Mr_Anony:
In summary, all you have really said sounds like "I know because I know" which still isn't an objective answer
.

When did I say that it is an objective answer?

Mr_Anony:
So I will answer you likewise, I know God because I know Him and he has revealed Himself to me through His Word. You may disagree but that also is your opinion I also see no difference between your senses and that of a mad man because to me you claim that an obvious God does not exist.

I don't care how you know your god, we were talking about our senses but if it's so obvious, why do you need "faith" to experience him?

Mr_Anony:
.....You see my friend, we can both continue to give subjective answers until the cows come home.Nothing will change,

That's my point right there. We have the Objective reality we all live in but we all have our own subjective interpretations. The difference between you and I is the fact that I don't try to create another "supernatural" reality where everything rhymes with what I consider ideal and that's what your religion represents. Your "supernatural" world is just an idealized version of this world and your god is an idealized human. That's just my opinion.

Mr_Anony:
I am not really interested in proving God's existence on this thread.

you're not really interested in proving god's existence on any thread because it can't be done. You can't suddenly reify an abstract concept like god without running into conflict with OBJECTIVE reality.

Anyway, you said his existence is "obvious", so why do you need to prove it?

Martian:

When did I say that it is an objective answer?
I don't care how you know your god, we were talking about our senses but if it's so obvious, why do you need "faith" to experience him?
That's my point right there. We have the Objective reality we all live in but we all have our own subjective interpretations. The difference between you and I is the fact that I don't try to create another "supernatural" reality where everything rhymes with what I consider ideal and that's what your religion represents. Your "supernatural" world is just an idealized version of this world and your god is an idealized human. That's just my opinion.
you're not really interested in proving god's existence on any thread because it can't be done. You can't suddenly reify an abstract concept like god without running into conflict with OBJECTIVE reality.
Anyway, you said his existence is "obvious", so why do you need to prove it?

And how are you so sure that you live in an objective reality when you cannot objectively account for the senses by which you access this reality of yours?

Mr_Anony:
It is in God I live and move and have my being, God is much more than an opinion to me, He so enmeshed in my reality that to step out of it and view as an "objective" observer is virtually impossible. It is like asking me to step out of reality and imagine I didn't exist and then from my non-existence, judge if God exists. It makes no sense to me at all.

Translation: I can't confront the glaring fact that my god is as real as zeus because that will be questioning the purpose of my life which hitherto I was confident was meant to "glorify" god. I can't confront the fact I will die one day and that will be it because my god has already promised me "eternal life". If god isn't real, then nothing I do has a transcendental value like I have been taught to believe.If god isn't real, then I'm not a special creation but just a product of random chance which resulted from two people having sex. If I dare question this belief and I find it to be false, I wouldn't be able to figure out a new philosophy to replace god and religion.

Mr_Anony:
And how are you so sure that you live in an objective reality when you cannot objectively account for the senses by which you access this reality of yours?

Are you questioning reality and the natural world? This statement implies that we can't be sure that we exist.

Mr_Anony:
He must not take anything for granted no matter how small it is. Then and only then will he be truly unbiased enough to learn anything new without prejudice.

Martian:
If you have proof that there is a supernatural world,can you tell me what that "supernatural" world looks like?

I'm willing to learn. lol

Martian:

Translation: I can't confront the glaring fact that my god is as real as zeus because that will be questioning the purpose of my life which hitherto I was confident was meant to "glorify" god. I can't confront the fact I will die one day and that will be it because my god has already promised me "eternal life". If god isn't real, then nothing I do has a transcendental value like I have been taught to believe.If god isn't real, then I'm not a special creation but just a product of random chance which resulted from two people having sex. If I dare question this belief and I find it to be false, I wouldn't be able to figure out a new philosophy to replace god and religion.

Another of your subjective opinions

Are you questioning reality and the natural world? This statement implies that we can't be sure that we exist.

I am not really questioning reality and the natural world. In my worldview everything comes from God. That is what it means to exist, that is where I get value and meaning.
In your worldview God does not exist (or you don't know, I'm not quite sure anymore because you have contradicted yourself so much that I can't really make much out of your stance) My question is how do you give anything value and meaning? How do you even know that anything truly exists?

I'm willing to learn. lol

No you are not willing to learn anything, first you claim to know nothing and next you claim to know everything. I am sorry, I can't help you.

We make little leaps of faith, that we exist in reality and not in a novel is one. That I am not the true god is another, corgito ergo sum is yet another. Those are necessary.

Mr_Anony:
Another of your subjective opinions

Of course, you are the one claiming that your god exists objectivley but you will never prove it even though you claim it's "obvious". The funny part is that you refuse to acknowledge that your statements about your god are subjective and not likely to be believed by everyone while repeating that mine are. I already siad it!!!!!

Mr_Anony:
I am not really questioning reality and the natural world. In my worldview everything comes from God. That is what it means to exist, that is where I get value and meaning.

I guessed as much. Now can you get it into your head that some of us don't get value or meaning from gods?

Mr_Anony:
In your worldview God does not exist (or you don't know, I'm not quite sure anymore because you have contradicted yourself so much that I can't really make much out of your stance)[/b]

Okay, I'm of the opinion that gods and/or God are abstract ideas originally created by humans who didn't understand certain things about the world. I think that gods and the stories about their interactions with humans were clever ways for people who were ignorant of nature to create a meaning for their existence amid calamities that must have been their lot in life. We take for granted the fact that we know so much about nature now that we can prevent the loss of lives and quickly respond after disasters......at least in the west. But societies that were much less developed would have been traumatized by what we take for granted now and belief in gods must have sustained them.
The fact that there are hudreds or thousands of stories about gods and how they are synonymous with the cultures that birth them,point to the likelihood that these cultures all created their gods. The fact that stories about god usually conflict with what we experience in reality shows that they are not real e.g Tower of Babel.
Another evidence that men create gods is Hesiod's theogony. The theogony is a myth about how the titans and the gods came to be but these stories and characters formed the basis of greek religion.

Mr_Anony:
My question is how do you give anything value and meaning? How do you even know that anything truly exists?

I give things value and meaning as I see fit based on my personal philosophy. Somethings you know for certain and there are things you will never know. There are also things that are made up but people expect you to believe. And some things you just have to experience in order to know (don't retort with "you have to experience god to know him" because you already claimed that he is "obvious".)
Water is "obvious", God is not.

Mr_Anony:
No you are not willing to learn anything, first you claim to know nothing and next you claim to know everything. I am sorry, I can't help you.

Will you just answer the question??!!! It's the only question that I asked!!

Tell me what the "supernatural" world looks like.

Martian:

Of course, you are the one claiming that your god exists objectivley but you will never prove it even though you claim it's "obvious". The funny part is that you refuse to acknowledge that your statements about your god are subjective and not likely to be believed by everyone while repeating that mine are. I already siad it!!!!!

I guessed as much. Now can you get it into your head that some of us don't get value or meaning from gods?

Okay, I'm of the opinion that gods and/or God are abstract ideas originally created by humans who didn't understand certain things about the world. I think that gods and the stories about their interactions with humans were clever ways for people who were ignorant of nature to create a meaning for their existence amid calamities that must have been their lot in life. We take for granted the fact that we know so much about nature now that we can prevent the loss of lives and quickly respond after disasters......at least in the west. But societies that were much less developed would have been traumatized by what we take for granted now and belief in gods must have sustained them.
The fact that there are hudreds or thousands of stories about gods and how they are synonymous with the cultures that birth them,point to the likelihood that these cultures all created their gods. The fact that stories about god usually conflict with what we experience in reality shows that they are not real e.g Tower of Babel.
Another evidence that men create gods is Hesiod's theogony. The theogony is a myth about how the titans and the gods came to be but these stories and characters formed the basis of greek religion.

I give things value and meaning as I see fit based on my personal philosophy. Somethings you know for certain and there are things you will never know. There are also things that are made up but people expect you to believe. And some things you just have to experience in order to know (don't retort with "you have to experience god to know him" because you already claimed that he is "obvious".)
Water is "obvious", God is not.

Will you just answer the question??!!! It's the only question that I asked!!

Tell me what the "supernatural" world looks like.

I will not answer your question because it will be of no use since according to you, you base everything on your personal philosophy created by you and you alone. This makes you close minded therefore I cannot help you because you already don't believe it even before asking. It makes no sense to answer you so i will not answer.

EbuksAllison7: We make little leaps of faith, that we exist in reality and not in a novel is one. That I am not the true god is another, corgito ergo sum is yet another. Those are necessary.

in the same manner, that a supreme and perfect God exists is also another such necessary leap of faith.

Mr_Anony:
I will not answer your question because it will be of no use since according to you, you base everything on your personal philosophy created by you and you alone. This makes you close minded therefore I cannot help you because you already don't believe it even before asking. It makes no sense to answer you so i will not answer.

I will base my opinion of your "supernatural" world my personal philosophy which is infleunced by reality and the natural world because there is nothing else to base it on. What do you propose I base my views on?
If I find it acceptable, I will say so and If I feel it's just your opinion, I will say so. What I will or won't say shouldn't deter you from describing it. How am I close minded if I asked you to tell me something and you refuse?
If you're sure of yourelf, just describe the "supernatural" world and lets see if I find it to be plausible and I'll give you the reasons. Then you can call me closeminded and whatever else you want.

Martian:

I will base my opinion of your "supernatural" world my persoanl philosophy and reality. If I find it acceptable, I will say so and If I feel it's just your opinion, I will say so. What I will or won't say shouldn't deter you from describing it. How am I close minded if I asked you to tell me something and you refuse?
If you're sure of yourelf, just describe the "supernatural" world and lets see if I find it to be plausible and I'll give you the reasons. Then you can call me closeminded and whatever else you want.

My friend, martian, we have already had this discussion a few times before and they lead to nowhere. Why should this be any different? You have already made it clear to me many times that the supernatural does not exist in your worldview/personal philosophy why then should I bother embarking on a futile endevour? If you really want to know about the supernatural by me, you can refer back to previous discussions we have had. I simply will not waste my breath today.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, martian, we have already had this discussion a few times before and they lead to nowhere. Why should this be any different? You have already made it clear to me many times that the supernatural does not exist in your worldview/personal philosophy why then should I bother embarking on a futile endevour? If you really want to know about the supernatural by me, you can refer back to previous discussions we have had. I simply will not waste my breath today.

Just decribe the supernatural world. I'm not telling you to convince me. Just describe it!!!!!
I have never asked you to describe the supernatural world, so don't lie. The fact that I don't think that the concept of god is believable has never stopped you from writing about him, has it? So why stop now?

Martian:

Just decribe the supernatural world. I'm not telling you to convince me. Just describe it!!!!!

You are wasting your time. I am sure i have described it to you before. If you really want to know, do your homework, look through our previous exchanges

Mr_Anony:
You are wasting your time. I am sure i have described it to you before. If you really want to know, do your homework, look through our previous excanges

lol, you've never describe the supernatural world to me.
you've been replying all posts hitherto, but now its "wasting time" to reply to an inquiry.

Martian:

lol, you've never describe the supernatural world to me before but whatever.

Lol, Of course, coming from the one who doesn't see any wrong in lying. Abeg shift go corner make i see road pass.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Of course, coming from the one who doesn't see any wrong in lying

When did I say that? Just post the thread where you decribed the supernatural world to me and prove that I'm lying.
Anyway, teling lies is prudent at times. We all lie.....and you're lying right now.

Decribe the supernatural world if you're so confident about its existence

Martian:

When did I say that?
Anyway, teling lies is prudent at times. We all lie.

Need I say more?

Mr_Anony:
Need I say more?

Do you lie? If you don't then you must be the rare human on earth who doesn't

Post the thread and prove that I'm lying.

Mr_Anony:
Abeg shift go corner make i see road pass.

Tell me about the features of your supernatural world.

Martian:
Tell me about the features of your supernatural world.
Do you lie? If you don't then you must be the rare human on earth who doesn't

Post the thread and prove that I'm lying.

Dude, do your homework, you are the one seeking knowledge no?
In fact i am getting weary of this thread, it seems to have gone south

Mr_Anony:
in the same manner, that a supreme and perfect God exists is also another such necessary leap of faith.

Wrong, it is not.

Mr_Anony:
Dude, do your homework, you are the one seeking knowledge no?
In fact i am getting weary of this thread, it seems to have gone south

lol, aren't I seeking knowledge by asking the person who says he knows of it?
Describe the supernatural world.

Martin I love how you are handling Anony. . . .He comes with this confidence of an elusive supernatural world, now that he has been asked to describe it he is applying the same old tactics. . . .I laugh in Aramaic. . . .

mazaje: Martin I love how you are handling Anony. . . .He comes with this confidence of an elusive supernatural world, now that he has been asked to describe it he is applying the same old tactics. . . .I laugh in Aramaic. . . .

It always fall apart when they are confronted and asked to give a coherent description.

Martian:

It always fall apart when they are confronted and asked to give a coherent description.

Always, they talk about satan as if he is your next door neighbor, ask them to describe satan then you begin to hear all sort of things. . . .Funny. . .

ea7: If you want to see a real exercise in sophistry along these lines, read Alvin Plantinga. . . And be prepared to get angry.

I couldnt believe what I was seeing when I picked up Platinga.

Mr. Annony. My mind reads ur username as mr. Annoying lol truly u literally killed this thread and exposed the fraud behind it, u response were too surgical that one would mistake u for a doctor! Any way good job!

@OP ur theory does not account for accross religion conversions and the fact that adherents of religion do questions aspects of their faith Making the theory a theory of ignorance that pretends to understands why anyone decide to be in a religion! And yeah maybe u should apply it as annony suggested on ur atheism and see the product of skepticolosis!

Assuming an outsider position in order to defend what we think is true is incumbent on everyone on every issue. It's the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible with regard to our disagreements. It's to have a disinterest in the outcome as best as possible.

But it applies more forcefully to religious faiths, that's why it's called what it is. Why? Because religious believers do not dispassionately evaluate their faith. Why? Because they have such a vested personal interest in defending what they believe. Why? Because they assume what needs to be proved. Why? Because they do not have any good evidence for them. Why? Because they amass many possible arguments together in a pile then conclude they have a probable case, which is a huge non-sequitur.

By contrast atheism is not about faith. I think I explained that in my chapter for The Christian Delusion. Atheism is based on the probabilities. And I explained there is little or nothing we can know about an atheist simply because he is an atheist, except that said person does not believe in supernatural beings and forces, nor does he think supernatural explanations have the weight of evidence for them.

The sciences are the paragon for outsiders. Show me the math and we agree. Show me the experiment and the argument is over. Show me the scientific poll and the case is closed. Show me what we learn from brain science and there can be no dispute.

Is this a double standard, one for religious faiths and another one for atheists? No! Religious people have the double standard. Why do they evaluate other religious faiths with a level of skepticism that they do not apply to their own culturally inherited one? Why? Answer me that! The OTF is a way to examine all religious faiths. If this is a bad test then how do Christians propose we decide between religious faiths? I’ve proposed the OTF. What’s the alternative? Answer this question too.

So let’s contrast this carefully and precisely. Can theists legitimately say that if I do not collect stamps I still have a hobby? How does that make sense? Let’s say someone tells me I believe in the supernatural realm even though I don’t believe in ghosts? Now let’s say someone asks me to subject my non-ghost view to the skepticism of an outsider. What can that possibly mean? I DO subject the ghost view to skepticism, that’s why I conclude there are no ghosts!

Is it enough to ask people to be objective, fair, and openminded? I've previously addressed this question but let me add that if human beings reason so badly that we implicitly adopt what we were taught to believe in our respective cultures so much that they become like blinders on our eyes, and if we’re that bad at weighing the claims of beliefs that have little or no evidence for them to decide between differing ones, then we cannot offer a milquetoast test that asks people to be objective, fair and openminded about that which they were raised to believe and defend. What we are enculturated with is who we are. We cannot see the water we swim in. We cannot pluck our eyes out and look at them. So we cannot simply ask people to be objective, fair and openminded. Believers already think they are being objective because they can't see that they are not! Just look at how confident some Muslims are that they are being objective. Some of them are so certain they're objective about their faith they are willing to fly planes into buildings. Ask them if they’re objective and it would be a no brainer for them. But ask them to subject their own faith to the same level of skepticism they use to reject other faiths and THAT will get their attention. Since we cannot pluck out their eyes we must offer them a shocking test, one that may help get them out of their dogmatic slumbers like nothing else can do. And they will object as strenuously as they can to the OTF because they know their faith does not pass that test. That’s why Christians argue against it just like Muslim scholars would do so for their faith.

What about people raised as atheists in Sweden? Were they enculturalted? Probably so.

vedaxcool: Mr. Annony. My mind reads ur username as mr. Annoying lol truly u literally killed this thread and exposed the fraud behind it, u response were too surgical that one would mistake u for a doctor! Any way good job!

@OP ur theory does not account for accross religion conversions and the fact that adherents of religion do questions aspects of their faith Making the theory a theory of ignorance that pretends to understands why anyone decide to be in a religion! And yeah maybe u should apply it as annony suggested on ur atheism and see the product of skepticolosis!

apply your brain, it says majority of the people not all. think re.tard

I've written a lot about this question already, but let me add a few things.

Assuming an outsider position in order to defend what we think is true is incumbent on everyone on every issue. It's the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible with regard to our disagreements. It's to have a disinterest in the outcome as best as possible.

But it applies more forcefully to religious faiths, that's why it's called what it is. Why? Because religious believers do not dispassionately evaluate their faith. Why? Because they have such a vested personal interest in defending what they believe. Why? Because they assume what needs to be proved. Why? Because they do not have any good evidence for them. Why? Because they amass many possible arguments together in a pile then conclude they have a probable case, which is a huge non-sequitur.

By contrast atheism is not about faith. I think I explained that in my chapter for The Christian Delusion. Atheism is based on the probabilities. And I explained there is little or nothing we can know about an atheist simply because he is an atheist, except that said person does not believe in supernatural beings and forces, nor does he think supernatural explanations have the weight of evidence for them.

The sciences are the paragon for outsiders. Show me the math and we agree. Show me the experiment and the argument is over. Show me the scientific poll and the case is closed. Show me what we learn from brain science and there can be no dispute.

Is this a double standard, one for religious faiths and another one for atheists? No! Religious people have the double standard. Why do they evaluate other religious faiths with a level of skepticism that they do not apply to their own culturally inherited one? Why? Answer me that! The OTF is a way to examine all religious faiths. If this is a bad test then how do Christians propose we decide between religious faiths? I’ve proposed the OTF. What’s the alternative? Answer this question too.

So let’s contrast this carefully and precisely. Can theists legitimately say that if I do not collect stamps I still have a hobby? How does that make sense? Let’s say someone tells me I believe in the supernatural realm even though I don’t believe in ghosts? Now let’s say someone asks me to subject my non-ghost view to the skepticism of an outsider. What can that possibly mean? I DO subject the ghost view to skepticism, that’s why I conclude there are no ghosts!

Is it enough to ask people to be objective, fair, and openminded? I've previously addressed this question but let me add that if human beings reason so badly that we implicitly adopt what we were taught to believe in our respective cultures so much that they become like blinders on our eyes, and if we’re that bad at weighing the claims of beliefs that have little or no evidence for them to decide between differing ones, then we cannot offer a milquetoast test that asks people to be objective, fair and openminded about that which they were raised to believe and defend. What we are enculturated with is who we are. We cannot see the water we swim in. We cannot pluck our eyes out and look at them. So we cannot simply ask people to be objective, fair and openminded. Believers already think they are being objective because they can't see that they are not! Just look at how confident some Muslims are that they are being objective. Some of them are so certain they're objective about their faith they are willing to fly planes into buildings. Ask them if they’re objective and it would be a no brainer for them. But ask them to subject their own faith to the same level of skepticism they use to reject other faiths and THAT will get their attention. Since we cannot pluck out their eyes we must offer them a shocking test, one that may help get them out of their dogmatic slumbers like nothing else can do. And they will object as strenuously as they can to the OTF because they know their faith does not pass that test. That’s why Christians argue against it just like Muslim scholars would do so for their faith.

What about people raised as atheists in Sweden? Were they enculturalted? Probably so.

Should these atheists test what they were taught by being objective, fair and openminded? Sure, yes.

Should they test what they were taught as outsiders? How can they? What is the outside perspective for them? Is it the perspective of a young earth Christian creationist or a young earth Jewish orthodox perspective? Any scientist would scoff at it because science produces repeatable evidence that convinces. Is the outside perspective that of a Wiccan, or a Scientologist? How can atheists choose the correct outsider perspective from the many available? Which religious perspective do objectors to the OTF propose we use when being outsiders?

The OTF is a reasonable fair and objective one to judge religious faiths. The whole reason Christians object to it is because they know their faith will not pass the test, even if they admit no other religious faith can do so either. So cognitive dissonance requires them to nitpick at it and point out any small loophole to avoid taking it, even though this is how they judge the other faiths they reject. THEY have the double standard.

So on the front side of the fence, the fact that no revealed religion can pass this test is not the fault of the test. Again, it's a reasonable, fair and objective one. If no revealed religion can pass the OTF then it's the fault of religious faiths, not the test. It means they cannot be justified.

On the back side of the fence, there is no worthy religious contender from out of the myriad number of religions for an atheist to examine his own views on religion as an outsider. But that is not the fault of the test either. The fact that there isn't one religion that succeeds in being the one lone contender over all of the other religions as the rightful outsider position from which to judge my atheist conclusions about religion is not the fault of the test itself. They cannot put up one and only one religion which they all agree would be an outsider's perspective for the atheist. Again the test is a fair and objective one. The fault is with religious faith.

As I said I see no reason why a religion could not pass this test. A religion could pass the test. The fact that no religion can pass the test is not the fault of the test. The test is a reasonable, fair and objective one. Whether on this side of the fence or the back side of it, the fact that Christians object to the test because no revealed religion can pass it on the one side, and that there is no worthy religion that can legitimately be considered as an outside perspective for the atheist, is not the fault of the test.

It's the fault of religion.

any way, an answer to vedaxcool..Practicing skepticism requires an outsider test but since we've evolved to survive through socialiazation it is very painful to stand apart from the groups that make us feel safe. It goes against our evolved means for species survival.The OTF is not an event it is a methodology. The Christians I see who oppose it either fail to challenge the communal benefit religion provides or equate it with a salvation experience and don't consider methodological and provisional truth.