Why atheism is the reasonable default position.

[Deidzoeb]

We can safely accept as plausible most ordinary claims that fall
within normal human experience. I could claim to have gone to the
grocery store today. I might be lying, but grocery stores are common.
It is plausible that any average American might have gone to a grocery
store in any given day. You don't necessarily know my claim is
definitely true without further investigation, but at least it's
within the realm of plausibility.

"I won the lottery last night!" Not very probable, but at least this
is still within the realm of normal human experience.

For extraordinary claims about events that fall outside the limits of
normal human experience, we should remain skeptical. No one has ever
documented the existence of a living, breathing basilisk that turned
humans to stone when gazing on them. Maybe such a thing can exist,
and
maybe it tore through that army in China and turned them all to terra
cotta before burying them.

Reasonable people should expect extraordinary proof to support claims
that fall outside the limits of normal human experience. We should
reject those claims as impossible until or unless we get some solid
proof.

[Joseph Geloso] brought up the counterargument in the past that God is
a part of normal experience. But it's more like claims of the
existence of God are part of normal human experience. Hopes for the
existence of gods are a part of normal experience. In the same way,
believing the claims of a con artist "psychic" like Sylvia Browne is a
part of normal human experience. Some people visit "faith healers" who
claim to cure them of diseases, and some will keep on believing it
even when their disease shows no improvement. That is not the same as
God or psychic powers or faith healing being part of normal human
experience. Claims and emotions about those things are within normal
human experience. Actually seeing, sensing, hearing God or psychic
powers in action or successful faith healing are not part of normal
human experience.

Given the rarity, it is more plausible that the people who report
hearing God, performing successful psychic surgery or being able to
read other people's thoughts are either lying or mistaken.

That's why the reasonable default position is not to believe when a
person tells you she turned her telephone into water, or that Dave
Letterman is winking a secret code on his tv show to tell me that he
wants to marry me, or that aliens cut up cows. The claim that a god
exists should be treated with the same default position, that things
outside of normal human experience are impossible until they are
proven, no matter how pleasant it would be to ignore reason and
replace it with hope.

(Actually Dave Letterman winking a code is technically plausible,
although I would probably be the twentieth or hundredth person to have
that kind of erotomaniacal delusion. It seems much more likely to be a
delusion than a rich and famous person like Letterman choosing to
communicate his love through coded speech or movements in the course
of his show.)

The reasonable default position is not to believe in extraordinary
claims outside of normal human experience, until or unless it can be
proven. The existence of god is an unsupported, extraordinary claim
outside of normal human experience.


[I posted that section above in a discussion about two weeks ago, but
it got lost in the shuffle. Just wondered if it would provoke some
responses as its own thread. Thanks.]

[Timothy 1:4a]

Excellent post!

On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

> Letterman is winking a secret code on his tv show to tell me that he

> wants to marry me, or that aliens cut up cows. <snip>

I recognize the "aliens cut up cows" reference. It spawned one of my
favorite quotes from the annals of debunking. An investigator
examined a cow that had been "surgically" cut up in a field and said,
"If a surgeon did this, he did it with his teeth."

[Joe]

On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Completely begging the question. You are attempting to prove that the
claims of those who say they know God are without substance, based on
your claim that those claims are without substance.

How does anyone know you didn't just imagine going to the grocery
store? How do we know, for example (since it is a subjective
example), that a given colorblind person is not actually lying and
really does see a distinction between yellow and blue?

> Given the rarity, it is more plausible that the people who report
> hearing God, performing successful psychic surgery or being able to
> read other people's thoughts are either lying or mistaken.
>
> That's why the reasonable default position is not to believe when a
> person tells you she turned her telephone into water, or that Dave
> Letterman is winking a secret code on his tv show to tell me that he
> wants to marry me, or that aliens cut up cows. The claim that a god
> exists should be treated with the same default position, that things
> outside of normal human experience are impossible until they are
> proven, no matter how pleasant it would be to ignore reason and
> replace it with hope.
>
> (Actually Dave Letterman winking a code is technically plausible,
> although I would probably be the twentieth or hundredth person to have
> that kind of erotomaniacal delusion. It seems much more likely to be a
> delusion than a rich and famous person like Letterman choosing to
> communicate his love through coded speech or movements in the course
> of his show.)
>
> The reasonable default position is not to believe in extraordinary
> claims outside of normal human experience, until or unless it can be
> proven. The existence of god is an unsupported, extraordinary claim
> outside of normal human experience.
>

Not according to the millions who regularly experience Him in the
their lives. It is only outside the realm of normal, human, ATHEISTIC
experience. That is, assuming the atheists are not just lying about
it.

[Deidzoeb]

But you don't have to rely on my authority or testimony that those
claims are without substance. You can investigate every claim that has
ever been made about gods or unicorns or Shiva or chupacabra. If any
one of them seems reliable, then please share it with us. Until or
unless I can find any credible claims, until or unless you or anyone
else can find credible claims, the reasonable default belief is
atheism, a-unicornism and a-chupacabra-ism.

> How does anyone know you didn't just imagine going to the grocery
> store? How do we know, for example (since it is a subjective
> example), that a given colorblind person is not actually lying and
> really does see a distinction between yellow and blue?

I wasn't very clear with the grocery store example. You can't
instantly believe that I'm telling the truth when I claim to have been
to the grocery store. But it's at least within the realm of normal
human experience. Seeing or hearing gods is far enough out of normal
human experience that we should expect extraordinary evidence before
we accept the claim.

For the colorblind person, my point is not that we must believe every
claim that is possible. It's that we can reasonably debate possible
and plausible claims within normal human experience. Colorblindness is
part of normal human experience. Some percentage of people are born
with it. There may be some medical test to discover whether a person
is missing the "rods or cones" within the eye that perceive certain
colors. (At least, that's the explanation I've heard for why people
are colorblind.) Sensing God is not within normal human experience.
When someone claims to have heard God or seen God or talked with a
bush that burns yet is not consumed, we can reasonably believe that
they are lying or mistaken, until or unless they can present solid
evidence.

I concede that it's possible something extraordinary could happen and
a person might not have evidence to prove the claim. An Arawak indian
who was the first in his land to witness one of his fellows getting
shot to death by Christopher Columbus's crew, going back to his tribe
and describing that he saw a man point a stick, some smoke came out,
and his friend fell dead with a hole in his chest -- I can see that
his tribe might not believe him even though it's the truth. But I
think those skeptical listeners would be reasonable not to believe.
Otherwise, if you believe every wild claim you hear, or take it on
faith when you hear a reassuring supernatural claim, where do you draw
the line? If we believe in one god, shouldn't we believe in all the
rest? Is there any more subjective evidence for the claims about
Christ than for the claims about Vishnu?

So how about the millions who regularly "experience" Vishnu and Kali
and Gaia and Legba in their lives? How about Joseph Smith's
experiences with angels and his transcribed adventures of Jesus in
America? How about Muhammed's experiences with his God? Are you saying
everyone who claims to have experienced some god should be trusted? Or
only people who make claims about your favorite god?

Wanting to experience a god is part of normal human experience.
Wanting it so badly that you think it must be true, is part of normal
human experience. But even among believers, most of them will admit
they've never seen, touched, heard God. They felt him in an emotional
way, like the way I feel the presence of Scarlett Johansen beside me
when my wife has a headache and I've locked myself in the bathroom.
You know, not exactly like that experience, but similar.

[LL]

Excellent post, Deidzoeb. LL

[trog69]

I'm witcha dere, LL. Always a pleasure reading your stuff, Deadzoneb!
(hehehehe!)

One thing I'd add is that, with your examples, there is no real payoff
for bullshitting, making it more believable.

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- A perfectly explained and clearly understandable
proposition that indicates perfectly how it "should" be. To an
atheist, but I suspect that theists will be incapable of understanding
a word of it.

[Trance Gemini]

Really good post Deidzoeb. You should put this up in Pages.

[Joe]

The knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in His Son
Jesus, in the Eucharist, seems utterly reliable.

> Until or
> unless I can find any credible claims, until or unless you or anyone
> else can find credible claims, the reasonable default belief is
> atheism, a-unicornism and a-chupacabra-ism.
>

No, atheism is not the reasonable default in the face of the testimony
of those who claim to know Him. Atheism in such a case relies on the
assumption that those people are either lying or mistaken. That in
turn relies on the unsupported assumption that they either have a
reason to lie (or else are just pathological) or that your judgment is
inherently more reliable than theirs. Now you have to support at
least one of the following:

1. The judgment, or power of discernment, of *all* Christians is
necessarily less than that of *any* atheist (or at least one, namely
you).

2. Christians perceive that they have a bona fide reason to lie (even
though their religion is purportedly one of truth).

3. Christians lie for no good reason, i.e. pathologically.

Now while there are those here who blindly and blatantly assert 3, I
hope that you are not among these. 2 is unlikely on the face of it,
seemingly negated by its parenthetical. That leaves us with 1 as
plausible. I submit, however, that there is an even more plausible
alternate to 1, namely that

4. Christians know something atheists do not.

In any case, if 1, then at least Christians think they know something
atheists do not, and they are, according to you, deluded. They say
they know it (well some of them at least, and the Christian you are
talking to is one.) So it seems the most likely scenarios --- unless
you really do want to call "liar, liar!" --- are both variations of
the same thing. What we now have is:

5. Christians claim to know something atheists do not, and

(4) they are correct, or
(1) they are incorrect. (we can give them the benefit of the doubt
and subsume 2 and 3 under 1 --- O.K.?)

> > How does anyone know you didn't just imagine going to the grocery
> > store? How do we know, for example (since it is a subjective
> > example), that a given colorblind person is not actually lying and
> > really does see a distinction between yellow and blue?
>
> I wasn't very clear with the grocery store example. You can't
> instantly believe that I'm telling the truth when I claim to have been
> to the grocery store.

Why can't I instantly believe that?

> But it's at least within the realm of normal
> human experience. Seeing or hearing gods is far enough out of normal
> human experience that we should expect extraordinary evidence before
> we accept the claim.
>

Why do you use the fallacious "seeing or hearing?" It seems you want
to argue that God is not in the realm of the senses. We both believe
that; we can treat it as given. So it is absurd to argue that point,
since we both already accept it.

You want to prove that Christians are under a species of delusion when
they claim to _know_ God, not to see or to hear Him. It says in the
very Scriptures the Christians believe that "no one hath at any time
seen the Father." So this "seeing or hearing God" is a straw man.

> For the colorblind person, my point is not that we must believe every
> claim that is possible. It's that we can reasonably debate possible
> and plausible claims within normal human experience. Colorblindness is
> part of normal human experience. Some percentage of people are born
> with it. There may be some medical test to discover whether a person
> is missing the "rods or cones" within the eye that perceive certain
> colors. (At least, that's the explanation I've heard for why people
> are colorblind.) Sensing God is not within normal human experience.
> When someone claims to have heard God or seen God or talked with a
> bush that burns yet is not consumed, we can reasonably believe that
> they are lying or mistaken, until or unless they can present solid
> evidence.
>

But no one here is claiming to have seen or heard such things, so
straw man.

I claim to know God. That is not a straw man. Attack that.

> I concede that it's possible something extraordinary could happen and
> a person might not have evidence to prove the claim. An Arawak indian
> who was the first in his land to witness one of his fellows getting
> shot to death by Christopher Columbus's crew, going back to his tribe
> and describing that he saw a man point a stick, some smoke came out,
> and his friend fell dead with a hole in his chest -- I can see that
> his tribe might not believe him even though it's the truth.

Pointedly, only the foolish members of his tribe would disbelieve
him. The wise, having more familiarity with the possible, would take
him at his word. Why would he lie?

In point of fact, it may very well have been that before the white man
came to America, the natives were unfamiliar with the process known to
us as lying. It is certainly not a natural use of words. Words exist
for the purpose of conveying information or thought accurately, and
until one is introduced to lying, it is possible it would never occur
to one. It is possible that the white man, "who speaks with forked
tongue," introduced lying to the native Americans, just as the
original Serpent introduced it to Eve.

> But I
> think those skeptical listeners would be reasonable not to believe.

You think it is more likely that an honest man lies than that
something exists that you have not yet encountered. How narrow of
you!

> Otherwise, if you believe every wild claim you hear, or take it on
> faith when you hear a reassuring supernatural claim, where do you draw
> the line?

Indeed. Where? I wonder if there is any such thing as discernment?
Do you think?

I am being sarcastic, of course. I know discernment is both real and
extremely valuable, yea indispensable if one pursues a spiritual path.

> If we believe in one god, shouldn't we believe in all the
> rest?

That would be lack of discernment. It is just plausible, though
barely, that a thinking atheist might actually assert that as a viable
possibility. But I doubt it. My own discernment tells me it is more
likely that that is presented by you not as a real option, but as an
example of an absurdity.

> Is there any more subjective evidence for the claims about
> Christ than for the claims about Vishnu?
>

What is this "subjective evidence" crap? I thought you atheists don't
believe in any of that. I thought you atheists don't accept the
reality of subjects. When did you move beyond physicalism?

We cannot discount them a priori. A wise person will investigate.
For example, the Vaishnavas (devotees of Vishnu or Krishna) claim that
by simply chanting "Hare Krishna, etc." it is possible to come to know
God. Now I believe I have a better way, but I certainly do not
discount their way on the face of it. That would be foolish. I would
be cutting off a possible part of reality, thus irrationally limiting
my possible experience of reality.

> How about Joseph Smith's
> experiences with angels and his transcribed adventures of Jesus in
> America?

Same thing applies.

> How about Muhammed's experiences with his God?

Same thing applies.

> Are you saying
> everyone who claims to have experienced some god should be trusted?

I am saying a claim made in earnest by a man who in other areas would
be believed, should not be a priori dismissed, but investigated.
There may be means of investigating some of those claims, outside of
empirical science. Some of those claims come along with purported
means of investigating them.

> Or
> only people who make claims about your favorite god?
>

I have no "favorite god." "The gods" are either

1. us, or
2. mythical representations of real aspects of God, or
3. psychological representations of real aspects of ourselves, or
4. real beings less than God who have manifested themselves in certain
ways to certain individuals.

I draw a line of differentiation between "gods" and God. You should
too, if you are talking to me and you want to grasp what I think I am
saying.

> Wanting to experience a god is part of normal human experience.

No it isn't.

> Wanting it so badly that you think it must be true, is part of normal
> human experience.

Self-delusion. Begging the question. You have not yet supported 1
above. (That the judgment, or power of discernment, of *all*
Christians is necessarily less than that of *any* atheist (or at least
one, namely you).)

> But even among believers, most of them will admit
> they've never seen, touched, heard God.

Appeal to the senses regarding something that is purported to be
invisible to the senses. Straw man.

> They felt him in an emotional
> way, like the way I feel the presence of Scarlett Johansen beside me
> when my wife has a headache and I've locked myself in the bathroom.
> You know, not exactly like that experience, but similar.

Nice touch, equating the depths of religious experience with such a
profane thing as masturbation. The atheists applaud you!!! Touché!

Decent-minded folks, however --- and I trust that the decent-minded
atheists, even, are in agreement with me on this --- feel that this
crosses the line into vulgar mockery.

In any case, I can certainly get past my initial emotional reaction to
this disgusting analogy, and examine it for what it's worth. When you
beat off to Scarlett Johansen, you do your level best to fool your
imagination into believing that you are really having sex with her.
The more completely you are able to divorce yourself from reality in
this case, the better your experience will be. This is black magic,
of course. Maybe the most commonly practiced form of it. You enter
into deliberate self-delusion. And somehow, when it is all done, you
come out of it. In other words, you believe, or at least pretend to
believe, something that isn't true, and it does not brainwash you, no
matter how hard you try, no matter how many times you enter the
delusion, no matter how effective your illusions. One day, you will
be able to enter a whole virtual world, indistinguishable to your
senses from the real Scarlett Johansen making sweet love to you. Who
knows? Maybe in that day, you will stay in there until your body
actually dies. But it seems unlikely. It seems unlikely, in fact,
that anyone would enter permanent delusion this way.

Now the religion experience is completely different in at least two
key ways. One (1), it is given as an experience of reality, not
fantasy, and two (2), there is no accompanying deliberate deception of
the senses, and also no supreme effort to delude one's own mind into
believing what one knows to be false.

Now there is no way for you to know that 1 is true or false. The one
with faith believes it, and the atheist remains skeptical of it, but
only the most foolish of atheists assert it false. However, in light
of 2, it would appear that you are taking a far greater risk with Ms.
Johansen than you would ever be taking with God. The risk of actually
"brainwashing" yourself appears, on the face of it, much more severe
in that case than in the case of just praying, or going to Church, or
meditating on some event in the life of Christ.

So how is it that --- according to you and all atheists --- the entire
population of religious folks has become brainwashed, while the entire
population of masturbaters has somehow escaped that curse, even
though (assumedly) their attempts to literally fool their own minds
are a lot stronger than anything used by those practicing a religion?

[Joe]

It occurs to me that there is more than one way to attack this. You
opening sentence:

"We can safely accept as plausible most ordinary claims that fall
within normal human experience."

begs more than one question. Besides the one I have treated at length
in my other reply --- the unsupported claim that knowledge of God is
actually outside of, rather than inside of, normal human experience
--- there is the additional claim of "safety."

This is worth examining, too. Safety is usually contrasted with
danger. Thus the implication here is that it is dangerous to accept
as plausible any claim that falls outside of "normal human
experience." It seems obvious that this is a thinly disguised, "it is
dangerous for any individual to accept as plausible any claim that
falls outside of *his own* experience."

The above view reasonably discards the unsupportable drawing of the
line between normal and extraordinary human experiences. It is not
that no normal people have ever experienced what they reasonably call
God, it is simply that you yourself have never experienced that, or at
least claim you have not.

The short dissertation on the relative merits of inviting Scarlett
fantastically into your head, in the other reply, touched upon this,
but it can be made more explicit, by highlighting the words "safety"
and "danger."

Simply put --- no atheists has any balls, whatsoever. They fear all
sorts of things other than God. Even though "The Fear of the Lord is
the beginning of wisdom," they are too afraid of things other than
God, to even begin in Wisdom. Sad, but demonstrated as true. You
fear:

1. losing your mind
2. deluding yourself
3. being wrong

more than you fear God.

I am not afraid of any of those things. Specifically, I have already
done all of those things in the past, and miraculously (I am not using
hyperbole or sarcasm) I have come out O.K. on the other end of it.

In point of fact, people have "lost their minds" pursuing spiritual
paths. The dangers are very great. But as long as you stick with
Jesus, He will lead you through it. That is a saying reliable and
tested and true.

Insofar as deluding yourself, see my other reply regarding Ms J.

Insofar as being wrong, I'm sure you've been wrong before. You can
always change your mind, if you find out you were wrong. The problem
with that as regards God is that "God exists" does still remain
empirically unfalsifiable, admittedly, for both the atheist and the
believer. There may be those alive today who have the power of
miracles, but quite pointedly that power is at God's disposal, not
their own. I don't have any neat parlor tricks to show you. Sure,
this is Pascal's wager, but so what? Given an infinite reward if you
are right, vs. a finite penalty or no penalty at all if you are wrong,
why not take the chance?

In any case, Pascal's Wager does not stand on its own as the only
reason to believe. The testimony of the Saints far outweighs it, as
reason to believe, and if the only reason not to believe is that you
are afraid of being wrong, then grow a set of balls! Atheists do have
balls except where it would count for something. They have plenty of
balls when they assert that Christians are self-deluded. They just
don't have them when the opportunity is offered to them to trust God.

On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Iamthesonofthedeviliam]

I disagree. "Whatsoever"?

You're being dramatic. All Deidzoeb said is it is the reasonable
default position.

I guess you have an experience that takes you out of the default.

They fear all
> sorts of things other than God. Even though "The Fear of the Lord is
> the beginning of wisdom," they are too afraid of things other than
> God, to even begin in Wisdom. Sad, but demonstrated as true. You
> fear:
>
> 1. losing your mind
> 2. deluding yourself
> 3. being wrong
>
> more than you fear God.
>
> I am not afraid of any of those things. Specifically, I have already
> done all of those things in the past, and miraculously (I am not using
> hyperbole or sarcasm) I have come out O.K. on the other end of it.

But Joe, why do you think you're right now? This is what I'm trying to
communicate to you when I talk about the experience of faith instead
of the rituals that prompted it.

Faith alone cannot be touched. All the other things are false hopes.

Why would God need you to perform a ritual to contact Him?

>
> In point of fact, people have "lost their minds" pursuing spiritual
> paths. The dangers are very great. But as long as you stick with
> Jesus, He will lead you through it. That is a saying reliable and
> tested and true.
>
> Insofar as deluding yourself, see my other reply regarding Ms J.
>
> Insofar as being wrong, I'm sure you've been wrong before. You can
> always change your mind, if you find out you were wrong. The problem
> with that as regards God is that "God exists" does still remain
> empirically unfalsifiable, admittedly, for both the atheist and the
> believer. There may be those alive today who have the power of
> miracles, but quite pointedly that power is at God's disposal, not
> their own. I don't have any neat parlor tricks to show you. Sure,
> this is Pascal's wager, but so what? Given an infinite reward if you
> are right, vs. a finite penalty or no penalty at all if you are wrong,
> why not take the chance?

Because it's a rebellion against the dogma that states that we can be
separated from the idea of a Creator if there was one.

Clear?

That God would send someone to hell if they didn't perform the proper
procedures or had a hang-up like skepticism but were a good person is
ludicrous.

Even the most evil people of all time do not deserve eternal torment.

I don't believe in God, I observe life while living it.

If there is a God then he's not getting my buy-in if he's an asshole.
If there isn't a God, I'll be fine as well.

> > responses as its own thread. Thanks.]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- I bet that was hard work, and the only thing you have
proven is me right in my reply to Deidz.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Nov 18, 2:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wasn't very clear with the grocery store example. You can't
> > instantly believe that I'm telling the truth when I claim to have been
> > to the grocery store.
>
> Why can't I instantly believe that?

I have just been to the grocery store, too. Can you instantly believe
that?

> You want to prove that Christians are under a species of delusion when
> they claim to _know_ God, not to see or to hear Him. It says in the
> very Scriptures the Christians believe that "no one hath at any time
> seen the Father." So this "seeing or hearing God" is a straw man.

Who says?
Genesis 32:30: And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I
have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Exodus 24:9-11: Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ...
They saw God, and did eat and drink.
Exodus 33:11: And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh to his friend.
Exodus 33:23: And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my
backparts.
Numbers 14:14: For they have heard that thou Lord art among this
people, that thou Lord art seen face to face.
Deuteronomy 5:4: The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount
out of the midst of the fire.
Judges 13:22: And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die,
because we have seen God.
Job 42:5: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine
eye seeth thee.
Isaiah 6:1: In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord
sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.
Isaiah 6:5: For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
Ezekiel 1:27: And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and
from the appearance of his loins even downward....
Ezekiel 20:35: And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people,
and there will I plead with you face to face.
Amos 7:7: The LORD stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a
plumbline in his hand.

These are claims of sensory experiences. Are they inside normal human
experience, or outside? Given that Scripture says no man has seen the
Father, do you believe that they happened?

[LL]

On Nov 18, 12:01 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, atheism is not the reasonable default in the face of the
testimony
of those who claim to know Him.

LL: What is YOUR reasonable default positon when it comes to other
gods? Other people also testify to know them.

What is your position on Zeus? On Olympus? On Krishna? On Allah? What
is your position on Joseph Smith?

[Joe]

On Nov 18, 4:36 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I wasn't very clear with the grocery store example. You can't
> > > instantly believe that I'm telling the truth when I claim to have been
> > > to the grocery store.
>
> > Why can't I instantly believe that?
>
> I have just been to the grocery store, too. Can you instantly believe
> that?

Why not?

Yes. They saw the Word. It is extraordinary human experience, such
as some people do have. That is not what I am talking about when I
say that there are ordinary, every-day experiences of God, all the
time, well within the norm.

[Dave]

On Nov 18, 11:37 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in His Son
> Jesus, in the Eucharist, seems utterly reliable.

How can belief in a mythology be "utterly reliable"? What you claim to
be knowledge is no such thing - it is a belief based on blind faith.
That's no where near reliable.

> No, atheism is not the reasonable default in the face of the testimony
> of those who claim to know Him.

Those "claims" mean nothing. Subjective, biased, unreliable
"testimony" is not something that one should base important decisions
on.

[Dave]

On Nov 18, 12:01 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> .....

> In any case, Pascal's Wager does not stand on its own as the only
> reason to believe.

Actually, that suckers bet is a good reason NOT to believe.

> The testimony of the Saints far outweighs it, as
> reason to believe

That is the least reliable reason to believe.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 18, 2:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, atheism is not the reasonable default in the face of the testimony
> of those who claim to know Him. Atheism in such a case relies on the
> assumption that those people are either lying or mistaken. That in
> turn relies on the unsupported assumption that they either have a
> reason to lie (or else are just pathological) or that your judgment is
> inherently more reliable than theirs. Now you have to support at
> least one of the following:

Incorrect. Atheism does not rely on the assumption that those people
are lying or mistaken because atheism, at its most general, simply
relies on the assumption that their testimony should not be accepted
until they meet the burden of proof. Asking someone to prove
themselves is not an accusation of lying nor a declaration that they
are wrong. In court if you are trying to show that someone is guilty,
the burden of proof is on you. This doesn't mean that the court thinks
you are wrong or that you are lying, just that if you expect the court
and the legal system to accept your charge of guilty as fact, that you
have a requirement. This same concept applies to your "testimonies".

[Joe]

Then you should accept the testimony of the Saints since they have met
the burden of proof.

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- You cannot be serious!!!

[Joe]

Utterly. What have they failed to do?

[Drafterman]

Correct.

[Drafterman]

Sorry, I thought you said "Then you should accept the testimony of the
Saints *IF* they have met the burden of proof"

To which my response is: Correct.

In order for me to say "Correct" to your actual statement, I would
need to see the burden of proof. That's what it's called a burden, you
actually need to supply it.

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- EXIST

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- Go back a bit and ask him to supply the Saints, you
have to prove them first as expert witnesses before their "evidence"
is worth anything

[Dave]

On Nov 19, 10:34 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then you should accept the testimony of the Saints since they have met
> the burden of proof.

They have done no such thing. What "burden of proof" do you believe
they have met?

[Deidzoeb]

> > But you don't have to rely on my authority or testimony that those
> > claims are without substance. You can investigate every claim that has
> > ever been made about gods or unicorns or Shiva or chupacabra. If any
> > one of them seems reliable, then please share it with us.
>
> The knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in His Son
> Jesus, in the Eucharist, seems utterly reliable.

It's not any more convincing when you tack specific names onto it.

> > Until or
> > unless I can find any credible claims, until or unless you or anyone
> > else can find credible claims, the reasonable default belief is
> > atheism, a-unicornism and a-chupacabra-ism.
>
> No, atheism is not the reasonable default in the face of the testimony
> of those who claim to know Him. Atheism in such a case relies on the
> assumption that those people are either lying or mistaken. That in
> turn relies on the unsupported assumption that they either have a
> reason to lie (or else are just pathological) or that your judgment is
> inherently more reliable than theirs. Now you have to support at
> least one of the following:
>
> 1. The judgment, or power of discernment, of *all* Christians is
> necessarily less than that of *any* atheist (or at least one, namely
> you).

It's not necessarily that atheists all perceive The Truth more
clearly. Some of them might just not be convinced with the claims that
Christians present. I've known atheists and agnostics who believe in
an afterlife or unsupported magical claims. They can hold beliefs
about some unsupported claims but deny other unsupported claims like
the miracles of Jesus.

> 2. Christians perceive that they have a bona fide reason to lie (even
> though their religion is purportedly one of truth).

Let's call it a misunderstanding instead of a lie. I don't think all
Christians are conscious that they are just making a decision to
believe in their unsupported hopes. It's obvious that believing in
one's hopes would be reassuring. Everyone has an obvious motivation to
engage in wishful thinking. But when it goes past that point, into a
decision that one's wish is Truth (a decision to trust emotion rather
than logic), I think most people would not be conscious that they have
abandoned useful logic and embraced useless emotion. I mean, emotion
is useless to support one's understanding of objective reality. Fine
when it's the basis of a favorite color or favorite song.

Or they just mislead themselves into believing that emotion is useful
when determining objective reality, and logic may be useful but not
necessary.

> 3. Christians lie for no good reason, i.e. pathologically.

The comforting value of wishful thinking is a good reason for ignoring
reality sometimes. It's a coping mechanism for harsh reality. That's
not exactly pathological. I can't remember if we have argued this
aspect of mental illness before, but I personally argue against any
atheists who try to claim that religious belief or faith should be
considered a mental illness. See Dev's latest attempt on a different
thread.

I mean, if there's a sabertooth tiger walking towards you and you
close you're eyes and tell yourself it won't eat you, that's not going
to have a good result. If you feel sad about some bad things that have
happened to you lately, and you hold on to the belief that there is a
good deity who will set everything straight and bring order to your
world, and if it keeps you from killing yourself, then that's an
understandable coping mechanism, even when the belief is totally
unsupported.

I'd like to think that we can talk people out of killing themselves
and we can all feel hopeful and joyous about our world and our chaotic
lives, without caving in to unsupported wishful thinking. But I
wouldn't call it "pathological" when people cave in to wishful
thinking sometimes.

I guess that puts me with number three, and I'm just quibbling to be
politically correct about mental pathology. Sincere Christians might
ignore the harm of their leap away from logic because it is a coping
mechanism.

I would go with option one. Christians make a bad judgement when they
set aside logic and embrace faith (some of them even consciously
putting it in those terms, as if logic or materialism are harmful,
unreliable things). It's something wrong with judgment or discernment,
even though it is sometimes a very conscious decision to set aside
logic.

> Now while there are those here who blindly and blatantly assert 3, I
> hope that you are not among these. 2 is unlikely on the face of it,
> seemingly negated by its parenthetical. That leaves us with 1 as
> plausible. I submit, however, that there is an even more plausible
> alternate to 1, namely that
>
> 4. Christians know something atheists do not.
>
> In any case, if 1, then at least Christians think they know something
> atheists do not, and they are, according to you, deluded. They say
> they know it (well some of them at least, and the Christian you are
> talking to is one.) So it seems the most likely scenarios --- unless
> you really do want to call "liar, liar!" --- are both variations of
> the same thing. What we now have is:
>
> 5. Christians claim to know something atheists do not, and
>
> (4) they are correct, or
> (1) they are incorrect. (we can give them the benefit of the doubt
> and subsume 2 and 3 under 1 --- O.K.?)

The problem is neither of us can apparently prove whether the claims
are correct, at least on terms that we could agree on.

> > > How does anyone know you didn't just imagine going to the grocery
> > > store? How do we know, for example (since it is a subjective
> > > example), that a given colorblind person is not actually lying and
> > > really does see a distinction between yellow and blue?
>
> > I wasn't very clear with the grocery store example. You can't
> > instantly believe that I'm telling the truth when I claim to have been
> > to the grocery store.
>
> Why can't I instantly believe that?

I would not instantly believe someone was telling the truth about
going to the grocery store, just because the claim is possible. But
the claim is on a different level from claims that are obviously
outside of normal experience. We might try to personally investigate
the claim about going to the grocery store. For claims about Jesus
Christ standing on top of the wall of my cubicle and dictating this
message to me right now, we need to call in the CSI team and try to
find a higher level of confirmation.

> > But it's at least within the realm of normal
> > human experience. Seeing or hearing gods is far enough out of normal
> > human experience that we should expect extraordinary evidence before
> > we accept the claim.
>
> Why do you use the fallacious "seeing or hearing?" It seems you want
> to argue that God is not in the realm of the senses. We both believe
> that; we can treat it as given.

I didn't know that you treat it as a given. Great. So it sounds like
we're talking about the "knowledge" that people have of God's
existence. What I would consider a deep emotion that some people
confuse with "knowledge."

> You want to prove that Christians are under a species of delusion when
> they claim to _know_ God, not to see or to hear Him. It says in the
> very Scriptures the Christians believe that "no one hath at any time
> seen the Father." So this "seeing or hearing God" is a straw man.

How about seeing the Virgin Mary? Did three kids see her and hear her
at Fatima? That's what I'm talking about. The vision described by
those kids is outside of normal experience. We should not believe
their claims until or unless we have good proof. Much better proof
than just taking the word of three kids.

I assume there are other claims of literally sensing spiritual figures
that are within Catholic dogma. Am I way off?

> > For the colorblind person, my point is not that we must believe every
> > claim that is possible. It's that we can reasonably debate possible
> > and plausible claims within normal human experience. Colorblindness is
> > part of normal human experience. Some percentage of people are born
> > with it. There may be some medical test to discover whether a person
> > is missing the "rods or cones" within the eye that perceive certain
> > colors. (At least, that's the explanation I've heard for why people
> > are colorblind.) Sensing God is not within normal human experience.
> > When someone claims to have heard God or seen God or talked with a
> > bush that burns yet is not consumed, we can reasonably believe that
> > they are lying or mistaken, until or unless they can present solid
> > evidence.
>
> But no one here is claiming to have seen or heard such things, so
> straw man.

When you claim to "know" God, wouldn't you say that is in some way
sensing He exists, even if it's not the usual five physical senses?

It's not a straw man just because I haven't read or can't remember
your favorite dogma.

> I claim to know God. That is not a straw man. Attack that.

How do you know God? You sense his presence? You just feel that he's
there? It sounds like you want to skirt the issue by pretending it's
just an idea born in your head, but it sounds like you're trying to
describe some extra sensory perception. Call it sight, sound, touch,
taste, smell, and God-knowing.

For the sake of argument, let's say it's not at all like a sensory
perception, even a sixth sense. You just know God. You understand that
it is true without needing to sense it.

Why should anyone else believe your claim? Would you believe this
claim if it was made by a Thugee who knows Kali or a Muslim who claims
to know that Catholicism is wrong and Wahabiism is the Truth? Why do
you reasonably reject the claim when it comes from competing
religions, but emotionally embrace the claim when it comes from your
preferred religion?

> > I concede that it's possible something extraordinary could happen and
> > a person might not have evidence to prove the claim. An Arawak indian
> > who was the first in his land to witness one of his fellows getting
> > shot to death by Christopher Columbus's crew, going back to his tribe
> > and describing that he saw a man point a stick, some smoke came out,
> > and his friend fell dead with a hole in his chest -- I can see that
> > his tribe might not believe him even though it's the truth.
>
> Pointedly, only the foolish members of his tribe would disbelieve
> him. The wise, having more familiarity with the possible, would take
> him at his word. Why would he lie?

On what basis would "the wise" believe that something is possible that
is so far outside of their experience? Only the credulous members of
his tribe would believe him.

> In point of fact, it may very well have been that before the white man
> came to America, the natives were unfamiliar with the process known to
> us as lying. It is certainly not a natural use of words. Words exist
> for the purpose of conveying information or thought accurately, and
> until one is introduced to lying, it is possible it would never occur
> to one. It is possible that the white man, "who speaks with forked
> tongue," introduced lying to the native Americans, just as the
> original Serpent introduced it to Eve.
>
> > But I
> > think those skeptical listeners would be reasonable not to believe.
>
> You think it is more likely that an honest man lies than that
> something exists that you have not yet encountered. How narrow of
> you!

I clearly said lies or mistakes. Sincere people make mistakes. I
assume many Christians are mistaken, not lying.

> > Otherwise, if you believe every wild claim you hear, or take it on
> > faith when you hear a reassuring supernatural claim, where do you draw
> > the line?
>
> Indeed. Where? I wonder if there is any such thing as discernment?
> Do you think?

Yes. Logic helps me discern. I reject unsupported claims, even when I
wish they were true. I find no good reason to believe in the miracles
of Vishnu or Jesus.

You're able to discern that all those claims about other gods are
untrue. You just need to take it one step further.

> > Is there any more subjective evidence for the claims about
> > Christ than for the claims about Vishnu?
>
> What is this "subjective evidence" crap? I thought you atheists don't
> believe in any of that. I thought you atheists don't accept the
> reality of subjects. When did you move beyond physicalism?

I'm just speaking in terms I thought you would understand or
appreciate. It doesn't mean I take emotion as "evidence" when we're
trying to understand objective reality.

> > So how about the millions who regularly "experience" Vishnu and Kali
> > and Gaia and Legba in their lives?
>
> We cannot discount them a priori. A wise person will investigate.
> For example, the Vaishnavas (devotees of Vishnu or Krishna) claim that
> by simply chanting "Hare Krishna, etc." it is possible to come to know
> God. Now I believe I have a better way, but I certainly do not
> discount their way on the face of it. That would be foolish. I would
> be cutting off a possible part of reality, thus irrationally limiting
> my possible experience of reality.

It's nice that you're a searching Catholic if such a thing is
possible, but to be Catholic, it seems that you must have already
decided all competing theories or claims are untrue.

> > How about Joseph Smith's
> > experiences with angels and his transcribed adventures of Jesus in
> > America?
>
> Same thing applies.

Have you read the Book of Mormon or attempted any serious research
into their claims? I suppose the Book of Mormon could be made
canonical if the right authorities declared it a part of Catholic
dogma.

> > Wanting to experience a god is part of normal human experience.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > Wanting it so badly that you think it must be true, is part of normal
> > human experience.
>
> Self-delusion. Begging the question. You have not yet supported 1
> above. (That the judgment, or power of discernment, of *all*
> Christians is necessarily less than that of *any* atheist (or at least
> one, namely you).)

Yes, Christians have bad judgment. To say that all atheists have good
judgment would require determining all the possible motives that bring
people to become atheist. I know some people who are atheist more
because they're angry at God for letting bad things happen, than
because they've followed any line of reasoning to reach that
conclusion. So I wouldn't say atheists are always more reasonable or
always have better judgement. But I would say Christians have flawed
judgement. Being a theist requires setting aside reason and relying on
emotion instead. It's a poor way to make judgements about objective
reality.


...I'll have to reply more later. Sorry.

[Deidzoeb]

...Cont'd response to Joe...

> I have no "favorite god." "The gods" are either
>
> 1. us, or
> 2. mythical representations of real aspects of God, or
> 3. psychological representations of real aspects of ourselves, or
> 4. real beings less than God who have manifested themselves in certain
> ways to certain individuals.
>
> I draw a line of differentiation between "gods" and God. You should
> too, if you are talking to me and you want to grasp what I think I am
> saying.

I'm not going to stop talking in terms of gods and making my case in
ways that apply to all of them at once, just because you'd prefer if
everyone would forget the others and talk about your one favorite God.

> > Wanting it so badly that you think it must be true, is part of normal
> > human experience.
>
> Self-delusion. Begging the question. You have not yet supported 1
> above. (That the judgment, or power of discernment, of *all*
> Christians is necessarily less than that of *any* atheist (or at least
> one, namely you).)

I'd like to avoid the hypothetical pissing contest that you set up.
Atheism is a conclusion, and does not necessarily imply a specific
line of reasoning or thought process that brings a person to that
conclusion. So calling one's self atheist does not necessarily make a
person more reasonable or more perceptive than theists. However, we
could agree that theism is the result of bad judgement if we could
agree on the premises that:

1. There is no credible testimony that any human has ever sensed or
experienced a god or The God.
2. Faith is an emotion that does not help us understand objective
truths.
3. Consciously deciding to believe in an unsupported but strongly held
hope requires setting aside reason. Therefore it is by definition a
bad judgement.

I assume we can't agree on those premises, so we won't reach the same
conclusion.

> > They felt him in an emotional
> > way, like the way I feel the presence of Scarlett Johansen beside me
> > when my wife has a headache and I've locked myself in the bathroom.
> > You know, not exactly like that experience, but similar.
>
> Nice touch, equating the depths of religious experience with such a
> profane thing as masturbation. The atheists applaud you!!! Touché!
>
> Decent-minded folks, however --- and I trust that the decent-minded
> atheists, even, are in agreement with me on this --- feel that this
> crosses the line into vulgar mockery.
>
> In any case, I can certainly get past my initial emotional reaction to
> this disgusting analogy, and examine it for what it's worth. When you
> beat off to Scarlett Johansen, you do your level best to fool your
> imagination into believing that you are really having sex with her.
> The more completely you are able to divorce yourself from reality in
> this case, the better your experience will be. This is black magic,
> of course.

LOL. I suppose if you believe in God and demons and angels, you might
as well believe in magic. Sorry, Joe. It's just a jerk-off fantasy. Do
you really believe fantasies are that powerful?

> Now the religion experience is completely different in at least two
> key ways. One (1), it is given as an experience of reality, not
> fantasy,

So it's long term instead of short term. That doesn't kill the germ of
my comparison.

< and two (2), there is no accompanying deliberate deception of
> the senses, and also no supreme effort to delude one's own mind into
> believing what one knows to be false.

True. With theists, it may be unconscious instead of deliberate.

I would argue that closing one's eyes in order to fantasize about
Scarlett Johansen is nowhere near as much "effort to delude one's own
mind" as the relentless prayers and rituals that some theists go
through. When a person prays the rosary, isn't that a repitition of
the same prayer for each bead on the rosary? Or five of the same, then
one different one, then five more? I can't remember. And some people
do it over and over and over and over again. They might not be
conscious of why they are doing it, but that definitely sounds like

"supreme effort to delude one's own mind into believing what one

[desperately wishes was not] false."

> So how is it that --- according to you and all atheists --- the entire
> population of religious folks has become brainwashed, while the entire
> population of masturbaters has somehow escaped that curse, even
> though (assumedly) their attempts to literally fool their own minds
> are a lot stronger than anything used by those practicing a religion?

I haven't said that the entire population of religious folks has
become brainwashed. Not all atheists would say it.

Why don't masturbaters confuse their fantasies with reality as much as
theists do? I don't know. I can't explain it.

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 18, 10:59 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really good post Deidzoeb. You should put this up in Pages.

Thanks. Can we do that?

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 18, 3:01 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It occurs to me that there is more than one way to attack this. You
> opening sentence:
>
> "We can safely accept as plausible most ordinary claims that fall
> within normal human experience."
>
> begs more than one question. Besides the one I have treated at length
> in my other reply --- the unsupported claim that knowledge of God is
> actually outside of, rather than inside of, normal human experience
> --- there is the additional claim of "safety."
>
> This is worth examining, too. Safety is usually contrasted with
> danger. Thus the implication here is that it is dangerous to accept
> as plausible any claim that falls outside of "normal human
> experience."

It doesn't have to be literally "safe" or "dangerous."

We would be *within the bounds of reason* if we accept as plausible

most ordinary claims that fall within normal human experience.

No one should call us buffoons if we accept as plausible most ordinary

claims that fall within normal human experience.

(Maybe that "most" qualifier can go. Is there any ordinary claim
within normal human experience that should not be accepted as
plausible?)

I wouldn't say that setting aside reason always results in danger, but
it's just bad policy. It's chaos. It's not a reliable way to define or
describe or understand the objective world.

> It seems obvious that this is a thinly disguised, "it is
> dangerous for any individual to accept as plausible any claim that
> falls outside of *his own* experience."
>
> The above view reasonably discards the unsupportable drawing of the
> line between normal and extraordinary human experiences. It is not
> that no normal people have ever experienced what they reasonably call
> God, it is simply that you yourself have never experienced that, or at
> least claim you have not.

I don't understand how you make that leap to "his own experience". I
don't feel the need to defend it, because it's not at all what I said.

> Simply put --- no atheists has any balls, whatsoever. They fear all
> sorts of things other than God. Even though "The Fear of the Lord is
> the beginning of wisdom," they are too afraid of things other than
> God, to even begin in Wisdom. Sad, but demonstrated as true. You
> fear:
>
> 1. losing your mind
> 2. deluding yourself
> 3. being wrong
>
> more than you fear God.

I don't agree with those assertions.

> I am not afraid of any of those things. Specifically, I have already
> done all of those things in the past, and miraculously (I am not using
> hyperbole or sarcasm) I have come out O.K. on the other end of it.
>
> In point of fact, people have "lost their minds" pursuing spiritual
> paths. The dangers are very great. But as long as you stick with
> Jesus, He will lead you through it. That is a saying reliable and
> tested and true.

I'm sorry that you seized on the word "safely" and took it too
literally. In this case, it's not the Bible, so no one will tell you
that it must be taken that way. As the person who wrote it, I'm
telling you that it was figurative, not literally a danger.

> Insofar as deluding yourself, see my other reply regarding Ms J.
>
> Insofar as being wrong, I'm sure you've been wrong before. You can
> always change your mind, if you find out you were wrong. The problem
> with that as regards God is that "God exists" does still remain
> empirically unfalsifiable, admittedly, for both the atheist and the
> believer. There may be those alive today who have the power of
> miracles, but quite pointedly that power is at God's disposal, not
> their own. I don't have any neat parlor tricks to show you. Sure,
> this is Pascal's wager, but so what? Given an infinite reward if you
> are right, vs. a finite penalty or no penalty at all if you are wrong,
> why not take the chance?

Because it would apply to all other myths that involve punishment and
reward. Shouldn't you become a Viking so you can enter Valhalla and
avoid whatever icy hell the Norse describe, just in case their myths
are true? Which of the competing myths should we choose based on the
stakes that they try to raise instead of whether they are really true?

> In any case, Pascal's Wager does not stand on its own as the only
> reason to believe. The testimony of the Saints far outweighs it, as
> reason to believe, and if the only reason not to believe is that you
> are afraid of being wrong, then grow a set of balls!

You're guessing at the motivations of atheists when you claim it's a
matter of fear.

> Atheists do have
> balls except where it would count for something. They have plenty of
> balls when they assert that Christians are self-deluded. They just
> don't have them when the opportunity is offered to them to trust God.

Questioning my manhood does nothing to prove your claims. Anyone could
make the same kind of empty claims about people who disagree with
them. It proves nothing.

[Joe]

On Nov 19, 11:32 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Cont'd response to Joe...
>

. . .

> I'm not going to stop talking in terms of gods and making my case in
> ways that apply to all of them at once, just because you'd prefer if
> everyone would forget the others and talk about your one favorite God.

Then we are not even talking about the same things, so any further
discussion between us on this is a waste of everyone's time. So have
a nice day!

[Joe]

Wow, now you assert Saints don't exist? Well, at the very least,
books exist, and they have the names of Saints on them as their
authors. Whether or not any Saints existed, the techniques written
about in those books are practicable, and the carrying out of those
techniques and the attainment resulting from that carrying out is
convincing enough evidence that they work, for anyone who cares to put
them into practice.

[Dave]

On Nov 20, 4:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wow, now you assert Saints don't exist?

Some did, most are probably mythological.

> Well, at the very least,
> books exist, and they have the names of Saints on them as their
> authors.

Anyone can write a book and put a name on it. That does not mean what
is in the book is real or true.

> Whether or not any Saints existed, the techniques written
> about in those books are practicable, and the carrying out of those
> techniques and the attainment resulting from that carrying out is
> convincing enough evidence that they work, for anyone who cares to put
> them into practice.

What "techniques"? And which of the over 10 thousand "saints" are you
talking about? And what about the saints that are no longer saints?
Got a technique for them?

[Deidzoeb]

By now, hundreds of thousands of people of all ages and cultures must
have read about the saints and tried to replicate the experiences of
saints. It doesn't seem to work for everyone, or very many at all,
unless you're going to tell me they don't get the same experiences
because they don't have the sincerest pumpkin patch. We're back to the
usual non-falsifiable rationalizations retrofitted to reach pre-
arranged conclusions.

I claim to have seen my neighbor levitate off the ground. I claim that
anyone else can do it if they sincerely hold the love of Aunt Jemima
in their hearts. You tell me you have tried to levitate, and you're
sure you were sincerely holding the love of Aunt Jemima in your heart.
Must not have been sincere enough or loving enough.

I claim that elephants can hide in cherry trees because they paint
their toenails red. You claim that no one has ever seen an elephant up
in a cherry tree. I claim that proves how effective their red toenail
camouflage is.

[Deidzoeb]

It's just like with Jesus Christ, really. Whether or not Christ or any
of the saints existed is beside the point. Whether they really
experienced the miracles attributed to them is the point, and none of
the supernatural claims have been proven.

[Joe]

None of what you say matters. You can either convert from your sins,
or not. If you wish to convert from your sins, you will find
effective methods for doing so in the Saints. If not, then lots of
luck with that!

[Joe]

No; both of the things you mentioned are decidedly beside the point.
The only relevant question regarding any method or marga is, does it
work?

[Dave]

On Nov 20, 8:49 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I claim that elephants can hide in cherry trees because they paint
> their toenails red. You claim that no one has ever seen an elephant up
> in a cherry tree. I claim that proves how effective their red toenail
> camouflage is.

I've never seen any elephant hiding in any of my oak trees. Could that
be because their toenails are the same color as the acorns?

[Dave]

On Nov 20, 9:15 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> None of what you say matters. You can either convert from your sins,
> or not. If you wish to convert from your sins, you will find
> effective methods for doing so in the Saints. If not, then lots of
> luck with that!

I have no "sins" to "convert from," whatever the hell that means.

[cathyb]

And those that you espouse have never been shown to.


Your shrilly insisting that they do work is not evidence that they
work. Merely evidence that you think they work. As per astrologers,
homeopaths, iridologists...

[Keith MacNevins]

Just keep it up with your heavy drinking and you may well see even more.

--
Keith A. MacNevins
Ambassador From Hell
Copyright

[Deidzoeb]

Okay, so it doesn't matter whether they existed or whether anything
miraculous happened to them. It only matters that their "method"
worked... to achieve what? You mean whether their "method" brought
them peace and ensured their salvation, helped them convert from their
sins?

How exactly would we know if we had successfully converted from our
sins, if the method had worked? We would know it or feel it or
experience it, not needing proof? That knowledge sounds unlike normal
human experience. It sounds like a miracle. Which means you denied the
thing that I said was important, and then rephrased what I said in
terms that you prefer.

Either way, none of them have been proven true: the existence, the
claims of miracles, or the effectiveness of the saints' methods. So
we're all still at square one, unless we decide that sensing reality
is not something we should value, but that wishing for something
really hard can substitute for reality. In which case, you can decide
to "know" that the saints existed and miraculously followed methods
that worked to validate whatever it is you're claiming. Basically, you
decide not to question it and not to validate it. You just assume it's
true, because you wish for it desperately.

Luckily, nothing I say matters.

[Deidzoeb]

I saw an elephant in a tree-stand with a bow and arrow, sitting up an
oak tree, waiting for a ten point buck to pass. I barely saw him there
because he was covered head to toe in RealTree (TM) brand camouflage.
He was wearing an elephant-sized camo baseball cap with an italicized
number 3 on the front, you know, like St. Dale's old number. Ain't
that sweet? Anyhow, the number 3 was Hunter Orange, so it was the only
thing that stood out on him.

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 21, 12:15 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> None of what you say matters. You can either convert from your sins,
> or not. If you wish to convert from your sins, you will find
> effective methods for doing so in the Saints. If not, then lots of
> luck with that!

"None of what you say matters." <==

[Joe]

On the contrary, the Saints have accomplished everything, by the Faith
of the Church.

[Joe]

Especially that last. That was all that mattered to them.

> How exactly would we know if we had successfully converted from our
> sins, if the method had worked?

You would not commit them any more.

> We would know it or feel it or
> experience it, not needing proof?

It seems plain that you would.

> That knowledge sounds unlike normal
> human experience. It sounds like a miracle.

O.K. Yet such miracles abound.

> Which means you denied the
> thing that I said was important, and then rephrased what I said in
> terms that you prefer.
>

If miracles are promised to abound, and then reliably occur as often
as they are sought, how are they unusual?

> Either way, none of them have been proven true: the existence, the
> claims of miracles, or the effectiveness of the saints' methods.

Ridiculous! Of course they are proved. The Saints themselves proved
them. You have no faith at all!

> So
> we're all still at square one,

Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.

Your move.

> unless we decide that sensing reality
> is not something we should value, but that wishing for something
> really hard can substitute for reality.

Not at all. The Gospel is the Truth.

> In which case, you can decide
> to "know" that the saints existed and miraculously followed methods
> that worked to validate whatever it is you're claiming.

They did.

> Basically, you
> decide not to question it and not to validate it.

No. I find the answer to the question of their validity to be
positive, and I validate it by implementing their methods.

> You just assume it's
> true, because you wish for it desperately.
>

There is nothing desperate about any of my practice of Catholicism.
It is more sure than any other thing in the world.

> Luckily, nothing I say matters.

Yes. But it is not luck, it is will. You choose to reject the
Truth. There is nothing further for us to discuss.

[bob600]

On 21 Nov, 00:55, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Bob600 replies:- You cannot be serious!!!
>
> > > Utterly. What have they failed to do?
>
> > Bob600 replies:- EXIST
>
> Wow, now you assert Saints don't exist? Well, at the very least,
> books exist, and they have the names of Saints on them as their
> authors. Whether or not any Saints existed, the techniques written
> about in those books are practicable, and the carrying out of those
> techniques and the attainment resulting from that carrying out is
> convincing enough evidence that they work, for anyone who cares to put
> them into practice.

Bob600 replies:- Definition Saint:- "A person officially recognized,
especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and
capable of interceding for people on earth."

Clearly they don't exist, first they are the latter part of a circular
argument beginning with the existence of God and heaven, none of which
exist. Second, it is only man's opinion that a person may be a saint,
not God's, and how reliable is man. Third, any alleged saints in books
are created by man for his own perverted gratification.

As for practices and attainments and evidence of any saints to be, I
need more information.

[bob600]

On 21 Nov, 04:52, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Bob600 replies:- EXIST
>
> It's just like with Jesus Christ, really. Whether or not Christ or any
> of the saints existed is beside the point. Whether they really
> experienced the miracles attributed to them is the point, and none of
> the supernatural claims have been proven.

Bob600 replies:- I would only take umbrage at a small point, if its
beside the point that they existed then why would their experiences
matter. They could only matter if they existed. And I would go
further, in the entirety of the existence of the planet Earth and
mankind "none of the supernatural claims have been proven." of ANY
sort EVER. Makes you wonder why the topic still exists.

[Joe]

On Nov 19, 2:34 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 1:34 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 8:32 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 2:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No, atheism is not the reasonable default in the face of the testimony
> > > > > of those who claim to know Him. Atheism in such a case relies on the
> > > > > assumption that those people are either lying or mistaken. That in
> > > > > turn relies on the unsupported assumption that they either have a
> > > > > reason to lie (or else are just pathological) or that your judgment is
> > > > > inherently more reliable than theirs. Now you have to support at
> > > > > least one of the following:
>
> > > > Incorrect. Atheism does not rely on the assumption that those people
> > > > are lying or mistaken because atheism, at its most general, simply
> > > > relies on the assumption that their testimony should not be accepted
> > > > until they meet the burden of proof. Asking someone to prove
> > > > themselves is not an accusation of lying nor a declaration that they
> > > > are wrong. In court if you are trying to show that someone is guilty,
> > > > the burden of proof is on you. This doesn't mean that the court thinks
> > > > you are wrong or that you are lying, just that if you expect the court
> > > > and the legal system to accept your charge of guilty as fact, that you
> > > > have a requirement. This same concept applies to your "testimonies".
>
> > > Then you should accept the testimony of the Saints since they have met
> > > the burden of proof.
>

> > Correct.
>
> Sorry, I thought you said "Then you should accept the testimony of the
> Saints *IF* they have met the burden of proof"
>
> To which my response is: Correct.
>
> In order for me to say "Correct" to your actual statement, I would
> need to see the burden of proof. That's what it's called a burden, you
> actually need to supply it.

I have already stated plainly that the Saints met that burden.
Therefore they are the ones who have supplied it, i.e. the proof. We
differ as to how much of the Saints is available to us for our
investigation.

1. We both agree that their extant writings are available to us.

2. We possibly differ in whether the methods they wrote about in those
writings are practicable by us.

3. We certainly differ in whether they themselves are available to us
to help us.

I answer yes to 1, 2, and 3. You answer yes to 1 and no to 3. 2
forms a bridge between 1 and 3, a way of arriving at 3, given only 1
and a spirit willing to learn. The spirit willing to learn is aptly
termed humility. It takes humility to pray, and none of the
techniques espoused by any of the Saints are even possible to
approach, if one refuses to pray.

In any case, it is folly to reject 2 outright, and not that good kind
of folly wherein it is said that the foolishness of God is wiser than
the wisdom of men; rather, it is that bad kind of folly wherein it is
said that "the fool saith in his heart, 'there is no God.' "

[Joe]

Your a priori assumptions are, of course, completely unsupported. I
can't help you out with that, sorry.

However, the writings of those alleged to be Saints are available to
you, and there is where you will find your "more information."

[Drafterman]

Stating it and showing it are two different things.

> Therefore they are the ones who have supplied it, i.e. the proof. We
> differ as to how much of the Saints is available to us for our
> investigation.
>
> 1. We both agree that their extant writings are available to us.
>
> 2. We possibly differ in whether the methods they wrote about in those
> writings are practicable by us.
>
> 3. We certainly differ in whether they themselves are available to us
> to help us.
>
> I answer yes to 1, 2, and 3. You answer yes to 1 and no to 3. 2
> forms a bridge between 1 and 3, a way of arriving at 3, given only 1
> and a spirit willing to learn.

Only if 2 is validated. Willingness is not validation.

> The spirit willing to learn is aptly
> termed humility.

No. The spirit that is humble in nature is aptly termed humility.
Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn.

> It takes humility to pray, and none of the
> techniques espoused by any of the Saints are even possible to
> approach, if one refuses to pray.

So? We're not even at that point you. First you have to validate their
authority to dictate these methods. *Then* we can talk about the
methods themselves, your protestations of "Just try it!"
notwithstanding.

>
> In any case, it is folly to reject 2 outright,

How so? What is folly is to accept anything that is said, outright,
without imposing some sort of scrutiny what you accept as true.

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- Not supported? Well let me help you, to create a
saint first God must exist, no God then no saint. Now we all know that
God does not exist, so to start an argument with the premise that God
exists and by definition therefore saints must also exist is a
circular argument. My simple deductive assumption is that as God does
not exist saints do not exist, or God may exist so saints may exist,
but nowhere in any deductions that I can make, does God definitely
exist so therefore saints can't definitely exist

>
> However, the writings of those alleged to be Saints are available to
> you, and there is where you will find your "more information."

Bob600 replies:- The only thing we definitely know about the
"writings" is that they are the writings of MEN and should be treated
as such until proven otherwise.

[Joe]

I am not the one to show it; they are.

> > Therefore they are the ones who have supplied it, i.e. the proof. We
> > differ as to how much of the Saints is available to us for our
> > investigation.
>
> > 1. We both agree that their extant writings are available to us.
>
> > 2. We possibly differ in whether the methods they wrote about in those
> > writings are practicable by us.
>
> > 3. We certainly differ in whether they themselves are available to us
> > to help us.
>
> > I answer yes to 1, 2, and 3. You answer yes to 1 and no to 3. 2
> > forms a bridge between 1 and 3, a way of arriving at 3, given only 1
> > and a spirit willing to learn.
>
> Only if 2 is validated. Willingness is not validation.
>

Correct. Willingness, by itself without any practice, is like
wishing. You can wish on as many stars as you like, for a new
driveway. But the angels of the stars are not going to build it for
you. For that, you either have to pay someone, or pave it yourself.

> > The spirit willing to learn is aptly
> > termed humility.
>
> No. The spirit that is humble in nature is aptly termed humility.
> Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn.
>

"Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn."

That seems an absurd statement on the very face of it. Willingness to
learn implies willingness to be taught, whether by someone else or by
nature herself. To be taught requires at least the humility to admit
that you don't already know what is being taught.

In particular, if one wishes to be taught of God, he must first
believe or at least hope that there is God, and that requires
humility. That humility is what atheists principally lack. That lack
explains why there is atheism.

> > It takes humility to pray, and none of the
> > techniques espoused by any of the Saints are even possible to
> > approach, if one refuses to pray.
>
> So? We're not even at that point you. First you have to validate their
> authority to dictate these methods.

*I* have already done so, to my satisfaction. And you have here put
the cart before the horse. Their authority is confirmed by experience
of the efficacy of their methods.

> *Then* we can talk about the
> methods themselves, your protestations of "Just try it!"
> notwithstanding.
>

A man stands behind a window, on the other side of which there are
grapes. Someone tells him there is a door just to his left, and if he
walks though it he can taste those grapes. But the man protests, that
to believe in the existence of this door requires him to have already
tasted the grapes. What can be done for the man? I myself frequently
enjoy those grapes. But I did not a priori doubt the existence of the
door, so that when I approached the door and turned the handle, it
opened. Had I said in my heart, "there is no door," I would perforce
have been in the same unfortunate position as our unhappy man. He
will walk away, muttering to himself, "I am sure they are sour."

>
>
> > In any case, it is folly to reject 2 outright,
>
> How so? What is folly is to accept anything that is said, outright,
> without imposing some sort of scrutiny what you accept as true.
>

"Taste and see the goodness of the Lord."

The one who refuses to taste need not imagine that he has rationally
determined that God is sour (or that there is no God). The method
given above in its simplicity is twofold:

1. Taste, and
2. See.

Seeing follows upon tasting, but our unhappy man (our atheist) insists
that he cannot taste *because* he cannot see. Poor pitiable blind and
hungry man! How we, who are feasting on these wonderful grapes, wish
that there were some way for us to overcome his reticence! But there
is not, because it is in his will, and the only one who can overcome
it for him is him.

[LL]

On Nov 21, 11:36 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

However, the writings of those alleged to be Saints are available to
> you, and there is where you will find your "more information."

LL: "Alleged" being the watchword. If someone accused you of being a
child molester you would be an "alleged" child molester. No different
than an "alleged" saint.

> you, and there is where you will find your "more information."- Hide quoted text -

[Simpleton]

NO, it is because your oak trees look exactly like elephants. Trunk
and all.

[LL]

On Nov 21, 12:25 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Seeing follows upon tasting, but our unhappy man (our atheist)
insists
that he cannot taste *because* he cannot see. Poor pitiable blind
and
hungry man! How we, who are feasting on these wonderful grapes, wish
that there were some way for us to overcome his reticence! But there
is not, because it is in his will, and the only one who can overcome
it for him is him.

LL: So the atheist who can't see is worse off than the believer who
sees what isn't there? The only way you can overcome seeing what
isn't there is to use your will.

> > > said that "the fool saith in his heart, 'there is no God.' "- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Either speak for the saints all the way or don't speak of them at all.

Don't go around saying their words are truth if *you* are not willing
to back it up.

>
> > > Therefore they are the ones who have supplied it, i.e. the proof. We
> > > differ as to how much of the Saints is available to us for our
> > > investigation.
> >
> > > 1. We both agree that their extant writings are available to us.
> >
> > > 2. We possibly differ in whether the methods they wrote about in those
> > > writings are practicable by us.
> >
> > > 3. We certainly differ in whether they themselves are available to us
> > > to help us.
> >
> > > I answer yes to 1, 2, and 3. You answer yes to 1 and no to 3. 2
> > > forms a bridge between 1 and 3, a way of arriving at 3, given only 1
> > > and a spirit willing to learn.
> >
> > Only if 2 is validated. Willingness is not validation.
> >
>
> Correct. Willingness, by itself without any practice, is like
> wishing. You can wish on as many stars as you like, for a new
> driveway. But the angels of the stars are not going to build it for
> you. For that, you either have to pay someone, or pave it yourself.

Good then you acknowledge the flaw in your statement where you said
all we need is willingness. I am eager to see the corrected statement.

>
> > > The spirit willing to learn is aptly
> > > termed humility.
> >
> > No. The spirit that is humble in nature is aptly termed humility.
> > Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn.
> >
>
> "Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn."
>
> That seems an absurd statement on the very face of it. Willingness to
> learn implies willingness to be taught, whether by someone else or by
> nature herself. To be taught requires at least the humility to admit
> that you don't already know what is being taught.

Incorrect. Otherwise it would be impossible to teach people humility.
If humility is required to learn, then they can't learn humility.

>
> In particular, if one wishes to be taught of God, he must first
> believe or at least hope that there is God, and that requires
> humility. That humility is what atheists principally lack. That lack
> explains why there is atheism.

No, the lack of support for god explains why there is theism.

>
> > > It takes humility to pray, and none of the
> > > techniques espoused by any of the Saints are even possible to
> > > approach, if one refuses to pray.
> >
> > So? We're not even at that point you. First you have to validate their
> > authority to dictate these methods.
>
> *I* have already done so, to my satisfaction.

So?

> And you have here put
> the cart before the horse. Their authority is confirmed by experience
> of the efficacy of their methods.
>

Methods that you cannot, or will not, describe. Why the evasion?

> > *Then* we can talk about the
> > methods themselves, your protestations of "Just try it!"
> > notwithstanding.
> >
>
> A man stands behind a window, on the other side of which there are
> grapes. Someone tells him there is a door just to his left, and if he
> walks though it he can taste those grapes. But the man protests, that
> to believe in the existence of this door requires him to have already
> tasted the grapes. What can be done for the man? I myself frequently
> enjoy those grapes. But I did not a priori doubt the existence of the
> door, so that when I approached the door and turned the handle, it
> opened. Had I said in my heart, "there is no door," I would perforce
> have been in the same unfortunate position as our unhappy man. He
> will walk away, muttering to himself, "I am sure they are sour."
>

Not an accurate example of that fable. I don't declare that the idea
od God is "sour" because I can't have it.

I declare the idea of God is unsupported.

[Dave]

On Nov 21, 2:17 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On the contrary, the Saints have accomplished everything, by the Faith
> of the Church.

Apparently they didn't accomplish much. They're dead and most of the
world never heard of them, nor do they care. All they've done is make
a bunch of believers look silly.

[Dave]

On Nov 21, 2:24 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 1:14 am, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How exactly would we know if we had successfully converted from our
> > sins, if the method had worked?
>
> You would not commit them any more.

Why?

> > That knowledge sounds unlike normal
> > human experience. It sounds like a miracle.
>
> O.K. Yet such miracles abound.

Stories of such miracles abound. No proof of them has been brought
forth.

> > Which means you denied the
> > thing that I said was important, and then rephrased what I said in
> > terms that you prefer.
>
> If miracles are promised to abound, and then reliably occur as often
> as they are sought, how are they unusual?

Again, many stories, no proofs.

> > Either way, none of them have been proven true: the existence, the
> > claims of miracles, or the effectiveness of the saints' methods.
>
> Ridiculous! Of course they are proved. The Saints themselves proved
> them. You have no faith at all!

Knowledge is far better than blind faith. I want proof.

> > So we're all still at square one,
>
> Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.

That was a stupid thing to do. I don't need saving.

> > unless we decide that sensing reality
> > is not something we should value, but that wishing for something
> > really hard can substitute for reality.
>
> Not at all. The Gospel is the Truth.

It is a lie, not the truth.

> > Basically, you
> > decide not to question it and not to validate it.
>
> No. I find the answer to the question of their validity to be
> positive, and I validate it by implementing their methods.

In other words, you believe they are true because you believe they are
true. That is not a very good way to arrive at the truth.

[Dave]

On Nov 21, 11:30 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have already stated plainly that the Saints met that burden.

Yes, you have CLAIMED that those myths have met some burden of proof,
yet you fail to provide that proof and just make more claims.

> Therefore they are the ones who have supplied it, i.e. the proof.

More claims devoid of support.

> 1. We both agree that their extant writings are available to us.

Of the tens of thousands of "saints" relatively few have written
anything down. Most are just myths and all we have are stories that
lack support.

> 2. We possibly differ in whether the methods they wrote about in those
> writings are practicable by us.

They wrote nothing worth reading IF they wrote anything at all.

> 3. We certainly differ in whether they themselves are available to us
> to help us.

They're dead or never existed so "they themselves" are not available.

> In any case, it is folly to reject 2 outright...

Actually, out here in the real world, the exact opposite is true.

[Dave]

On Nov 21, 11:36 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Your a priori assumptions are, of course, completely unsupported. I
> can't help you out with that, sorry.

The concept that you are having trouble understanding is that you are
the one with the a priori assumptions.

[Dave]

On Nov 21, 12:25 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> I am not the one to show it; they are.

If you claim the "saints" are real, then you need to do the proving.

> "Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn."
>
> That seems an absurd statement on the very face of it.

In your case it is true. You lack the humility to accept that you are
wrong and that prevents you from learning.

> A man stands behind a window, on the other side of which there are
> grapes. Someone tells him there is a door just to his left, and if he
> walks though it he can taste those grapes. But the man protests, that
> to believe in the existence of this door requires him to have already
> tasted the grapes.

That makes no sense, and in the case of religion the grapes are not
real and the door is one to ignorance and superstitions.

> The one who refuses to taste need not imagine that he has rationally
> determined that God is sour (or that there is no God). The method
> given above in its simplicity is twofold:
>
> 1. Taste, and
> 2. See.

Many here have tasted your sour grapes and saw that the god was not
real.

[Dave]

I have one that is strangely shaped. More like a rhino though. A fire
went through the area 15 years ago so all my oaks are small. Great
firewood though. But I've still haven't seen an elephant hiding in any
of them.

[take me to your leader]

I'd really like to join in on some of this interesting conversation.
I'd concur with deidzoeb's original post..but to try to have a
rational and reasoned discussion, as though it was going to change
anone's opinion, is a bit futile. We are largely emotional creatures
that spend years forming our inner framwork of belief's. Anyone
suggesting that we are wrong, is actually threatening our live's code
of existence..and our actions over our entire life. I lament that we
cannot be more rational in many of our actions, but we are still semi-
smart apes, so we cannot. Start by imagining; telling our children
that, when you die, that's it! Most people cannot imagine, a sane, or
safe, or just world, without some mighty arm of omnipotence leveling
all the "injustices" of a world where the bottom line, designed (or
not) by your's truely, the big guy in the sky... features a life where
often, the strong and sneaky prevail.. and than you die. In fact, as
in Monty Python's, The Meaning of Life, just as the reasoned and smart
(relatively speaking) guys start to get a little traction, the other
side of the equation has to burn down the libraries, burn people at
the stake, nail them to a cross, or call us: unpatriotic, liberals,
intellectual conspiritors, or attack a bunch of muslims.... Better
quit before I get too off track.

[Joe]

On Nov 21, 4:44 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2:24 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.
>
> That was a stupid thing to do. I don't need saving.

Well there you have it then. You have accomplished the rejecting of
salvation.

[Keith MacNevins]

I can appreciate not identifying with the Christian religion. I doubt Jesus would want to attend boring church sermons, sing 150 year-old hymns, give tithes, go to ice cream socials, pledge allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church or to the pope, or do silly things like get a pet blessed with Holy Water, send money to televangelist millionaires, or discriminate against other people who didn't think exactly like the late Jerry Falwell did. I don't see the point in saying you don't need saving. If it turns out that there is a God and Jesus did have a message to bring here, but you just condemned everything and anything to do with Christianity -- then you will wish you hadn't posted that. You big dummy.

[take me to your leader]

> there is a God and Jesus did have a message to bring here, but you just
> condemned everything and anything to do with Christianity -- then you will
> wish you hadn't posted that. You big dummy.
>

> > > > Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.
>
> > > That was a stupid thing to do. I don't need saving.
>
> > Well there you have it then. You have accomplished the rejecting of
> > salvation.

Okay, couldn't resist..... Well now if you are willing to concede
that Jesus might not want to do all those silly things ... don't you
think that he might also consider that Man's mutilation (the literal
interpretation of the modern transcription of the Bible) of his
attempt to bring people together to love and understand one another
might also be forgiving of a person's words of frustration and a
simple declaration of disbelief?

[EGreg]

> > These are claims of sensory experiences. Are they inside normal human
> > experience, or outside? Given that Scripture says no man has seen the
> > Father, do you believe that they happened?
>
> Yes. They saw the Word. It is extraordinary human experience, such
> as some people do have. That is not what I am talking about when I
> say that there are ordinary, every-day experiences of God, all the
> time, well within the norm.

It could be true, or it could not. Forget about normal human
experience for a sec, why do you say They saw the Word? How do you
know they did? And if you do know, what does that mean, exactly? What
did they see?

What about everyday experiences which you say are happening today. Can
you give more details about what they are? They are within the norm,
yet you say God cannot be seen. So the experiences are not sight
based. I am trying to understand you.

Greg

[Joe]

There is your unsupported assumption, your appeal to popularity
notwithstanding.

> so to start an argument with the premise that God
> exists and by definition therefore saints must also exist is a
> circular argument. My simple

"deductive assumption "

True dichotomy: deductions and assumptions.

You either assumed it or you deduced it. Choose one.

> is that as God does
> not exist saints do not exist, or God may exist so saints may exist,
> but nowhere in any deductions that I can make, does God definitely
> exist so therefore saints can't definitely exist
>
>

There are individuals whom we may assume existed, that the Church has
called Saints. Now we may define a Saint as an individual who
exemplifies sanctity. Your objection appears not to whether or not
these individuals existed, but rather to whether there is any such
thing as sanctity, which they are supposed to exemplify.

If God exists then sanctity exists in His Saints. If God does not
exist, then neither does sanctity exist, in anyone, so there are no
special individuals we can set aside and call "Saints."

What we need is a definition of sanctity that does not involve God.
For, if sanctity be defined as that state infused by God in His
Saints, then we cannot use the Saints as a demonstration that God
exists, since God is part of the definition of Saint, and thus the
argument is circular.

However, if we can arrive at a definition of sanctity that does not
involve God, and if we can show that sanctity according to that second
definition does exist, then we will have essentially proven God to
exist. Because,

Given A defined as f(X), and A also defined as f(Y), then if Y exists,
A exists, and consequently X must also exist.

Happily, this we can do. Saints are those who have overcome all their
own sins. Now it is true that sin is defined as an offense against
God, rendering our new definition of Saint as useless as the previous
--- unless there is an additional definition of sin that does not
involve God.

Happily, that is here for us as well: sin is any action (including
willed thoughts) contrary to love. Now it is true that God is defined
as Love, but here the situation is not the same. While atheists will
not acknowledge the existence of God (by definition of atheist), yet
not many of them will similarly disacknowledge the existence of love.
So here is something that at least some from both sides can agree on:
the existence of love.

Given the existence of love, it is immediately obvious that we must
admit the existence of something opposed to love, and that something
we call sin. Otherwise, we must say that love exists with nothing for
an opposite, in which case love meets the definition of God. That is
fine by me, as then we are done, since, if love is God, then if love
exists, God exists, and atheism is false. But if love is not God (at
least if not all love is God) then there can be something to oppose
it, and that is a reasonable definition of sin.

Given the existence of sin, then, there is the possibility of the
existence of human beings who have overcome their sins, i.e. arrived
at sanctity; and these, we quite reasonably call Saints.

A Saint, then, is defined, without reference to God, as a human being
who has overcome in himself all tendencies and practices contrary to
love.

If such human beings exist, and if sanctity can only come from God,
then it follows that God exists.

How then, may we possibly verify whether any such individuals exist or
have existed? Since there is no way to peer into the soul of another,
or see into his heart, we need another way of judging what is inside
of him. The Master told us, "judge a tree by its fruit. A bad tree
cannot produce good fruit, and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit."
"By their fruits you shall know them."

We are now in a position to find out the answer to our query, namely
whether there exist or existed any individuals who have thus overcome
themselves. We may judge the fruits of their labors by the works they
left behind. We may ask ourselves whether it were possible for anyone
to write as they did without actually overcoming themselves; in a
word, whether they truly did arrive at that at which they are
purported to have arrived: sanctity. If there be sanctity, we will
find it in the writings of the Saints. We will see in their writings
something we may judge, as to whether it is the fruit of such a thing
as sanctity.

And if it is, then we had better start getting to Church!

>
> > However, the writings of those alleged to be Saints are available to
> > you, and there is where you will find your "more information."
>
> Bob600 replies:- The only thing we definitely know about the
> "writings" is that they are the writings of MEN and should be treated
> as such until proven otherwise.

The way to begin that process is actually to read them, not just talk
about it.

[Dave]

No, I rejected the concept of salvation. It's just something silly
some theist made up to dupe people into believing. It seems to have
worked.

[Dave]

On Nov 21, 4:55 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is your unsupported assumption, your appeal to popularity
> notwithstanding.

Isn't that the basis for your whole argument? It seems you like to
point out the logical fallacies you believe others are using, yet
adamantly refuse to see those fallacies in your own arguments.

> There are individuals whom we may assume existed, that the Church has

> called Saints.....

and it would be really inane to base your life on what some assumed
person did. I prefer to base my life on more concrete ideas.

[Timothy 1:4a]

At the Montreal world's fair, Expo'67, one exhibit showed me a large
black and white silkscreen print of a Dalmatian in a field. I walked
to my right, along a curve, seeing more and more large pictures. Each
showed the Dalmatian, but each had another 10% of the print removed -
splotches missing throughout the photo. After enough frames the print
was mostly white space, but I could still see the outline of the
Dalmatian and points of interest in the field.

At this point I met my friend who had started at the other end of this
line of prints, and a sign above the print advised us to tell what we
saw. "It's a Dalmatian," I said confidently. My friend bugged his eyes
at me. He said, [I don't actually remember but it's not material]
"It's a ship at sea!"

We each walked the other half of the exhibit and, sure enough, two
completely different black and white photos had been stripped down
until the only remaining black dots were those that they had in
common. After we had walked both ends, we could see a Dalmatian or a
ship in the central picture at will.

Of course, anyone who was led to the central print without viewing any
other prints would see only what was actually there: a random-looking
set of dots that contained no picture at all.

On Nov 21, 5:28 pm, take me to your leader <dgobei...@cinci.rr.com>
wrote:

[Simpleton]

On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the Montreal world's fair, Expo'67, one exhibit showed me a large
> black and white silkscreen print of a Dalmatian in a field. I walked
> to my right, along a curve, seeing more and more large pictures. Each
> showed the Dalmatian, but each had another 10% of the print removed -
> splotches missing throughout the photo. After enough frames the print
> was mostly white space, but I could still see the outline of the
> Dalmatian and points of interest in the field.
>
> At this point I met my friend who had started at the other end of this
> line of prints, and a sign above the print advised us to tell what we
> saw. "It's a Dalmatian," I said confidently. My friend bugged his eyes
> at me. He said, [I don't actually remember but it's not material]
> "It's a ship at sea!"
>
> We each walked the other half of the exhibit and, sure enough, two
> completely different black and white photos had been stripped down
> until the only remaining black dots were those that they had in
> common. After we had walked both ends, we could see a Dalmatian or a
> ship in the central picture at will.
>
> Of course, anyone who was led to the central print without viewing any
> other prints would see only what was actually there: a random-looking
> set of dots that contained no picture at all.
>

Nonsense, it was just a brilliant manipulation of negative space.

[Deidzoeb]

> > Either way, none of them have been proven true: the existence, the
> > claims of miracles, or the effectiveness of the saints' methods.
>
> Ridiculous! Of course they are proved. The Saints themselves proved
> them. You have no faith at all!

Well, if you're focusing on the "miracle" of a person refraining from
sin, then that's another interesting circle of meaninglessness.

First I define what behaviors I will consider sins.
Then I refrain from those behaviors.
Miracle! God has given me the strength to refrain from those behaviors
which I decided to refrain from (and the power to rationalize all
behaviors that I feel like continuing).

No, I don't have faith in saints or gods or spirits. Given that faith
is a decision, and I told you my decision long ago, it's funny that
you'd use an exclamation mark: "You have no faith at all!"

> > So
> > we're all still at square one,
>

> Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.
>

> Your move.

>
> > unless we decide that sensing reality
> > is not something we should value, but that wishing for something
> > really hard can substitute for reality.
>
> Not at all. The Gospel is the Truth.

Wishing really hard, you substitute The Gospel for any actual proof.
You're willing to set aside reason, the requirement for proofs and
logic, in favor of emotion.

> > In which case, you can decide
> > to "know" that the saints existed and miraculously followed methods
> > that worked to validate whatever it is you're claiming.
>
> They did.

That'll learn me.

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 21, 4:44 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

A friend of mine pointed out long ago that Jesus didn't ask any of us
if we wanted him to make this sacrifice. He decided to make the
sacrifice, and then it's as if we're now obligated to feel bad for him
doing this thing we didn't ask for. It's like Jesus the squeegee man
who runs up and washes your windshield when you're at a stoplight and
then acts offended when you don't pay for a service you didn't ask
for.

If he had checked with some of us, we would have said, no thanks,
that's okay, you keep on living, or stay in Heaven if you want to.
I'll worry about defining and avoiding my own sins, if it's all the
same to you. If you want to do something useful, instead of giving us
salvation, why don't you go back in time and undo the situation that
put us in peril in the first place and required us to be saved from
something bad?

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 21, 5:39 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can appreciate not identifying with the Christian religion. I doubt Jesus
> would want to attend boring church sermons, sing 150 year-old hymns, give
> tithes, go to ice cream socials, pledge allegiance to the Roman Catholic
> Church or to the pope, or do silly things like get a pet blessed with Holy
> Water, send money to televangelist millionaires, or discriminate against
> other people who didn't think exactly like the late Jerry Falwell did. I
> don't see the point in saying you don't need saving. If it turns out that
> there is a God and Jesus did have a message to bring here, but you just
> condemned everything and anything to do with Christianity -- then you will
> wish you hadn't posted that. You big dummy.

So if a psychopath (a person who doesn't understand right from wrong
or understands and doesn't care about it) jumps through the right
hoops because he's afraid of Hell, then he should get let off the
hook, even though he doesn't care about anyone else on earth. But if I
sincerely try to help other people, and ignore the unproven claims of
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Hindus and Muslims and Catholics,
then it's fair that I should suffer eternal torment, because I should
have rolled the dice and hoped that the proper set of unsupported
claims really jumped out and hooked my belief.

To take Pascal's wager to it's logical ends, every person should try
to jump through the hoops prescribed by every religion, just in case
one of them is right. We should accept Jesus as our savior, accept
Muhammed as the Prophet, wear a mojo bag full of goopher dust around
our necks, knock on wood, pray towards Mecca five times a day, keep
kosher, keep halal, drink the Fla-vor-aid, sacrifice chickens, listen
to Judas Priest backwards, etc.

And even if we did that, we would be following a completely selfish
philosophy, not a way of life intended to help other people. We would
only be helping other people in as far as we feared that not doing so
would send us to hell. Pascal's wager should be called the
Psychopath's wager.

Is it all worth it if the best Christianity has to offer is to appeal
to people as if we're psychopaths?

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 21, 2:26 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> On 21 Nov, 04:52, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Bob600 replies:- EXIST
>
> > It's just like with Jesus Christ, really. Whether or not Christ or any
> > of the saints existed is beside the point. Whether they really
> > experienced the miracles attributed to them is the point, and none of
> > the supernatural claims have been proven.
>
> Bob600 replies:- I would only take umbrage at a small point, if its
> beside the point that they existed then why would their experiences
> matter. They could only matter if they existed. And I would go
> further, in the entirety of the existence of the planet Earth and
> mankind "none of the supernatural claims have been proven." of ANY
> sort EVER. Makes you wonder why the topic still exists.

Sorry, I might not have been clear. What I meant was that even if they
existed, it doesn't mean the claims about miracles are true. Even if
we had solid evidence that a man named Jesus was born in Nazareth
around 0 BCE (give or take 5), and was later crucified, and if all his
quotes were accurate, it would not prove the miracles.

I was just trying to emphasize that we atheists don't need to dispute
the existence of these characters. We only need to dispute the
miracles. It's a distraction to argue whether the specific characters
existed, because the thing that makes them mythical and incredible is
the miracles.

Sorry I couldn't put it more clearly the first time around.

[Joe]

On Nov 21, 11:54 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Either way, none of them have been proven true: the existence, the
> > > claims of miracles, or the effectiveness of the saints' methods.
>
> > Ridiculous! Of course they are proved. The Saints themselves proved
> > them. You have no faith at all!
>
> Well, if you're focusing on the "miracle" of a person refraining from
> sin, then that's another interesting circle of meaninglessness.
>
> First I define what behaviors I will consider sins.
> Then I refrain from those behaviors.
> Miracle! God has given me the strength to refrain from those behaviors
> which I decided to refrain from (and the power to rationalize all
> behaviors that I feel like continuing).
>

Straw man. The Saints did not invent the Law. God give the Law
through Moses, who himself did not have the strength to carry it out.
He gives His Saints the grace to do what Moses could not do, and you
expect me to believe that you can do it all on your own, no help from
anyone. I think we are not even thinking of the same standard.

> No, I don't have faith in saints or gods or spirits. Given that faith
> is a decision, and I told you my decision long ago, it's funny that
> you'd use an exclamation mark: "You have no faith at all!"
>

Why are we discussing any of this again? If you have already decided,
then why bother? Live your life sans faith for all I care. The
problem you create with me is when you insist that yours is the only
logical path there is. It is certainly not. There is no logic
compelling you not to believe. Given that faith is a decision, and
given that you have already decided, I think the rest of it is a vain
intellectual exercise, and I wish, if that is how it is, that you
would cease to waste my time. I don't argue here for the enjoyment of
it. I'm sure there are those who do, and you perhaps are among them,
but I'm not.

> > > So
> > > we're all still at square one,
>
> > Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.
>
> > Your move.
>
> > > unless we decide that sensing reality
> > > is not something we should value, but that wishing for something
> > > really hard can substitute for reality.
>
> > Not at all. The Gospel is the Truth.
>
> Wishing really hard,

I don't

> you substitute The Gospel for any actual proof.

No, I believe the Gospel with God-given Faith. Quite a different
matter. But if you have rejected such a thing by your free will, then
we are still done discussing.

> You're willing to set aside reason,

I am unwilling to do so.

> the requirement for proofs

I have my own requirements, which have been met. I cannot speak for
you, and you should not presume to speak for me.

> and
> logic,

I will not set aside logic. Faith does not require such a setting
aside, and I value logic highly. Were it not for logic, no one could
know anything at all about anything, much less about God. As it is,
logic is as valuable to theology as it is to the lesser sciences.

> in favor of emotion.
>

Faith is not emotion, and a decision in the will is not an emotion
either.

You speak of what you know not, and you speak as a fool. Who do you
believe you are impressing with this? Your fellow atheists don't care
what faith is, and anyone with faith knows it isn't an emotion. So
why pretend to know what you are talking about?

> > > In which case, you can decide
> > > to "know" that the saints existed and miraculously followed methods
> > > that worked to validate whatever it is you're claiming.
>
> > They did.
>
> That'll learn me.

Doubtful, given your track record.

[LL]

On Nov 21, 2:29 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

LL: Did it ever occur to you that you reject the salvation of other
religions all the time? How does it feel?

[LL]

On Nov 21, 2:39 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:

I
don't see the point in saying you don't need saving. If it turns out
that
there is a God and Jesus did have a message to bring here, but you
just
condemned everything and anything to do with Christianity -- then you
will
wish you hadn't posted that.

LL: What if it turns out that there is a god--or maybe 10 of them---
who is not the Christian god and that you missed the message of the
true god(s) and now you are condemned and will never be saved because
you chose the wrong one? What then?

> I can appreciate not identifying with the Christian religion. I doubt Jesus
> would want to attend boring church sermons, sing 150 year-old hymns, give
> tithes, go to ice cream socials, pledge allegiance to the Roman Catholic
> Church or to the pope, or do silly things like get a pet blessed with Holy
> Water, send money to televangelist millionaires, or discriminate against
> other people who didn't think exactly like the late Jerry Falwell did. I
> don't see the point in saying you don't need saving. If it turns out that
> there is a God and Jesus did have a message to bring here, but you just
> condemned everything and anything to do with Christianity -- then you will
> wish you hadn't posted that. You big dummy.
>

> On 11/21/07, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 4:44 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 2:24 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.
>
> > > That was a stupid thing to do. I don't need saving.
>
> > Well there you have it then. You have accomplished the rejecting of
> > salvation.
>

> --
> Keith A. MacNevins
> Ambassador From Hell
> Copyright

[Joe]

I am a synthesist, so that doesn't apply to me. I get the best of all
worlds at once.

[Deidzoeb]

> > First I define what behaviors I will consider sins.
> > Then I refrain from those behaviors.
> > Miracle! God has given me the strength to refrain from those behaviors
> > which I decided to refrain from (and the power to rationalize all
> > behaviors that I feel like continuing).
>
> Straw man. The Saints did not invent the Law. God give the Law
> through Moses, who himself did not have the strength to carry it out.
> He gives His Saints the grace to do what Moses could not do, and you
> expect me to believe that you can do it all on your own, no help from
> anyone. I think we are not even thinking of the same standard.

You attribute the Law to God. I attribute the Law to humans who
claimed they were speaking on behalf of God.

Not a straw man. Just another disagreement.

> > No, I don't have faith in saints or gods or spirits. Given that faith
> > is a decision, and I told you my decision long ago, it's funny that
> > you'd use an exclamation mark: "You have no faith at all!"
>
> Why are we discussing any of this again? If you have already decided,
> then why bother?

You pop in here talking about your grandiose final message, as if
people are going to be talking about "The Prophet Joseph Geloso (peace
be upon him)" pretty soon, and you wonder why people would bother
discussing it?

> Live your life sans faith for all I care. The
> problem you create with me is when you insist that yours is the only
> logical path there is.

I don't remember saying that I have discovered any ultimate logical
path. I've just been trying to point out the ways you set aside logic
and make leaps of faith, as if faith is something we should value when
trying to understand objective truths. If you set aside logic and
substitute faith, you have decided not to take the logical path. No
amount of calling it the logical path or "another logical path" will
change that.

> It is certainly not. There is no logic
> compelling you not to believe.

Faith is the only thing compelling you to believe. There is no logic
compelling you to believe. There is no logic compelling me to believe.
The house of logic that you try to build is set on foundations of
faith, which is why it does not hold. Any logic with which you try to
shore up the walls is undermined by the faith, the anti-logic, the
decision to reject reason and logic, that you've poured in your
foundation.

Faith is a thing that people use to support beliefs when they can't
use or refuse to use reason or logical proofs. Given that reason and
logic are the only proper supports, faith does not really support
anything. It is like a decision not to bother with real support, but
to pretend and wish for support instead.

> Given that faith is a decision, and
> given that you have already decided, I think the rest of it is a vain
> intellectual exercise, and I wish, if that is how it is, that you
> would cease to waste my time.

Funny how that works. I'm wasting your time, but you're not wasting my
time.

> > You're willing to set aside reason,
>
> I am unwilling to do so.

Choosing to value faith when seeking these kinds of truths necessarily
requires you to set aside reason as a standard. If you valued reason,
you would rely on it instead of faith. If you value faith, you are
relying on it instead of reason.

> > the requirement for proofs
>
> I have my own requirements, which have been met. I cannot speak for
> you, and you should not presume to speak for me.

You admit to using faith. You define it all up and down and left and
right, but it still comes back to emotion. If reason were involved in
any of these decisions, theists would give their logical proofs for
why these things are correct, and there would be no need to claim it's
a matter of loyalty or trust or hope, aka faith.

From what you have told, it is clear that you rely on faith to support
your beliefs, and as much as you try to deny it by padding the
definition, it boils down to an emotion. It's a strong feeling that
proves to you God exists and Catholic dogma is best.

> > and
> > logic,
>
> I will not set aside logic. Faith does not require such a setting
> aside, and I value logic highly. Were it not for logic, no one could
> know anything at all about anything, much less about God. As it is,
> logic is as valuable to theology as it is to the lesser sciences.
>
> > in favor of emotion.
>
> Faith is not emotion, and a decision in the will is not an emotion
> either.

So where did "decision in the will" come into this? Is that supposed
to be synonymous with faith?

A decision is reaching a conclusion. It could be based on logical
proofs or emotion.

The problem is that you want people to come to a decision about God
before they think about it. Wouldn't you say that a person can only
find the right answers if they decide to believe? And then it all
becomes circular, because they can only truly believe if they decide
to believe. If they don't believe, it's because they decided not to
believe, because they should have gone into the question with a
prejudice in favor of believing. Not just a prejudice, but a decision
ahead of time to believe without even beginning to look for proof.

It's a mess, and you can keep coming up with misleading jargon like
that until the cows come home, but it doesn't make it any more
sensible.

[Joe]

On Nov 21, 3:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2:40 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 2:30 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 2:34 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 2:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 1:34 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 19, 8:32 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > No, atheism is not the reasonable default in the face of the testimony
> > > > > > > > > of those who claim to know Him. Atheism in such a case relies on the
> > > > > > > > > assumption that those people are either lying or mistaken. That in
> > > > > > > > > turn relies on the unsupported assumption that they either have a
> > > > > > > > > reason to lie (or else are just pathological) or that your judgment is
> > > > > > > > > inherently more reliable than theirs. Now you have to support at
> > > > > > > > > least one of the following:
>
> > > > > > > > Incorrect. Atheism does not rely on the assumption that those people
> > > > > > > > are lying or mistaken because atheism, at its most general, simply
> > > > > > > > relies on the assumption that their testimony should not be accepted
> > > > > > > > until they meet the burden of proof. Asking someone to prove
> > > > > > > > themselves is not an accusation of lying nor a declaration that they
> > > > > > > > are wrong. In court if you are trying to show that someone is guilty,
> > > > > > > > the burden of proof is on you. This doesn't mean that the court thinks
> > > > > > > > you are wrong or that you are lying, just that if you expect the court
> > > > > > > > and the legal system to accept your charge of guilty as fact, that you
> > > > > > > > have a requirement. This same concept applies to your "testimonies".
>
> > > > > > > Then you should accept the testimony of the Saints since they have met
> > > > > > > the burden of proof.
>
> > > > > > Correct.
>
> > > > > Sorry, I thought you said "Then you should accept the testimony of the
> > > > > Saints *IF* they have met the burden of proof"
>
> > > > > To which my response is: Correct.
>
> > > > > In order for me to say "Correct" to your actual statement, I would
> > > > > need to see the burden of proof. That's what it's called a burden, you
> > > > > actually need to supply it.

>
> > > > I have already stated plainly that the Saints met that burden.
>

> > > Stating it and showing it are two different things.

>
> > I am not the one to show it; they are.
>

> Either speak for the saints all the way or don't speak of them at all.
>

You can read them just as easily as I can. Why should I do your
homework for you?

> Don't go around saying their words are truth if *you* are not willing
> to back it up.
>

Back it up how? Which passage in which Saint is giving you trouble?
Before you come to me with it, look in the rest of that Saint's
writing, and in others besides such as may be known to you. I say
their words are true, indeed, tried, tested, and true. If you would
find the truth of them for yourself, then it is up to you to try them
and test them.

>
>
> > > > Therefore they are the ones who have supplied it, i.e. the proof. We
> > > > differ as to how much of the Saints is available to us for our
> > > > investigation.

>
> > > > 1. We both agree that their extant writings are available to us.
>

> > > > 2. We possibly differ in whether the methods they wrote about in those
> > > > writings are practicable by us.
>

> > > > 3. We certainly differ in whether they themselves are available to us
> > > > to help us.
>

> > > > I answer yes to 1, 2, and 3. You answer yes to 1 and no to 3. 2
> > > > forms a bridge between 1 and 3, a way of arriving at 3, given only 1
> > > > and a spirit willing to learn.
>
> > > Only if 2 is validated. Willingness is not validation.
>
> > Correct. Willingness, by itself without any practice, is like
> > wishing. You can wish on as many stars as you like, for a new
> > driveway. But the angels of the stars are not going to build it for
> > you. For that, you either have to pay someone, or pave it yourself.
>
> Good then you acknowledge the flaw in your statement where you said
> all we need is willingness. I am eager to see the corrected statement.
>

By "a spirit willing to learn," I did not mean only theoretical
knowledge. I meant willingness to put what you read into practice. A
spirit willing to learn demonstrates his willingness by putting what
he learns to the practical test. Doing so, he finds the validation of
it. A spirit who claims he is willing, but then fails to put the
teaching into practice, merely shows his true unwillingness.

>
>
> > > > The spirit willing to learn is aptly
> > > > termed humility.
>
> > > No. The spirit that is humble in nature is aptly termed humility.

> > > Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn.
>
> > "Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn."
>

> > That seems an absurd statement on the very face of it. Willingness to
> > learn implies willingness to be taught, whether by someone else or by
> > nature herself. To be taught requires at least the humility to admit
> > that you don't already know what is being taught.
>
> Incorrect. Otherwise it would be impossible to teach people humility.

It is.

> If humility is required to learn, then they can't learn humility.
>

Right. Humility is a virtue. It is not a technique that could be
learned. True humility, according to Saint Teresa, is only the
logical outcome of rational self-assessment.

>
>
> > In particular, if one wishes to be taught of God, he must first
> > believe or at least hope that there is God, and that requires
> > humility. That humility is what atheists principally lack. That lack
> > explains why there is atheism.
>
> No, the lack of support for god explains why there is theism.
>

Did you mean atheism?

Assuming you meant atheism, any alleged lack of support could not by
itself explain it. There would also need to be the demand for support
of whatever kind is perceived to be lacking, and the consideration of
that to be important enough to be a deal-breaker, as it were.

There were those whose inner radiance was by itself good enough to
draw others to them, and they were believed because they had said it.
But they are only visible to those seeking such a thing. I do not
know how to speak for, or even to, such as do not.

>
>
> > > > It takes humility to pray, and none of the
> > > > techniques espoused by any of the Saints are even possible to
> > > > approach, if one refuses to pray.
>
> > > So? We're not even at that point you. First you have to validate their
> > > authority to dictate these methods.
>
> > *I* have already done so, to my satisfaction.
>
> So?
>

So there is not any validating that *I* have to do, contrary to your
assertion above that "First you have to validate their authority. . ."

The validity of their methods speaks for itself, eloquently enough, in
them, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

> > And you have here put
> > the cart before the horse. Their authority is confirmed by experience
> > of the efficacy of their methods.
>
> Methods that you cannot, or will not, describe. Why the evasion?
>

Pray.

How is this any different from what I have been saying all along? Why
accuse me of evading when I've been as plain as day from the start?
Pray. That is the whole method, beginning to end.

You want more? Pray the Rosary. Go to Mass. Is any of this sounding
a little bit familiar yet?

> > > *Then* we can talk about the
> > > methods themselves, your protestations of "Just try it!"
> > > notwithstanding.

>
> > A man stands behind a window, on the other side of which there are
> > grapes. Someone tells him there is a door just to his left, and if he
> > walks though it he can taste those grapes. But the man protests, that
> > to believe in the existence of this door requires him to have already

> > tasted the grapes. What can be done for the man? I myself frequently
> > enjoy those grapes. But I did not a priori doubt the existence of the
> > door, so that when I approached the door and turned the handle, it
> > opened. Had I said in my heart, "there is no door," I would perforce
> > have been in the same unfortunate position as our unhappy man. He
> > will walk away, muttering to himself, "I am sure they are sour."
>
> Not an accurate example of that fable. I don't declare that the idea
> od God is "sour" because I can't have it.
>
> I declare the idea of God is unsupported.
>

IOW, "there is no door."

> > > > In any case, it is folly to reject 2 outright,
>
> > > How so? What is folly is to accept anything that is said, outright,
> > > without imposing some sort of scrutiny what you accept as true.
>
> > "Taste and see the goodness of the Lord."

>
> > The one who refuses to taste need not imagine that he has rationally
> > determined that God is sour (or that there is no God). The method
> > given above in its simplicity is twofold:
>
> > 1. Taste, and
> > 2. See.
>

> > Seeing follows upon tasting, but our unhappy man (our atheist) insists
> > that he cannot taste *because* he cannot see. Poor pitiable blind and
> > hungry man! How we, who are feasting on these wonderful grapes, wish
> > that there were some way for us to overcome his reticence! But there
> > is not, because it is in his will, and the only one who can overcome
> > it for him is him.
>
> > > > and not that good kind
> > > > of folly wherein it is said that the foolishness of God is wiser than
> > > > the wisdom of men; rather, it is that bad kind of folly wherein it is
> > > > said that "the fool saith in his heart, 'there is no God.' "

[Joe]

On Nov 22, 1:59 am, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > First I define what behaviors I will consider sins.
> > > Then I refrain from those behaviors.
> > > Miracle! God has given me the strength to refrain from those behaviors
> > > which I decided to refrain from (and the power to rationalize all
> > > behaviors that I feel like continuing).
>
> > Straw man. The Saints did not invent the Law. God give the Law
> > through Moses, who himself did not have the strength to carry it out.
> > He gives His Saints the grace to do what Moses could not do, and you
> > expect me to believe that you can do it all on your own, no help from
> > anyone. I think we are not even thinking of the same standard.
>
> You attribute the Law to God. I attribute the Law to humans who
> claimed they were speaking on behalf of God.
>
> Not a straw man. Just another disagreement.
>

Your straw man was in your assertion that the Saints themselves
invented it. You wan to say Moses invented it, fine. Then Moses was
a genius, no doubt, but the Saints, for their part, did not pick and
choose for themselves what to take of Moses.

> > > No, I don't have faith in saints or gods or spirits. Given that faith
> > > is a decision, and I told you my decision long ago, it's funny that
> > > you'd use an exclamation mark: "You have no faith at all!"
>
> > Why are we discussing any of this again? If you have already decided,
> > then why bother?
>
> You pop in here talking about your grandiose final message, as if
> people are going to be talking about "The Prophet Joseph Geloso (peace
> be upon him)" pretty soon, and you wonder why people would bother
> discussing it?
>

Aw, well, at least you noticed that. That's good. It's a start. But
realize it's mot about me. Just because I was given such a thing,
does not mean I invented it, any more than the Saints invented their
own laws. I only passed on what I myself received.

> > Live your life sans faith for all I care. The
> > problem you create with me is when you insist that yours is the only
> > logical path there is.
>
> I don't remember saying that I have discovered any ultimate logical
> path. I've just been trying to point out the ways you set aside logic
> and make leaps of faith, as if faith is something we should value when
> trying to understand objective truths. If you set aside logic and
> substitute faith, you have decided not to take the logical path. No
> amount of calling it the logical path or "another logical path" will
> change that.
>

There is no setting aside necessary, to have faith. You keep
asserting it, but you cannot seem to show it.

> > It is certainly not. There is no logic
> > compelling you not to believe.
>
> Faith is the only thing compelling you to believe. There is no logic
> compelling you to believe.

Except the perfect logic that is faith, but O.K., I agree with you
from where you're coming from with it.

> There is no logic compelling me to believe.
> The house of logic that you try to build is set on foundations of
> faith, which is why it does not hold.

Or why, on the contrary, it does hold. What about Faith do you
imagine is unreliable?

> Any logic with which you try to
> shore up the walls is undermined by the faith, the anti-logic, the
> decision to reject reason and logic, that you've poured in your
> foundation.
>

You have not demonstrated any abandonment of logic in me. You have
not supported your claim that faith is "anti-logic." Thus you are
begging those questions.

> Faith is a thing that people use to support beliefs when they can't
> use or refuse to use reason or logical proofs.

That is like a slogan or something. That is pure rhetoric, based on
your emotional reaction to the idea of faith.

There is a perfectly logical reason why the teachings of Faith cannot
be proved using logic alone. Logic is limited, whereas Faith is
infinite. Faith is meritorious, whereas logic is merely necessary.
If Faith could be arrived at from pure logic, there would no longer be
merit in it, and God wills that there be merit in it still. God wills
that you should decide with your free will to believe or not to
believe.

Your doctrine, above, that "Faith is a thing that people use to

support beliefs when they can't use or refuse to use reason or logical

proofs," is not the truth, and belief in it prevents you from coming
to Faith, because you erroneously believe you would be committing a
logical error.

But there is no logical error in believing. There is no logical error
in disbelieving. It is free will, either way. But you will not
acknowledge this. That is why I said you have no balls. I, at least,
can admit that it is my will to believe, and I believe even though
there is no logic compelling me to do so, because I want to. Only
would that you would acknowledge your own will for what it is. You
choose not to believe, even though there is no logic compelling you
not to, because you do not want to.

> Given that reason and
> logic are the only proper supports,

It is impossible to build anything supported by reason and logic
alone. What supports reason and logic?

1. Reason and logic are the only proper supports.
2. Reason tells us that nothing can support itself.
3. Logic tells us that a thing either has support or it does not.

Thus, to be logical (3), we must admit that either reason and logic
have support or they do not. Now if they properly have it, then they
must support themselves, since 1. But they cannot support themselves,
since 2. Therefore they are unsupported.

I am not arguing the invalidity of reason and logic, only the fallacy
in 1. Reason and logic are valid and axiomatic. I.e. we accept them
"on faith."

> faith does not really support
> anything.

On the contrary; it really supports everything including reason and
logic, as we have seen!

> It is like a decision not to bother with real support, but
> to pretend and wish for support instead.
>

No pretending or wishing is necessary. God is utterly reliable.
Wouldn't be much of a God, otherwise, would He?

> > Given that faith is a decision, and
> > given that you have already decided, I think the rest of it is a vain
> > intellectual exercise, and I wish, if that is how it is, that you
> > would cease to waste my time.
>
> Funny how that works. I'm wasting your time, but you're not wasting my
> time.
>

Because you enjoy all this arguing.

> > > You're willing to set aside reason,
>
> > I am unwilling to do so.
>
> Choosing to value faith when seeking these kinds of truths necessarily
> requires you to set aside reason as a standard.

Since when was reason a "standard?" I thought reason was a tool. i
do not worship reason. Setting up standards smacks of worship, and
that is idolatry. Reason is not the arbiter of everything.

Nonetheless, there are sound reasons to believe, so at least one who
believes is following reason --- just not worshiping it as an idol.

> If you valued reason,
> you would rely on it instead of faith.

No, reason is not God. I rely on God, not "faith." Faith is relying
on God. Faith is an action. Reason only helps faith; it does not
determine it and it is not opposed to it.

> If you value faith, you are
> relying on it instead of reason.
>

False dichotomy. There is no contradiction between faith and reason.
The one does not require setting aside the other. It is your
contention that they do, but you have not once showed anything
illogical or unreasonable in Faith.

> > > the requirement for proofs
>
> > I have my own requirements, which have been met. I cannot speak for
> > you, and you should not presume to speak for me.
>
> You admit to using faith.

You make it sound like a bad thing, like I admit to using crack or
something. That is hilarious!

> You define it all up and down and left and
> right, but it still comes back to emotion.

You wouldn't know, so you are talking right out of your ass there,
chum. Not fooling anyone either.

> If reason were involved in
> any of these decisions, theists would give their logical proofs for
> why these things are correct, and there would be no need to claim it's
> a matter of loyalty or trust or hope, aka faith.
>

If faith could be compelled by logic it would no longer be faith.
Thus theists are perfectly able to show the logical consistency of the
whole structure of faith, which you yourself admit, but they are
unable to do away with the requirement of faith in the first place.

> From what you have told, it is clear that you rely on faith to support
> your beliefs,

Of course.

> and as much as you try to deny it by padding the
> definition, it boils down to an emotion.

No it isn't.

> It's a strong feeling that
> proves to you God exists and Catholic dogma is best.
>

It is the Holy Spirit proving that to me. It is on a far deeper level
than emotions, which really are pretty close to the surface. Yes I do
feel it sometimes. I also feel the sun on my face sometimes, and that
is not an emotion. There is no way for me to convey the experience to
you using words, nor even to describe it, since analogies necessarily
fail. There is also no way for me to convey to you the conviction
that experiences are not even the primary thing. I am sure you base
your whole life on your experiences. What else? But there is more to
life than what you can experience of it, and the action of the Holy
Spirit in the interior of the soul transcends the experience of the
one upon whom He is acting. And, I know that it transcends my
experience, in a way that transcends experience. By now you should be
able to admit that you don't have a clue what I am talking about. Or,
you can take the more predictable route, and conform yourself to your
history, and state that I am talking about some emotion or other.
That will satisfy your zeal to categorize everything and believe you
have it all pegged. The only thing it won't do is actually peg it for
you, but since you believe it is all just my emotions anyway, why
should that matter to you? If you can convince yourself that it is
all just my emotions, then you can dismiss it as such, and never let
yourself be bothered by another Christian for as long as you live.
Can you convince yourself of that? If you wish for it ever-so-hard?
Or maybe you are already convinced. Or maybe you will surprise me,
and admit that you don't know. You are not real full of surprises,
but ya just never know. . .

> > > and
> > > logic,
>
> > I will not set aside logic. Faith does not require such a setting
> > aside, and I value logic highly. Were it not for logic, no one could
> > know anything at all about anything, much less about God. As it is,
> > logic is as valuable to theology as it is to the lesser sciences.
>
> > > in favor of emotion.
>
> > Faith is not emotion, and a decision in the will is not an emotion
> > either.
>
> So where did "decision in the will" come into this? Is that supposed
> to be synonymous with faith?
>

No. But if this terminology is new to you, then you have been paying
even less attention then I thought, if that were even possible.

> A decision is reaching a conclusion. It could be based on logical
> proofs or emotion.
>

No, that is not a decision, that is an argument. A decision is to do
something.

The conclusion of an argument can be supported by logic or emotion,
usually referred to in this context as rhetoric. Then you can take
the conclusion of your argument and decide to do something with it, or
decide to do nothing with it, and those would be decisions, in your
will, after you had reached a conclusion in your mind. Not the same
thing.

> The problem is that you want people to come to a decision about God
> before they think about it. Wouldn't you say that a person can only
> find the right answers if they decide to believe? And then it all
> becomes circular, because they can only truly believe if they decide
> to believe. If they don't believe, it's because they decided not to
> believe, because they should have gone into the question with a
> prejudice in favor of believing. Not just a prejudice, but a decision
> ahead of time to believe without even beginning to look for proof.
>
> It's a mess, and you can keep coming up with misleading jargon like
> that until the cows come home, but it doesn't make it any more
> sensible.

Nonetheless, there are solid reasons to believe. You just choose to
ignore them.

[Drafterman]

It's not *my* homework, it's yours. Again you seem to fail at
understanding the burden of proof. You think that would fly in a court
of law?

Judge: "Prove this man is guilty"
Prosecutor: "We have evidence of his crime on video tape"
Judge: "Let's see it"
Prosecutor: "You can view it as easily as I can. Why should I do your
homework for you?"
Judge: "You're in contempt. Defendent is not guilty. Case dismissed"

*You* are making the claim. It is *your* job to *provide* the evidence
of that claim, not merely claim it exists. Otherwise don't make the
claim.

>
> > Don't go around saying their words are truth if *you* are not willing
> > to back it up.
>
> Back it up how?

Deciding how to do it is *your* homework, not mine.

> Which passage in which Saint is giving you trouble?

None, since you have provided none.

> Before you come to me with it, look in the rest of that Saint's
> writing, and in others besides such as may be known to you. I say
> their words are true, indeed, tried, tested, and true. If you would
> find the truth of them for yourself, then it is up to you to try them
> and test them.

Provide me one quotation from the Saints that is true.

>
>
>
> > > > > Therefore they are the ones who have supplied it, i.e. the proof. We
> > > > > differ as to how much of the Saints is available to us for our
> > > > > investigation.
>
> > > > > 1. We both agree that their extant writings are available to us.
>
> > > > > 2. We possibly differ in whether the methods they wrote about in those
> > > > > writings are practicable by us.
>
> > > > > 3. We certainly differ in whether they themselves are available to us
> > > > > to help us.
>
> > > > > I answer yes to 1, 2, and 3. You answer yes to 1 and no to 3. 2
> > > > > forms a bridge between 1 and 3, a way of arriving at 3, given only 1
> > > > > and a spirit willing to learn.
>
> > > > Only if 2 is validated. Willingness is not validation.
>
> > > Correct. Willingness, by itself without any practice, is like
> > > wishing. You can wish on as many stars as you like, for a new
> > > driveway. But the angels of the stars are not going to build it for
> > > you. For that, you either have to pay someone, or pave it yourself.
>
> > Good then you acknowledge the flaw in your statement where you said
> > all we need is willingness. I am eager to see the corrected statement.
>
> By "a spirit willing to learn," I did not mean only theoretical
> knowledge. I meant willingness to put what you read into practice.

Then that would be "a spirit willing to put what it reads into
practice"

> A
> spirit willing to learn demonstrates his willingness by putting what
> he learns to the practical test. Doing so, he finds the validation of
> it. A spirit who claims he is willing, but then fails to put the
> teaching into practice, merely shows his true unwillingness.

Maybe the spirit wants some sort of validation of the methods before
it wastes an entire life on them.

>
>
>
> > > > > The spirit willing to learn is aptly
> > > > > termed humility.
>
> > > > No. The spirit that is humble in nature is aptly termed humility.
> > > > Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn.
>
> > > "Humility has nothing to do with willingness to learn."
>
> > > That seems an absurd statement on the very face of it. Willingness to
> > > learn implies willingness to be taught, whether by someone else or by
> > > nature herself. To be taught requires at least the humility to admit
> > > that you don't already know what is being taught.
>
> > Incorrect. Otherwise it would be impossible to teach people humility.
>
> It is.

So then people are either born humble and that's it? Seems unfair.

>
> > If humility is required to learn, then they can't learn humility.
>
> Right. Humility is a virtue. It is not a technique that could be
> learned. True humility, according to Saint Teresa, is only the
> logical outcome of rational self-assessment.

But if they aren't humble, they can't learn what logic is.

>
>
>
> > > In particular, if one wishes to be taught of God, he must first
> > > believe or at least hope that there is God, and that requires
> > > humility. That humility is what atheists principally lack. That lack
> > > explains why there is atheism.
>
> > No, the lack of support for god explains why there is theism.
>
> Did you mean atheism?

Yes, thank you.

>
> Assuming you meant atheism, any alleged lack of support could not by
> itself explain it.

There is no such thing as "alleged lack of support". There can be
"alleged support", but that's it.

> There would also need to be the demand for support
> of whatever kind is perceived to be lacking, and the consideration of
> that to be important enough to be a deal-breaker, as it were.

There is.

>
> There were those whose inner radiance was by itself good enough to
> draw others to them, and they were believed because they had said it.
> But they are only visible to those seeking such a thing. I do not
> know how to speak for, or even to, such as do not.
>
>
>
> > > > > It takes humility to pray, and none of the
> > > > > techniques espoused by any of the Saints are even possible to
> > > > > approach, if one refuses to pray.
>
> > > > So? We're not even at that point you. First you have to validate their
> > > > authority to dictate these methods.
>
> > > *I* have already done so, to my satisfaction.
>
> > So?
>
> So there is not any validating that *I* have to do, contrary to your
> assertion above that "First you have to validate their authority. . ."

You do. Again the concept of burden of proof evades you.

>
> The validity of their methods speaks for itself, eloquently enough, in
> them, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I.e. circular reasoning? The validity of "I'm right because I'm right"
technically speaks for itself.

>
> > > And you have here put
> > > the cart before the horse. Their authority is confirmed by experience
> > > of the efficacy of their methods.
>
> > Methods that you cannot, or will not, describe. Why the evasion?
>
> Pray.

Ineffective. Next.

>
> How is this any different from what I have been saying all along? Why
> accuse me of evading when I've been as plain as day from the start?
> Pray. That is the whole method, beginning to end.

You keep talking about reading the saints. Are you seriously saying
that all any of them have to say can be summed up as "pray"?

>
> You want more? Pray the Rosary. Go to Mass. Is any of this sounding
> a little bit familiar yet?

Unfortunately yes. You keep going around in circles from unsupported
point to unsupported point. I was hoping to tread new ground here and
get some *real* validation.

[Dave]

Except the real one.

[grasshopper5825]

Have you ever experienced any thing that you could not explain...Jesus
said you will seek for signs ,,,but shall not find them.....To ask If
you are real show me Jesus and to invite with your whole heart...so
you ask for Proof...how if you don't ask ...by faith...then you have
not ask...and I don't know if you have or haven't because I don't know
you.....

On Nov 17, 9:50 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:35 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We can safely accept as plausible most ordinary claims that fall
> > > within normal human experience. I could claim to have gone to the
> > > grocery store today. I might be lying, but grocery stores are common.
> > > It is plausible that any average American might have gone to a grocery
> > > store in any given day. You don't necessarily know my claim is
> > > definitely true without further investigation, but at least it's
> > > within the realm of plausibility.
>
> > > "I won the lottery last night!" Not very probable, but at least this
> > > is still within the realm of normal human experience.
>
> > > For extraordinary claims about events that fall outside the limits of
> > > normal human experience, we should remain skeptical. No one has ever
> > > documented the existence of a living, breathing basilisk that turned
> > > humans to stone when gazing on them. Maybe such a thing can exist,
> > > and
> > > maybe it tore through that army in China and turned them all to terra
> > > cotta before burying them.
>
> > > Reasonable people should expect extraordinary proof to support claims
> > > that fall outside the limits of normal human experience. We should
> > > reject those claims as impossible until or unless we get some solid
> > > proof.
>
> > > [Joseph Geloso] brought up the counterargument in the past that God is
> > > a part of normal experience. But it's more like claims of the
> > > existence of God are part of normal human experience. Hopes for the
> > > existence of gods are a part of normal experience. In the same way,
> > > believing the claims of a con artist "psychic" like Sylvia Browne is a
> > > part of normal human experience. Some people visit "faith healers" who
> > > claim to cure them of diseases, and some will keep on believing it
> > > even when their disease shows no improvement. That is not the same as
> > > God or psychic powers or faith healing being part of normal human
> > > experience. Claims and emotions about those things are within normal
> > > human experience. Actually seeing, sensing, hearing God or psychic
> > > powers in action or successful faith healing are not part of normal
> > > human experience.
>
> > Completely begging the question. You are attempting to prove that the
> > claims of those who say they know God are without substance, based on
> > your claim that those claims are without substance.
>
> But you don't have to rely on my authority or testimony that those
> claims are without substance. You can investigate every claim that has
> ever been made about gods or unicorns or Shiva or chupacabra. If any
> one of them seems reliable, then please share it with us. Until or
> unless I can find any credible claims, until or unless you or anyone
> else can find credible claims, the reasonable default belief is
> atheism, a-unicornism and a-chupacabra-ism.
>
> > How does anyone know you didn't just imagine going to the grocery
> > store? How do we know, for example (since it is a subjective
> > example), that a given colorblind person is not actually lying and
> > really does see a distinction between yellow and blue?
>
> I wasn't very clear with the grocery store example. You can't
> instantly believe that I'm telling the truth when I claim to have been
> to the grocery store. But it's at least within the realm of normal
> human experience. Seeing or hearing gods is far enough out of normal
> human experience that we should expect extraordinary evidence before
> we accept the claim.
>
> For the colorblind person, my point is not that we must believe every
> claim that is possible. It's that we can reasonably debate possible
> and plausible claims within normal human experience. Colorblindness is
> part of normal human experience. Some percentage of people are born
> with it. There may be some medical test to discover whether a person
> is missing the "rods or cones" within the eye that perceive certain
> colors. (At least, that's the explanation I've heard for why people
> are colorblind.) Sensing God is not within normal human experience.
> When someone claims to have heard God or seen God or talked with a
> bush that burns yet is not consumed, we can reasonably believe that
> they are lying or mistaken, until or unless they can present solid
> evidence.
>
> I concede that it's possible something extraordinary could happen and
> a person might not have evidence to prove the claim. An Arawak indian
> who was the first in his land to witness one of his fellows getting
> shot to death by Christopher Columbus's crew, going back to his tribe
> and describing that he saw a man point a stick, some smoke came out,
> and his friend fell dead with a hole in his chest -- I can see that
> his tribe might not believe him even though it's the truth. But I
> think those skeptical listeners would be reasonable not to believe.
> Otherwise, if you believe every wild claim you hear, or take it on
> faith when you hear a reassuring supernatural claim, where do you draw
> the line? If we believe in one god, shouldn't we believe in all the
> rest? Is there any more subjective evidence for the claims about
> Christ than for the claims about Vishnu?
>
>
>
> > > Given the rarity, it is more plausible that the people who report
> > > hearing God, performing successful psychic surgery or being able to
> > > read other people's thoughts are either lying or mistaken.
>
> > > That's why the reasonable default position is not to believe when a
> > > person tells you she turned her telephone into water, or that Dave
> > > Letterman is winking a secret code on his tv show to tell me that he
> > > wants to marry me, or that aliens cut up cows. The claim that a god
> > > exists should be treated with the same default position, that things
> > > outside of normal human experience are impossible until they are
> > > proven, no matter how pleasant it would be to ignore reason and
> > > replace it with hope.
>
> > > (Actually Dave Letterman winking a code is technically plausible,
> > > although I would probably be the twentieth or hundredth person to have
> > > that kind of erotomaniacal delusion. It seems much more likely to be a
> > > delusion than a rich and famous person like Letterman choosing to
> > > communicate his love through coded speech or movements in the course
> > > of his show.)
>
> > > The reasonable default position is not to believe in extraordinary
> > > claims outside of normal human experience, until or unless it can be
> > > proven. The existence of god is an unsupported, extraordinary claim
> > > outside of normal human experience.
>
> > Not according to the millions who regularly experience Him in the
> > their lives. It is only outside the realm of normal, human, ATHEISTIC
> > experience. That is, assuming the atheists are not just lying about
> > it.
>
> So how about the millions who regularly "experience" Vishnu and Kali
> and Gaia and Legba in their lives? How about Joseph Smith's
> experiences with angels and his transcribed adventures of Jesus in
> America? How about Muhammed's experiences with his God? Are you saying
> everyone who claims to have experienced some god should be trusted? Or
> only people who make claims about your favorite god?
>
> Wanting to experience a god is part of normal human experience.
> Wanting it so badly that you think it must be true, is part of normal
> human experience. But even among believers, most of them will admit
> they've never seen, touched, heard God. They felt him in an emotional
> way, like the way I feel the presence of Scarlett Johansen beside me
> when my wife has a headache and I've locked myself in the bathroom.
> You know, not exactly like that experience, but similar.

[Keith MacNevins]

You either do not comprehend the post you are responding to or you are just automatically spewing garbage without thinking.

[Joe]

There is no "next." Pray, or be lost.

>
>
> > How is this any different from what I have been saying all along? Why
> > accuse me of evading when I've been as plain as day from the start?
> > Pray. That is the whole method, beginning to end.
>
> You keep talking about reading the saints. Are you seriously saying
> that all any of them have to say can be summed up as "pray"?
>

Yes. What is more, they agree with what I've said.

>
>
> > You want more? Pray the Rosary. Go to Mass. Is any of this sounding
> > a little bit familiar yet?
>
> Unfortunately yes. You keep going around in circles from unsupported
> point to unsupported point. I was hoping to tread new ground here and
> get some *real* validation.
>

You were not so hoping, since if you truly did so hope you would
rejoice that the way to it has been revealed to you.

I am going to post a good example of the writing of a Saint, as a new
post. Look for "Conformity to God's Will by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri."

I expect Saint Alphonsus will fall on deaf ears with you, but at least
I will not have been slack in doing my part.

[LL]

On Nov 21, 10:59 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:

You admit to using faith. You define it all up and down and left and
right, but it still comes back to emotion. If reason were involved in
any of these decisions, theists would give their logical proofs for
why these things are correct, and there would be no need to claim
it's
a matter of loyalty or trust or hope, aka faith.

From what you have told, it is clear that you rely on faith to
support
your beliefs, and as much as you try to deny it by padding the
definition, it boils down to an emotion.

LL: Deidzoeb, you've given the perfect reason that theists are at a
disadvantage on A vs C--and in any debate regarding faith vs reason.
Excellent post.

[LL]

On Nov 21, 2:29 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:44 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 2:24 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Square one: Jesus Christ died to save you.
>
> > That was a stupid thing to do. I don't need saving.
>
> Well there you have it then. You have accomplished the rejecting of
> salvation.

LL: You have rejected salvation too, you just can't see it because
you've been blinded by your faith. You reject every other theistic
idea of salvation except the christian one--a particularly
fundamentalist christian one.

[bob600]

Bob600 replies:- Its totally supported by the absence of God, what
other support does it need??

>
> > so to start an argument with the premise that God
> > exists and by definition therefore saints must also exist is a
> > circular argument. My simple
>
> "deductive assumption "
>
> True dichotomy: deductions and assumptions.
>
> You either assumed it or you deduced it. Choose one.

Bob600 replies:- I did both, I deducted and made assumptions based on
those deductions. A bit like Christians who, by observing the
universe, make deductions that it must have been created, then assume
that God did it. Choose one.

Sorry I did not realize you were so smart, I was just trying to use at
least one of the words you had used in your post such as "a priori
assumptions" to avoid confusing you, naturally when I deducted that
you were not very smart based on the stupidity of your post and
assumed you needed to be spoken to in language you understood, I was
wrong, I apologize.

>
> > is that as God does
> > not exist saints do not exist, or God may exist so saints may exist,
> > but nowhere in any deductions that I can make, does God definitely
> > exist so therefore saints can't definitely exist
>
> There are individuals whom we may assume existed, that the Church has
> called Saints.

Bob600 replies:- Why exactly should we assume anyone existed, or that
they were in some way special, according to the "Church", their track
record in these matters is abysmal . See "The Bible".

>Now we may define a Saint as an individual who
> exemplifies sanctity.

Bob600 replies:- Another circular argument, starting with the
assumption of the existence of the sacred in order to argue holiness.
Sacred does not exist, which as I have already explained is proven by
its absence, so therefore a holy individual cannot exist.

>Your objection appears not to whether or not
> these individuals existed, but rather to whether there is any such
> thing as sanctity, which they are supposed to exemplify.

Bob600 replies:- Well spotted.

>
> If God exists then sanctity exists in His Saints. If God does not
> exist, then neither does sanctity exist, in anyone, so there are no
> special individuals we can set aside and call "Saints."

Bob600 replies:- Agreed, go on.

>
> What we need is a definition of sanctity that does not involve God.
> For, if sanctity be defined as that state infused by God in His
> Saints, then we cannot use the Saints as a demonstration that God
> exists, since God is part of the definition of Saint, and thus the
> argument is circular.

Bob600 replies:- Good as far as it goes, but I can see a possible wart
here.

>
> However, if we can arrive at a definition of sanctity that does not
> involve God, and if we can show that sanctity according to that second
> definition does exist, then we will have essentially proven God to
> exist. Because,

Bob600 replies:- Here we go, warts and all. First there are to many
"ifs", sanctity is totally dependant on God for its existence, without
God its just a meaningless word. If you want to eliminate God and give
it a different meaning then the word itself is redefined in what ever
way you want. So naturally using the same procedure then God can be
redefined to suit the newly redefined word, but all that does is
continue to prove" God as a concept, perhaps a "new" concept, but not
a reality. No rearranging of words from now until the end of time can
make God explode into reality, the main reason being, that he does not
exist, and to explode into reality you must exist in the first place.

>
> Given A defined as f(X), and A also defined as f(Y), then if Y exists,
> A exists, and consequently X must also exist.

Bob600 replies:- One must prove the existence of ALL parts of the
formula for the formula to exist. What is A, F, Y and X, and do they
actually exist.

>
> Happily, this we can do. Saints are those who have overcome all their
> own sins. Now it is true that sin is defined as an offense against
> God, rendering our new definition of Saint as useless as the previous
> --- unless there is an additional definition of sin that does not
> involve God.

Bob600 replies:- Where did you get the definition that "Saints are
those who have overcome all their own sins" ? Wrong definition, a
Saint is one who is made holy, and we are back to God and the non-
existence of holy, again.

>
> Happily, that is here for us as well: sin is any action (including
> willed thoughts) contrary to love. Now it is true that God is defined
> as Love, but here the situation is not the same. While atheists will
> not acknowledge the existence of God (by definition of atheist), yet
> not many of them will similarly disacknowledge the existence of love.
> So here is something that at least some from both sides can agree on:
> the existence of love.

Bob600 replies:- Agreed, the emotion, love, exists, even for
atheists.

>
> Given the existence of love, it is immediately obvious that we must
> admit the existence of something opposed to love, and that something
> we call sin.

Bob600 replies:- No that something we call hate. Sin is a purely a
theist thing.

>Otherwise, we must say that love exists with nothing for
> an opposite, in which case love meets the definition of God. That is
> fine by me, as then we are done, since, if love is God, then if love
> exists, God exists, and atheism is false. But if love is not God (at
> least if not all love is God) then there can be something to oppose
> it, and that is a reasonable definition of sin.
>
> Given the existence of sin, then, there is the possibility of the
> existence of human beings who have overcome their sins, i.e. arrived
> at sanctity; and these, we quite reasonably call Saints.

Bob600 replies:- But Sin is not "given" it cannot exist without God,
so again you make assumptions based on a vacuum. Right and wrong based
on an accepted moral code or generally accepted law can exist, but
right and wrong based on the requirements of a non existent deity
cannot exist.

>
> A Saint, then, is defined, without reference to God, as a human being
> who has overcome in himself all tendencies and practices contrary to
> love.

Bob600 replies:- You mean a good person.

>
> If such human beings exist, and if sanctity can only come from God,
> then it follows that God exists.

Bob600 replies:- So if good people exist then God exists? I think I
missed a link in your argument somewhere.

>
> How then, may we possibly verify whether any such individuals exist or
> have existed? Since there is no way to peer into the soul of another,
> or see into his heart, we need another way of judging what is inside
> of him. The Master told us, "judge a tree by its fruit. A bad tree
> cannot produce good fruit, and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit."
> "By their fruits you shall know them."

Bob600 replies:- Another load of convoluted crap trap, why not "Judge
a car by its speed. A bad car cannot go fast, and a good car cannot go
slow so by their speed you shall know them" What a pretentious load of
old drivel.

>
> We are now in a position to find out the answer to our query, namely
> whether there exist or existed any individuals who have thus overcome
> themselves.

Bob600 replies:- How do you "overcome" yourself, you are equally
matched in every way, its impossible. I suppose before you "overcome"
yourself, you have to "find" yourself first, thats assuming you were
lost in the first place. Pleaseeee..

>We may judge the fruits of their labors by the works they
> left behind. We may ask ourselves whether it were possible for anyone
> to write as they did without actually overcoming themselves; in a
> word, whether they truly did arrive at that at which they are
> purported to have arrived: sanctity. If there be sanctity, we will
> find it in the writings of the Saints. We will see in their writings
> something we may judge, as to whether it is the fruit of such a thing
> as sanctity.

Bob600 replies:- Which works? the ones they "may" have written about
events that "may" have happened involving people who "may" have
existed. In any event those sorts of writings are easily created, one
starts with the assumption and creates the deduction from the
assumption, I think you will find its called "assumptive deduction"
woops, dichotomy, can't have that, choose one.

>
> And if it is, then we had better start getting to Church!
>

Bob600 replies;- Off you go then. I'll meet you there.

>
> > > However, the writings of those alleged to be Saints are available to
> > > you, and there is where you will find your "more information."
>
> > Bob600 replies:- The only thing we definitely know about the
> > "writings" is that they are the writings of MEN and should be treated
> > as such until proven otherwise.
>
> The way to begin that process is actually to read them, not just talk
> about it.

Bob600 replies:- Did that, read the Bible front to back, thought it
would be a bit like drinking enough Red Wine until it got to be an
acquired taste. Unlike the wine the more I got the less I liked it.

[bob600]

On 22 Nov, 05:26, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2:26 pm, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 Nov, 04:52, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Bob600 replies:- EXIST
>
> > > It's just like with Jesus Christ, really. Whether or not Christ or any
> > > of the saints existed is beside the point. Whether they really
> > > experienced the miracles attributed to them is the point, and none of
> > > the supernatural claims have been proven.
>
> > Bob600 replies:- I would only take umbrage at a small point, if its
> > beside the point that they existed then why would their experiences
> > matter. They could only matter if they existed. And I would go
> > further, in the entirety of the existence of the planet Earth and
> > mankind "none of the supernatural claims have been proven." of ANY
> > sort EVER. Makes you wonder why the topic still exists.
>
> Sorry, I might not have been clear. What I meant was that even if they
> existed, it doesn't mean the claims about miracles are true. Even if
> we had solid evidence that a man named Jesus was born in Nazareth
> around 0 BCE (give or take 5), and was later crucified, and if all his
> quotes were accurate, it would not prove the miracles.

Bob600 replies:- Exactly

>
> I was just trying to emphasize that we atheists don't need to dispute
> the existence of these characters. We only need to dispute the
> miracles. It's a distraction to argue whether the specific characters
> existed, because the thing that makes them mythical and incredible is
> the miracles.

Bob600 replies:- And exactly, again. Totally clear and agreed. For
example I know someone called Jesus existed at that time just like I
know a man called John exists today. It was a common name. And I also
know that a man called John travelled on the train from London to
France within the last few days, as a reasonably common occurrence
will happen to a man called John on any given day. Given that Jesus
was a common name at the time and Crucifixion was a reasonably common
occurrence, then every so often a man called Jesus would be
crucified.

>
> Sorry I couldn't put it more clearly the first time around.

Bob600 replies:- Don't be, look at the mess I made of the above.

[Drafterman]

On Nov 22, 1:12 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And you have here put
> > > > > the cart before the horse. Their authority is confirmed by experience
> > > > > of the efficacy of their methods.
>
> > > > Methods that you cannot, or will not, describe. Why the evasion?
>
> > > Pray.
>
> > Ineffective. Next.
>
> There is no "next." Pray, or be lost.

I'm sorry that you are out of material, then.

>
>
>
> > > How is this any different from what I have been saying all along? Why
> > > accuse me of evading when I've been as plain as day from the start?
> > > Pray. That is the whole method, beginning to end.
>
> > You keep talking about reading the saints. Are you seriously saying
> > that all any of them have to say can be summed up as "pray"?
>
> Yes. What is more, they agree with what I've said.

Then the saints have nothing to say of worth.

>
>
>
> > > You want more? Pray the Rosary. Go to Mass. Is any of this sounding
> > > a little bit familiar yet?
>
> > Unfortunately yes. You keep going around in circles from unsupported
> > point to unsupported point. I was hoping to tread new ground here and
> > get some *real* validation.
>
> You were not so hoping, since if you truly did so hope you would
> rejoice that the way to it has been revealed to you.

If it had been revealed, I would be rejoicing.

>
> I am going to post a good example of the writing of a Saint, as a new
> post. Look for "Conformity to God's Will by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri."

Why? You just said that everything they have to say can be summed up
as "pray".

>
> I expect Saint Alphonsus will fall on deaf ears with you, but at least
> I will not have been slack in doing my part.

Listen, being egotistical enough to presume to know what is in God's
heart is one thing. That's between you and God, but you have
absolutely no fucking clue what is in anyone else heart, mind, will,
or whatever you choose to call it. You have no idea what my true
intentions are and I'm willing to bet that your best guess is miles
off.

[Joe]

I have neither desire to know nor intention to guess. I only present
what I believe. You are free to take it or leave it. You are free to
investigate it should you care to. As you say, I am out of material.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

[bonfly]

Hi grass mopoke, err, frog lips.

> > > > God or psychic powers or faithhealingbeing part of normal human

> > > > experience. Claims and emotions about those things are within normal
> > > > human experience. Actually seeing, sensing, hearing God or psychic

> > > > powers in action or successful faithhealingare not part of normal

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 22, 12:32 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You either do not comprehend the post you are responding to or you are just
> automatically spewing garbage without thinking.

The part of your post that I was responding to was your paraphrasing
of Pascal's wager, which I dissected and dismissed as Psychopath's
wager. It's saying that no matter whether you care about God's Love or
your fellow human beings, you should jump through these hoops so you
can avoid hell. It's an appeal to greed and self-preservation.

Have you noticed that Pascal's wager would work equally well (or fail
just as clearly) for any other religion that offers rewards and
threatens punishment, including any wild interpretation of the Bible
that calls itself Christianity. Mormons could claim that you are going
to an icy hell within the fifth planet orbiting Sirius, if you don't
wear the special undergarments they demand of their members.

If their claims of hell and your claims of hell are baseless, then the
premise of Pascal's wager is false, and the conclusion is false.

> --
> Keith A. MacNevins
> Ambassador From Hell

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

[Deidzoeb]

How can you claim that all religions are compatible, when they
obviously have conflicting claims? Even something as seemingly
compatible (to an outsider) as Catholicism and Protestantism seem
irreconcilable. Is it through good works or faith alone or something
else that gets a person into heaven? If I remember correctly, you and
Michael Ewart have had long debates about those kinds of things on
this group. How about the claims of religions that describe multiple
gods, versus monotheisms that claim there is no other god but G-d or
Yahweh or Allah? Are you unaware of all the clear conflicts between
religions, or are you being disingenuous?

[Deidzoeb]

On Nov 22, 3:19 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 1:59 am, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > First I define what behaviors I will consider sins.
> > > > Then I refrain from those behaviors.
> > > > Miracle! God has given me the strength to refrain from those behaviors
> > > > which I decided to refrain from (and the power to rationalize all
> > > > behaviors that I feel like continuing).
>
> > > Straw man. The Saints did not invent the Law. God give the Law
> > > through Moses, who himself did not have the strength to carry it out.
> > > He gives His Saints the grace to do what Moses could not do, and you
> > > expect me to believe that you can do it all on your own, no help from
> > > anyone. I think we are not even thinking of the same standard.
>
> > You attribute the Law to God. I attribute the Law to humans who
> > claimed they were speaking on behalf of God.
>
> > Not a straw man. Just another disagreement.
>
> Your straw man was in your assertion that the Saints themselves
> invented it. You wan to say Moses invented it, fine. Then Moses was
> a genius, no doubt, but the Saints, for their part, did not pick and
> choose for themselves what to take of Moses.

This is a big red herring. It doesn't matter whether characters in a
story invented their laws, or whether the author of the stories
invented the laws, or whether they were all following earlier
traditions.

Let's put it another way. I decide to adhere to some law, accepting
that some behaviors are "sins". I avoid those behaviors. Where's the
miracle in following some set of laws that you consciously decided to
adhere to?

> > > > No, I don't have faith in saints or gods or spirits. Given that faith
> > > > is a decision, and I told you my decision long ago, it's funny that
> > > > you'd use an exclamation mark: "You have no faith at all!"
>
> > > Why are we discussing any of this again? If you have already decided,
> > > then why bother?
>
> > You pop in here talking about your grandiose final message, as if
> > people are going to be talking about "The Prophet Joseph Geloso (peace
> > be upon him)" pretty soon, and you wonder why people would bother
> > discussing it?
>
> Aw, well, at least you noticed that. That's good. It's a start. But
> realize it's mot about me.

Could have fooled me! It sounded mostly about you, with a few
paragraphs at the end mixing Crowley symbols with Christianity. I'd
like to discuss licensing this idea from you and converting it to
Dungeons and Dragons or some other fantasy roleplaying rules. Can't
wait to fight Eucharist the Copper Dragon. Or maybe players could play
as the Copper Dragon. Wheeeeee!

> > > Live your life sans faith for all I care. The
> > > problem you create with me is when you insist that yours is the only
> > > logical path there is.
>
> > I don't remember saying that I have discovered any ultimate logical
> > path. I've just been trying to point out the ways you set aside logic
> > and make leaps of faith, as if faith is something we should value when
> > trying to understand objective truths. If you set aside logic and
> > substitute faith, you have decided not to take the logical path. No
> > amount of calling it the logical path or "another logical path" will
> > change that.
>
> There is no setting aside necessary, to have faith. You keep
> asserting it, but you cannot seem to show it.

If you have different definitions of faith and reason, especially
rotating definitions that depend on jargon terms from the church,
throwing in "grace" and "a decision in the will" and whatever else,
then no, I can't show it. Using commonly accepted definitions of
faith, it is by definition that faith is incompatible with reason.

> > There is no logic compelling me to believe.
> > The house of logic that you try to build is set on foundations of
> > faith, which is why it does not hold.
>
> Or why, on the contrary, it does hold. What about Faith do you
> imagine is unreliable?

Faith is an emotion. It's a decision to follow emotion instead of
reason. Faith in the Bible or Catholic dogma is as reliable as faith
in the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon or in a leader like Elijah
Muhammed or Joseph Smith. If you can support your decision to believe
the Bible based on tradition and "subjective evidence", then any
belief could be based on subjective evidence.

> > Any logic with which you try to
> > shore up the walls is undermined by the faith, the anti-logic, the
> > decision to reject reason and logic, that you've poured in your
> > foundation.
>
> You have not demonstrated any abandonment of logic in me. You have
> not supported your claim that faith is "anti-logic." Thus you are
> begging those questions.

We can't agree on a definition of faith. The one I use and believe is
commonly used is by definition a rejection of logic. We've been
through it before.

> > Faith is a thing that people use to support beliefs when they can't
> > use or refuse to use reason or logical proofs.
>
> That is like a slogan or something. That is pure rhetoric, based on
> your emotional reaction to the idea of faith.

Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence."

That definition is problematic, because it tells what faith is not,
instead of telling what it is. I'd tack on to that definition "belief
that rests on hope, or loyalty to an idea based on hope."

I realize there are multiple definitions of faith, but this is a
common one. If a belief does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence, I don't know what else there is to ground the belief in
other than emotion.

The options seem to be that a believer can:
1. consciously decide to take emotions as basis for a particular
belief, as some Christians seem to do when they talk bad about science
and logic and materialism.
2. take emotions as basis for a particular belief, but claim that it's
not emotion.
3. base beliefs on logic, which would rule out belief in unproven
religious assertions.

As I've said before, I don't think a person needs to reject logic from
their lives entirely when they have faith in some things. Each belief
can be based in logic or emotion. But when it's faith, it's emotion,
and it requires setting aside logic and reason, valuing emotion more
highly than logic or reason for that particular belief.

So what we have here is a basic disagreement on definitions, not a
case of me fabricating unsupported rhetoric. Shall we agree to
disagree on the definition?

> There is a perfectly logical reason why the teachings of Faith cannot
> be proved using logic alone. Logic is limited, whereas Faith is
> infinite.

If faith is beyond logic or not something that can be proved with
logic, then why do you argue about it being compatible with logic? If
it's not within logic, then it's outside of logic, which is a
different way of expressing what I've been saying.

> Faith is meritorious, whereas logic is merely necessary.
> If Faith could be arrived at from pure logic, there would no longer be
> merit in it, and God wills that there be merit in it still. God wills
> that you should decide with your free will to believe or not to
> believe.

Your arguments are often weakened when you simply repeat assertions
based on dogma, like I am wrong because "faith is infinite, faith is
meritorious." They don't work as support for your claims. They just
bring up new assertions that need to be supported, in addition to the
old assertions. It's like saying the sky is blue because blue is good.

> Your doctrine, above, that "Faith is a thing that people use to
> support beliefs when they can't use or refuse to use reason or logical
> proofs," is not the truth, and belief in it prevents you from coming
> to Faith, because you erroneously believe you would be committing a
> logical error.

My doctrine above is the obvious conclusion based on a common
definition of faith.

My appreciation for logic prevents me from consciously basing my
beliefs on emotion. By this definition, faith is a logical error, yes,
that's another way of putting it.

> But there is no logical error in believing.

That sentence just looks funny out of context. It's not the believing
that is logical or illogical. It's the support for a belief that we
should be talking about. Beliefs based on logic are logical (clearly).
Beliefs not based on logical proofs or material evidence (i.e. the
common definition of "faith" that I am working from), are clearly not
logical. It's not that hard.

> There is no logical error
> in disbelieving. It is free will, either way.

Yes, we have the free will to reject logic and consciously base our
beliefs on emotion. Having free will about the decision tells us
nothing about whether the decision is logical or not.

> ... That is why I said you have no balls.

Thank you for the Ann Coulter effect. I believe I can make a good case
against your claims even without *your words being your worst enemy*,
but feel free to help me in that way if you want to.

[The part above in between asterisks is what I like to call *The Ann
Coulter* effect. It doesn't imply a political value, only a person's
ability to say things that undermine their own credibility, requiring
no rebuttal for reasonable people.]

> I, at least,
> can admit that it is my will to believe, and I believe even though
> there is no logic compelling me to do so, because I want to.

Hey, whoa there, why are we arguing then? I'm arguing that you're not
using logic. I thought you were arguing that logic is compatible with
whatever it is that you think you're basing beliefs on. But you admit
"no logic" compells your beliefs. Are we just splitting hairs about
whether faith is an emotion, or whether it's some non-logical thing
that is compatible with logic? It sounds like you don't care about
logic much, which makes it conspicuous that you argue so desperately
in favor of it, almost.

> > Given that reason and
> > logic are the only proper supports,
>
> It is impossible to build anything supported by reason and logic
> alone. What supports reason and logic?

Didn't you tell me in the past that we should take reason and/or logic
as "axiomatic"? You're asking for them to be supported, but agreeing
that we can take them for granted and don't need to support them?

> 1. Reason and logic are the only proper supports.
> 2. Reason tells us that nothing can support itself.
> 3. Logic tells us that a thing either has support or it does not.
>
> Thus, to be logical (3), we must admit that either reason and logic
> have support or they do not. Now if they properly have it, then they
> must support themselves, since 1. But they cannot support themselves,
> since 2. Therefore they are unsupported.
>
> I am not arguing the invalidity of reason and logic, only the fallacy
> in 1. Reason and logic are valid and axiomatic. I.e. we accept them
> "on faith."

If we accept logic and reason on faith, then we can accept anything we
want, because faith is just an emotion. There would be no logic or
reason to oppose our desires for any belief. If logic and reason rest
on faith, then everything rests on emotion.

If we don't take it as axiomatic, then all reason and logic are ways
of rationalizing, fitting arguments to support one's desired
conclusion. It seems to eliminate the possibility of our finding or
observing any truth. We would just be stumbling over the truth
occasionally, guided by our emotions.

"I am not arguing the invalidity of reason and logic, only the fallacy

[that reason and logic are the only proper supports]."

Let's set aside whether the validity of reason and logic and talk
about whether there are any other proper supports. What else would you
rely on besides reason and logic? Is faith compatible with reason and
logic, or is it a kind of support other than reason and logic (by your
understanding of the word faith)?

How does anything other than logic and reason function as a support,
since the idea of a claim needing to be "supported" is a way of saying
that it's logical? I mean, when we say "support" it's basically saying
"logical support". How can subjective "evidence" or a non-logical
tidbit work within a framework where we are looking for logical
support?

The need for support is only something a person looks for if they
value logic. If you don't value logic or reason enough to use those
kinds of supports, why not just throw out the requirement for
"support" of any kind? Why not say that no support is needed?

> > > Given that faith is a decision, and
> > > given that you have already decided, I think the rest of it is a vain
> > > intellectual exercise, and I wish, if that is how it is, that you
> > > would cease to waste my time.
>
> > Funny how that works. I'm wasting your time, but you're not wasting my
> > time.
>
> Because you enjoy all this arguing.

And you respond because someone puts a gun to your head? Because you
have pure motives to help your fellow man find the truth, but I don't
have that motive?

What.

Evar.

> > > > You're willing to set aside reason,
>
> > > I am unwilling to do so.
>
> > Choosing to value faith when seeking these kinds of truths necessarily
> > requires you to set aside reason as a standard.
>
> Since when was reason a "standard?" I thought reason was a tool. i
> do not worship reason. Setting up standards smacks of worship, and
> that is idolatry. Reason is not the arbiter of everything.

This gets back to the discussion of "support." You seem to accept that
arguments ought to be supported. You argued that you had some other
kind of valid support, not that support was unnecessary. What else
besides a standard valuing reason and logic would you base the need
for support?

Setting up standards smacks of worship? I don't follow. It's a matter
of priority, the decision to value reason or emotion.

> > If you valued reason,
> > you would rely on it instead of faith.
>
> No, reason is not God. I rely on God, not "faith." Faith is relying
> on God. Faith is an action. Reason only helps faith; it does not
> determine it and it is not opposed to it.

This makes for an interesting line of thought:
1. "I rely on God, not 'faith.'"
2. "Faith is relying on God."

So to rephrase 1, "I rely on God, not [relying on God]."

> > If you value faith, you are
> > relying on it instead of reason.
>
> False dichotomy. There is no contradiction between faith and reason.
> The one does not require setting aside the other. It is your
> contention that they do, but you have not once showed anything
> illogical or unreasonable in Faith.

It is my understanding that faith and reason are incompatible bases
for any particular belief, by definition of the word faith.

> > You define it all up and down and left and
> > right, but it still comes back to emotion.
>
> You wouldn't know, so you are talking right out of your ass there,
> chum. Not fooling anyone either.

Hi, remember me? We have participated in debates on internet groups
and message boards at lengths that could amount to books. If we
gathered together all of our written communications back and forth
between each other, we would need to break them into multiple volumes
to make them more marketable.

I have read how you defined faith. I have read how you redefined
faith. I have argued about it extensively. Perhaps we could issue a
slim volume devoted to our discussions about the definition and
implications of faith. I didn't agree with your esoteric definitions,
but I certainly know them.

> > If reason were involved in
> > any of these decisions, theists would give their logical proofs for
> > why these things are correct, and there would be no need to claim it's
> > a matter of loyalty or trust or hope, aka faith.
>
> If faith could be compelled by logic it would no longer be faith.

Then why do you continue arguing that logic is compatible with faith?
How can it be outside of logic but not illogical?

> > It's a strong feeling that
> > proves to you God exists and Catholic dogma is best.
>
> It is the Holy Spirit proving that to me. It is on a far deeper level
> than emotions, which really are pretty close to the surface. Yes I do
> feel it sometimes. I also feel the sun on my face sometimes, and that
> is not an emotion.

"Feel" the sun on your face. That's a PUN, not an argument about
emotional feelings. Step up your game. Bring those balls that you like
to keep talking about.

> There is no way for me to convey the experience to
> you using words, nor even to describe it, since analogies necessarily
> fail.

That's convenient. Let me try it.

"You're wrong, but I just can't express why."

Hmm. No sir. I didn't like it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CN-5-_2xJJI

> There is also no way for me to convey to you the conviction
> that experiences are not even the primary thing. I am sure you base
> your whole life on your experiences. What else? But there is more to
> life than what you can experience of it, and the action of the Holy
> Spirit in the interior of the soul transcends the experience of the
> one upon whom He is acting.

So does the dark hand of Kali Ma, but I don't see you cutting off any
heads in deferrence to her. These are the same empty assertions of any
other religion, any huckster like Sylvia Browne selling her miraculous
psychic abilities, any mistaken person who voted for Bush because they
got the impression he would sign the Kyoto treaty. Unsupported by
anything that would be accepted as support. Acceptable only if you
don't value support, or accept emotion as a valid support.

> And, I know that it transcends my
> experience, in a way that transcends experience. By now you should be
> able to admit that you don't have a clue what I am talking about.

I know what you're talking about. You keep talking about my balls.

> Or,
> you can take the more predictable route, and conform yourself to your
> history, and state that I am talking about some emotion or other.
> That will satisfy your zeal to categorize everything and believe you
> have it all pegged. The only thing it won't do is actually peg it for
> you, but since you believe it is all just my emotions anyway, why
> should that matter to you? If you can convince yourself that it is
> all just my emotions, then you can dismiss it as such, and never let
> yourself be bothered by another Christian for as long as you live.

Except in so far as they dominate my community and often announce
their intent to discriminate against non-Christians like me. I
shouldn't be bothered by that much.

(Instead of finding individual cases of discrimination against
atheists, let's talk about GHW Bush saying he didn't consider atheists
to be citizens, or the recent polls that found a majority of
Minnesotans would not vote for an atheist.)

> > > > and
> > > > logic,
>
> > > I will not set aside logic. Faith does not require such a setting
> > > aside, and I value logic highly. Were it not for logic, no one could
> > > know anything at all about anything, much less about God. As it is,
> > > logic is as valuable to theology as it is to the lesser sciences.
>
> > > > in favor of emotion.
>
> > > Faith is not emotion, and a decision in the will is not an emotion
> > > either.
>
> > So where did "decision in the will" come into this? Is that supposed
> > to be synonymous with faith?
>
> No. But if this terminology is new to you, then you have been paying
> even less attention then I thought, if that were even possible.

This is not a group intended to quiz each other on our favorite dogmas
and esoteric terms. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard for
winning a game that your opponent didn't even know he was supposed to
be playing.

> > A decision is reaching a conclusion. It could be based on logical
> > proofs or emotion.
>
> No, that is not a decision, that is an argument. A decision is to do
> something.

Would you say "I decided I'm going to the store later today" or would
it only make sense if you were on your way to the store?

A decision might be invalidated if you don't follow through on it, but
it doesn't stop being a decision based on the fact that you haven't
done something yet. Where do you get this? What are you going to argue
next, that red and yellow don't make orange?

> The conclusion of an argument can be supported by logic or emotion,
> usually referred to in this context as rhetoric. Then you can take
> the conclusion of your argument and decide to do something with it, or
> decide to do nothing with it, and those would be decisions, in your
> will, after you had reached a conclusion in your mind. Not the same
> thing.

Is this an esoteric definition of "decide" as spelled out by some
member of the Golden Dawn or OTO?

Common definitions of "decide" from http://www.answers.com/decide&r=67

v.tr.
To settle conclusively all contention or uncertainty about: decide a
case; decided the dispute in favor of the workers.
To make up one's mind about: decide what to do.
To influence or determine the outcome of: A few votes decided the
election.
To cause to make or reach a decision.
v.intr.
To pronounce a judgment; announce a verdict.
To make up one's mind.

None of those explicitly mention carrying out the judgement, following
through on it.

If I reach the decision that I will clip my fingernails, and someone
knocks on the door distracting me from doing it, it doesn't cease to
be a decision. It doesn't become a decision only when I pick up
clippers or apply pressure to them.

[Deidzoeb]

> Correct. Willingness, by itself without any practice, is like
> wishing. You can wish on as many stars as you like, for a new
> driveway. But the angels of the stars are not going to build it for
> you. For that, you either have to pay someone, or pave it yourself.

I thought there was something involving a mustard seed too. You have
to hold a mustard seed while you're wishing? You have to poke a
mustard seed under the skin of your forehead while making your appeal?
Maybe you just have to throw mustard seeds onto the ground and they
will bloom into a driveway.

I heard on the radio about a realtor who buries a small plastic St.
Joseph upside down under her "for sale" signs, to bring a speedy and
righteous sale.