example, I see man creates things
that are complex, yet we are complex ourselves. And I say to myself
that since man is more complex than the complex thing we make, I
think that something more intelligent than man exists, and I call Him
the Creator. Then I say to myself that when man comes up with some
other theory that negates a Creator, I don't feel the same conviction
for that theory than for the Creator "theory". So I conclude that
experience with logic is better than just logic. Though I do not use
this to conclude that it is the God of the bible, it's a start.

Drafterman: It doesn't bother you that this "start" is based on
fallacy?

semi: What's fallacy is that I have to appeal to logic for you to
understand
reality.

This statement is an admission from you that you do not have a logical
method. You are assuming that reality is a "creation" and then you say
that logic is not necessary to understand this.

Then you turn around and say that you DO use logic. Again, pick a
story and stick with it.

> Also, you didn't even justify your
> physical references for love as opposed to me using creation for God.

I don't see why I would have to, unless you disagree that there are
certain actions people can take that are typically, if not
definitively, associated with the expression of love.

>
> > Yes necessarily, according to the definition of intuition.
>
> You are merely pointing out the fact that in order to read a book you
> have to reason to understand what it is saying. That is not the same
> as reasoning in order to agree with what the book is saying is true. I
> did not agree with the bible because I found some kind of logical
> framework to believe in the specific things that it taught. That came
> after.

It's still not intuition.

[semi]

On Aug 5, 3:46 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> semi: What's fallacy is that I have to appeal to logic for you to
> understand
> reality.

That was my fault. What I meant was "know" reality or interact with
it. Not "understand."

> This statement is an admission from you that you do not have a logical
> method. You are assuming that reality is a "creation" and then you say
> that logic is not necessary to understand this.

Logic is needed to understand, but not to know. I know that I am
consciously in reality, but I am not using any logical framework to
convince myself of that knowledge. And come to think about it, most
human beings do not actually try to convince themselves logically of
their own existence until someone questions them.

> > You are merely pointing out the fact that in order to read a book you
> > have to reason to understand what it is saying. That is not the same
> > as reasoning in order to agree with what the book is saying is true. I
> > did not agree with the bible because I found some kind of logical
> > framework to believe in the specific things that it taught. That came
> > after.
>
> It's still not intuition.

If it's not reasoning and not intuition, what is it?

[Answer_42]

On Aug 5, 3:35 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I didn't say that a decision can only be made intuitively. You are
> taking what I say out of context, whether you did it ignorantly or
> not.
>

I did not say that you said that either. You did say that it was
possible that decisions can be made without reasoning.

That is enough for me.

Should you happen to make such an "unreasoned" decision while driving,
I want to as far as possible from your location when it happens.

Now, before you twist you panties in a knot, I did not imply that all
decisions you might make while driving would be unreasoned; I am only
stating that I would rather not take the chance of being in the same
city as you while you were driving because if you did, even only once,
make such an unreasoned decision while driving, I do not want to be
around.

Now, is that clear enough?

I did not take anything out of context.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 5, 3:25 pm, semi <seminole10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2:41 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, you admit that you came to god some time after starting to read
> > the bible.
>
> > Therefore, you did not truly intuit god, you ended up believing a
> > version of a god that was written in a book. You were actually
> > convinced by neolithic writings rather than you intuited god. To have
> > truly intuited god, you would have done it without a book.
>
> I was convinced intuitively by the bible, which I believe is the word

I will not start another thread to discuss intuition. Drafterman more
than adequately addressed this particular issue.
I agree with what he wrote. We were thinking exactly the same thing,
but he is much better at writing clearly and concisely than I am, so
no need for me to repeat the whole exchange.

<snip>

[Observer]

On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> If you are claiming to "be in science" then how come you don't know
> the difference between theory, hypothesis, conjecture and religious or
> faith based belief. The Higgs Boson is a scientific hypothesis based
> on real physical models. Although not detected yet, scientific
> experiments to be conducted at CERN may still prove this current
> hypothesis be a real possibility. And thus it will eventually become a
> valid theory. Religious or faith based belief in a God is neither a
> theory, nor a hypothesis and does not even constitute conjecture which
> is the weakest of the three. The existence of God is not based on any
> empirical models of science. So searching for Higgs Boson is
> definitely not the same as searching for God, because scientists can
> offer you empiricle evidence for their "nothing as yet".  What
> empirical evidence can you offer for the existence of your "never will
> be?" Yet again, I find a Theist whose disingenuous use of science,
> appalling.
>
> If you have found the tooth fairy and Santa, then you have truly found
> God. There is a place reserved for you at the Sterkfontein Psychiatric
> Facility.

Observer
Well said , poor checkers . I wonder if he ever contemplated the
phrase non compos mentis ?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Psychonomist
>
> On Jul 31, 8:50 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 2:29 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > Simple. You first have to know for sure (or have a high probability)
> > > that something exists and at least what it looks like, before
> > > attempting to find it.
>
> > chx
> > beep, wrong! what does a higgs boson look like? need i say more...ok
> > then if you insist, how about sterile neutrino's? neither are detected
> > and yet the scientists will tell you the SN gets fat interacting with
> > HB and can have a mass of 10to the 20 electronvolts. how is that for a
> > knockout blow. they don't even know if it exists and yet give it a
> > mass, yuk yuk yuk. you give up without even wondering, just as well
> > you not in science. so, what makes a scientist looking for ghosts any
> > different to me finding God hmmm? bah!
>
> > > The probability for God's existence is either
> > > zero or almost zero, which informs my reasoning ability not to bother
> > > looking. I would rather spend my short time on earth enjoying the
> > > tangible things life has to offer - because I know (by logical
> > > deduction) that I only get one shot at it. You on the other hand seem
> > > quite content to waste your life chasing imaginary "beings" hoping
> > > that "it" will throw a few scraps of "salvation" your way. and not I
> > > have found my salvation in the beauty that reality offers. Try
> > > searching for that some time?
>
> > chx
> > i enjoy all the good things in life and i have one more luxury than
> > you have. i reject some things not because God forbids them, i reject
> > them because i have no interest or desire for them.
>
> > > Since you maintain that you have already found "god," let me know when
> > > you find the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. For someone with your
> > > "seeking" abilities, it shouldn't be that hard.
>
> > chx
> > indeed, i found them at a very young age. i love the tooth fairy. she
> > brought me into the world and cared for me until i could care for
> > myself. she protected me from that nasty santa that never gave me
> > anything.
>
> > > And for the last time,
> > > get back on the bus and explain to me why you are still answering for
> > > Him, while claiming that you cannot.
>
> > chx
> > i never left the bus, i just asked to stop the bus. i do not answer
> > for God, where do you get this idea. i simply state what is in the
> > Bible, the answers are there. when you ask me something i don't find
> > in the Bible then i will tell you i cannot answer for God.
>
> > > On Jul 30, 11:00 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 30, 9:49 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > You see, unlike you, I don't waste time looking for things that are
> > > > > not there
>
> > > > chx
> > > > stop the bus!!! now explain to me how you know these things are not
> > > > there if you never looked. the problem is that you don't expect to
> > > > find anything and that is why you don't even bother to look.
>
> > > > > and I fail to understand how something that does not exist
> > > > > can find me. And you are still answering for Him, while claiming that
> > > > > you can't. What's with that? The invisible cat got His invisible
> > > > > tongue?
>
> > > > > On Jul 30, 6:24 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 30, 5:18 pm, Lenny <len...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hi Checkers, been following this thread with interest and noticed yet
> > > > > > > again, a Theist use the now infamous line "seek God" or similar line
> > > > > > > "seek God and you shall find Him." Most Theists use this phrase,
>
> > > > > > chx
> > > > > > why, is it poor english? ok then i will write it my way.
> > > > > > if you have the need to know God then He is already there, you need
> > > > > > not 'look' for Him. if you claim you cannot find Him then you never
> > > > > > even tried because He found you long ago. just say you are not
> > > > > > interested in finding Him and we can rest the case there. i can
> > > > > > understand that if you accept Him then you have a problem with
> > > > > > watching and doing things that He despises. you will argue that he
> > > > > > restricts your freedom of doing the wrong things.
>
> > > > > > this is all i have to add. for the rest of your post and that of
> > > > > > Drafterman...bah!
>
> > > > > > > obviously because they "think" they have already found God. My
> > > > > > > question is simple: if you have already found God, please be so kind
> > > > > > > as to provide the address where you found Him. Supposing He has moved
> > > > > > > on since you found him there, this would at least be a starting point
> > > > > > > for me to continue my search from. Maybe as your Religion teaches, He
> > > > > > > is somewhere in outer space (yours' is the cult of the Sky God isn't
> > > > > > > it?); in which case you must have a stellar address? Now don't tell me
> > > > > > > that this "address" is not in the realm of consciousness or similar
> > > > > > > such nonsense. We've been there before with Omprem.
>
> > > > > > > Oh, and BTW, why do Theists always say " I cannot answer for Him" and
> > > > > > > do just that on these discussion threads. He certainly isn't answering
> > > > > > > for Himself, now is He?
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 29, 11:47 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 29, 11:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 29, 4:50 pm, Checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > > > for the umpteenth time, i have no secret to share, it is as simple as
> > > > > > > > > > being honest in your endeavour to seek God. no secrets, no rituals,
> > > > > > > > > > just you and God is all, you and Him on a personal level, period. will
> > > > > > > > > > He respond immediately, an hour from now or next year. i don't know.
> > > > > > > > > > i suppose it depends how serious one is, yes? i cannot answer for Him.
> > > > > > > > > > i'd say if you make a joke of the attempt, the joke will be on you.
>
> > > > > > > > > Ok. I've done that and nothing happened so. So what did I do wrong?
>
> > > > > > > > chx
> > > > > > > > you have a serious grasping/understanding problem in that you never
> > > > > > > > actually read my writing... the joke is on you. however the lurkers
> > > > > > > > have read it all, including your write.
>
> > > > > > > > this is why i noted your write for the record.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[semi]

So let's say a person does not reason their consciousness, but just
decides to assume (to you) that they know they are experiencing it.
Yet every time you demand for a logical explanation they just laugh
and ignore you because they just come to their decision that they know
they are experiencing consciousness intuitively. Let's also say that's
basically the only thing they intuitively decide on, but in everything
else they seem to be reasonable. Would you then conclude on that one
act of intuitive decision that it's not worth being on the same
highway as that individual?