Told by christian friend that my lifelong depression is because I don’t “know Jesus”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“This is another strawman. I take no offense at your Christian beliefs, and think you should be able to believe whatever you want.”

Ok, so why do you keep asking Christians to show you evidence of God? We take no offense at your non-belief, and also believe you are free to not believe whatever you want.

Because I am trying to understand.

You realize that I am simply asking you for evidence of why you believe what you believe. I can do that for everything I believe (I hope). And you perceive that as me "taking offense" for no reason. It baffles me.

Also, you have so many other options, such as not replying or not coming to the forum, which is what I would do if I actually had been offended. (I hope you don't choose that, BTW). You can also say "I believe and don't care about evidence" which I don't like but I can't make you see things my way and yes, I have to respect that even if I find it illogical and maybe dangerous.

I do request you not state what I think or how I feel (as in "offended") Just ask. I'll tell you. And include why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is another strawman. I take no offense at your Christian beliefs, and think you should be able to believe whatever you want.”

Anonymous wrote:“

Ok, so why do you keep asking Christians to show you evidence of God? We take no offense at your non-belief, and also believe you are free to not believe whatever you want.

Because I am trying to understand.

You realize that I am simply asking you for evidence of why you believe what you believe. I can do that for everything I believe (I hope). And you perceive that as me "taking offense" for no reason. It baffles me.

Also, you have so many other options, such as not replying or not coming to the forum, which is what I would do if I actually had been offended. (I hope you don't choose that, BTW). You can also say "I believe and don't care about evidence" which I don't like but I can't make you see things my way and yes, I have to respect that even if I find it illogical and maybe dangerous.

I do request you not state what I think or how I feel (as in "offended") Just ask. I'll tell you. And include why.

I was quoting you. You stated you took no offense, can I not quote you? You quote people you reply to.

These are your exact words:

“This is another strawman. I take no offense at your Christian beliefs, and think you should be able to believe whatever you want.”

[Anonymous]

Just a few thoughts. Atheism, if defined as not believing in God, is absolutely a belief system.

So say you, but not the actual atheists. So what would you call simply a lack of belief? Call if whatever you want, that's what I am and what I think most atheists consider themselves. I know your arguments work better if you consider it a system like yours, but it is not that. It's just NOT.

Great, if you simply lack belief and don't feel the need for anymore more, go live your life. Christianity has nothing to offer to someone who feels content with this world.

The fact that YOU ascribe meaning to your own life is in itself a belief because you are assuming there is not OBJECTIVE meaning to life, that each person defines their own existence and derives their own meaning.

Another pre-suppositional claim you'll need to show evidence for.

I don't see a claim here at all. Just repeating what you said, that you ascribe meaning to your own life, and logically that means others ascribe meaning to theirs, and those meanings might all be different and therefore subjective.

If you define your atheism as not holding any views on God, fine, but it honestly doesn't sound that way because you seem to take great offense at my explaining my Christian worldview. If your belief has no place for my Christianity (in terms of tolerance), then it is not a neutral belief.

This is another strawman. I take no offense at your Christian beliefs, and think you should be able to believe whatever you want.

Great. But I think anyone reading can sense that you are deeply angered and triggered by what I'm writing.

Why should I give Stephen Hawking any consideration? Sure, the universe may seem chaotic because of our lack of absolute knowledge, but the very fact that scientific disciplines exist presupposes that the world is knowable and intelligible.

And yet we don't understand most of it, and it is bizzare and as hard to understand as anything, and a nearly infinite percentage of it would kill life in just a second... sorry those who study physics marvel at it and its chaos.

Yes, the universe and nature are immensely powerful. Now times that by infinite and you get God's power.

Back on the atheism point since that is where you talk about most, if your worldview/atheism satisfies you, then great. The people who "find" God tend to be those who feel unsatisfied with the atheist view, and so they search deeper. If you are ok leaving those fundamental questions we all ask unanswered, then you don't have the motivation to keep digging, and sheer intellectual discussion will never get anyone there without that hunger (imo).

It's really funny to me how you accuse me of not having motivation to explore these questions and then with the same breath criticize me for simply having these discussions in this forum. Oh the irony. And I have said many times, if shown evidence I will change my position. Will you? You are the one whose mind is made up.

I don't sense any true motivation but you clearly enjoy debating Christians for whatever reason. Those two statements are not contradictory. Fundamentally, we don't agree on what is evidence, so I guess we are talking past each other. The difference is I know and can imagine your position but you lack the imagination to understand mine, because you still can't get your head around the fact that I have been writing about what I consider to be evidence. You can say they don't convince you or that you don't think they are evidence, but you don't even acknowledge that they are evidence to me, which is just bizarre.

And why do you ask "will you"? Are you going to present me with evidence of atheism? Would love to hear it.

I'll preempt your next objection by admitting that you are right, none of us know with 100% certainty what awaits us after death, and to you, I might just be deluding myself and need a crutch and Marx's religion being opium of the masses and such. I know all these arguments and my response is so what. If I believe in God and I'm wrong, I lose nothing. If there is no God, my life is worthless and meaningless anyways. If I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, that is a much more serious question with eternal consequences, in addition to missing out on more purposeful living in this life. So I don't worry much about whether I'm wrong, that is what I mean by life without God isn't worth living. I cannot go back to the gray, bland picture that is atheism.

This is"Pascal's Wager" (another thing you might not have heard of) and has been shown to be a fallacy (on the chance you've not heard of that either). What if you're wrong about Christianity? What if you die and meet the Norse gods, or one you've never heard of, who wants different things from you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Oh yes, I know Pascal's wager and it is brilliant. Not a fallacy at all, though you have to assume certain things, for example, that Christianity is the only religion worth considering. That is a slightly different topic but I have no doubt in my mind that Christianity is the only religion worthy of belief. I don't lose sleep about whether God exists but it's the Norse God who will punish me for believing in Christianity.

As to why God seemingly calls some but not others, I don't know.

But I thought you had all the answers? Glad to see you admit that you don't know, which is what you should say more often. I sure don't know lots of things.

When did i say I have all the answers? In every post, i talk about my own experience, and how everything on this earth points to God but is only a fraction. That be definition means that I cannot comprehend God. A fallacy is that Christians have all the answers figured out but actually there are a lot of unknowns. That is why it is faith.

I personally believe God calls all of us but each of us has our own blocks, be it physical (like in some countries you could get prosecuted becoming Christian) or emotional (some trauma with Christians in the past, etc.), or mental or intellectual. Of course, the biggest block is usually hubris/ego, which is why pride is the sin of all sins.

Ahhhh.... so now you are saying you DO know, and it is because I refuse to not sin. Maybe I am offended after all! Funny how Christianity decided that the sin of trusting your observations (as we do with absolutely everything else that keeps us alive) is also the "sin of all sins" (and not murder, slavery, rape, etc.).

I don't know why God does the things he does, but I do know a bit about human nature, truths that are available to all of us. If you look at the root of all those sins you listed, you will find pride/ego and fear, the second of which is really also an offshoot of ego.

I don't believe that any evidence would convince you of God's existence.

So you don't believe me when I tell you it will? That makes you a dishonest interlocutor.

No, i don't believe you, for reasons stated above. It doesn't make me dishonest, it makes you dishonest, or at least you have an issue expressing your real intentions across an anonymous forum...

Hard core atheists claim they just want evidence but what they are really asking for is for God to perform for them ("perform this miracle and I'll believe you" "do this on my terms when I want it and I'll believe"). That is pride right there, having the audacity to think your Creator needs to turn into your personal genie to prove himself to you.

This is a lie you just typed. Find me an atheist asking for a miracle, please. Just one.

Then we go back to my original question. What kind of evidence would convince you? What would God have to do? Don't ask me to present my evidence because I did and it was unacceptable to you, so it's your turn to actually answer the question.

[Anonymous]

is pp an atheist, or anti-theist?

[Anonymous]

Great, if you simply lack belief and don't feel the need for anymore more, go live your life. Christianity has nothing to offer to someone who feels content with this world.

But I keep telling you my mind is not closed on the subject, I am willing to listen, enjoy discussing it and will change my mind when shown sufficient evidence. Again, you are ascribing a position to me I do not hold. Please stop that.

I don't see a claim here at all. Just repeating what you said, that you ascribe meaning to your own life, and logically that means others ascribe meaning to theirs, and those meanings might all be different and therefore subjective.

The claim you made is that there is OBJECTIVE meaning to life. You need to show evidence of that claim or it can be dismissed.

Great. But I think anyone reading can sense that you are deeply angered and triggered by what I'm writing.

You keep saying that despite me saying, over and over, it is not true. I am not angry. I am not triggered. I simply do not agree with your position and want you to defend it in a discussion forum. Do we get to tell each other what the other one believes now? Because I would certainly enjoy that, but I don't think it is fair or productive.

Yes, the universe and nature are immensely powerful. Now times that by infinite and you get God's power.

We can observe the universe. How do we observe god? And BTW "times that by infinite" is nonsense.

I don't sense any true motivation but you clearly enjoy debating Christians for whatever reason. Those two statements are not contradictory. Fundamentally, we don't agree on what is evidence, so I guess we are talking past each other. The difference is I know and can imagine your position but you lack the imagination to understand mine, because you still can't get your head around the fact that I have been writing about what I consider to be evidence. You can say they don't convince you or that you don't think they are evidence, but you don't even acknowledge that they are evidence to me, which is just bizarre.

And why do you ask "will you"? Are you going to present me with evidence of atheism? Would love to hear it.

I don't make any claims I need to present evidence for. What claim am I making? I am simply saying I don't see sufficient evidence to believe.

Oh yes, I know Pascal's wager and it is brilliant. Not a fallacy at all, though you have to assume certain things, for example, that Christianity is the only religion worth considering. That is a slightly different topic but I have no doubt in my mind that Christianity is the only religion worthy of belief. I don't lose sleep about whether God exists but it's the Norse God who will punish me for believing in Christianity.

Well thanks for admitting that there is a gigantic presupposition in Pascal's wager. There's really not much more to discuss after that.

When did i say I have all the answers? In every post, i talk about my own experience, and how everything on this earth points to God but is only a fraction. That be definition means that I cannot comprehend God. A fallacy is that Christians have all the answers figured out but actually there are a lot of unknowns. That is why it is faith.

What's a fallacy is you admit you don't know but then selectively say you know what God is and what he wants.

I don't know why God does the things he does, but I do know a bit about human nature, truths that are available to all of us. If you look at the root of all those sins you listed, you will find pride/ego and fear, the second of which is really also an offshoot of ego.

I'll just repeat: Funny how Christianity decided that the sin of trusting your observations (as we do with absolutely everything else that keeps us alive) is also the "sin of all sins" (and not murder, slavery, rape, etc.).

No, i don't believe you, for reasons stated above. It doesn't make me dishonest, it makes you dishonest, or at least you have an issue expressing your real intentions across an anonymous forum...

First you fail to understand the difference between "being dishonest" and "being a dishonest interlocutor". The latter is a common term for discussing someone who refuses to discuss things fairly and take the other's points in good faith. And you admit, openly and freely, that you are that: a dishonest interlocutor. Because you won't even accept what I tell you I think as truth that I think it.

Then we go back to my original question. What kind of evidence would convince you? What would God have to do? Don't ask me to present my evidence because I did and it was unacceptable to you, so it's your turn to actually answer the question.

This is the craziest question of all. Obviously I have no idea, or I would have sought that evidence out and changed my belief. Obviously the things you have said fall far short of evidence in my opinion. Nothing is demonstrable, replicable, observable, testable, verifiable, etc. It's just "I feel him" and when asked how you could tell someone who genuinely "felt" god and someone who mistakenly felt him there is no criteria, rendering it worthless as a path to truth.

[Anonymous]

But I keep telling you my mind is not closed on the subject, I am willing to listen, enjoy discussing it and will change my mind when shown sufficient evidence. Again, you are ascribing a position to me I do not hold. Please stop that.

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better.

Now a note here. Many atheists/agnostics cannot get over the hump that one religion may be right and all others therefore wrong. They think it is disrespectful to all those other religions (and their believers) to claim one Truth. This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own). Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

The claim you made is that there is OBJECTIVE meaning to life. You need to show evidence of that claim or it can be dismissed.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.

This is the craziest question of all. Obviously I have no idea, or I would have sought that evidence out and changed my belief. Obviously the things you have said fall far short of evidence in my opinion. Nothing is demonstrable, replicable, observable, testable, verifiable, etc. It's just "I feel him" and when asked how you could tell someone who genuinely "felt" god and someone who mistakenly felt him there is no criteria, rendering it worthless as a path to truth.

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

[Anonymous]

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying.

I find life IMMENSELY satisfying.

If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better.

It has nothing to do with being unsatisfied, as I have stated. Yes it's a bit of a hobby, but I have spent a lot of time considering these topics, and I care about believing the most number of true things and not believing the most number of false things. Truth matters to me.

Now a note here. Many atheists/agnostics cannot get over the hump that one religion may be right and all others therefore wrong. They think it is disrespectful to all those other religions (and their believers) to claim one Truth.

Don't know where you got that idea. I hold all religions in the same regard. I haven't seen any evidence for any of them.

This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own).

Whoa, are you saying god might be real for you but not for me? Wow, that is a definition of truth I have not heard, except from the hardest of solipsists.

Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

I have to be honest: these words are unintelligible to me. I don't know what you are talking about regarding hurting people's feelings.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.

I am not making any claims about morals, or even making a truth claim of any kind. This is more strawman-ing. So, no, you are incorrect. I am saying very simply: I do not see sufficient evidence to believe in a god or gods.

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

No, they are not "calls for a performance". That's ridiculous. Why would I call for a performance from something I don't believe in? Do you demand Leprechauns bring you a pot of gold or you won't believe in them? No, of course you don't! You just skip right to not believing.

They are requests for evidence. Any evidence. Any. Best you've got. Certainly better than what you are quoted below.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

OK, I apologize for paraphrasing you when you said this: "In my view, when I see the world and how it works, how complex it is, how beautiful and consistent mathematics is, how beautiful music is etc., it is more rationale for me to believe they did not all happen by chance"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But I keep telling you my mind is not closed on the subject, I am willing to listen, enjoy discussing it and will change my mind when shown sufficient evidence. Again, you are ascribing a position to me I do not hold. Please stop that.

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better.

Now a note here. Many atheists/agnostics cannot get over the hump that one religion may be right and all others therefore wrong. They think it is disrespectful to all those other religions (and their believers) to claim one Truth. This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own). Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

The claim you made is that there is OBJECTIVE meaning to life. You need to show evidence of that claim or it can be dismissed.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.

This is the craziest question of all. Obviously I have no idea, or I would have sought that evidence out and changed my belief. Obviously the things you have said fall far short of evidence in my opinion. Nothing is demonstrable, replicable, observable, testable, verifiable, etc. It's just "I feel him" and when asked how you could tell someone who genuinely "felt" god and someone who mistakenly felt him there is no criteria, rendering it worthless as a path to truth.

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

DP - so you "felt a need" and made the leap to decide that that what you needed was God, and that God existed. And you think others should feel this same need? and decide the same thing you did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But I keep telling you my mind is not closed on the subject, I am willing to listen, enjoy discussing it and will change my mind when shown sufficient evidence. Again, you are ascribing a position to me I do not hold. Please stop that.

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better.

Now a note here. Many atheists/agnostics cannot get over the hump that one religion may be right and all others therefore wrong. They think it is disrespectful to all those other religions (and their believers) to claim one Truth. This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own). Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

The claim you made is that there is OBJECTIVE meaning to life. You need to show evidence of that claim or it can be dismissed.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.

This is the craziest question of all. Obviously I have no idea, or I would have sought that evidence out and changed my belief. Obviously the things you have said fall far short of evidence in my opinion. Nothing is demonstrable, replicable, observable, testable, verifiable, etc. It's just "I feel him" and when asked how you could tell someone who genuinely "felt" god and someone who mistakenly felt him there is no criteria, rendering it worthless as a path to truth.

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

“Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better. “

Good point.

Also pp won’t clarify if they are an atheist or anti-theist.

[Anonymous]

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying.

It has nothing to do with being unsatisfied, as I have stated. Yes it's a bit of a hobby, but I have spent a lot of time considering these topics, and I care about believing the most number of true things and not believing the most number of false things. Truth matters to me.

You said all I need to know.

This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own).


Whoa, are you saying god might be real for you but not for me? Wow, that is a definition of truth I have not heard, except from the hardest of solipsists.

No, I am saying regardless of what you and I think, only two possibilities exist in objective reality: either there is Truth or no truth. And whatever the answer is, it is the reality for everyone, including you and I, regardless of what we personally believe. I don't think this is controversial, just pure logic.

Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

I have to be honest: these words are unintelligible to me. I don't know what you are talking about regarding hurting people's feelings.

Ok, so then these words are not for you. Maybe they don't apply to you or maybe you refuse to understand, but it's quite clear what I am saying.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.


I am not making any claims about morals, or even making a truth claim of any kind. This is more strawman-ing. So, no, you are incorrect. I am saying very simply: I do not see sufficient evidence to believe in a god or gods.

Now I think you are being intentionally dense. Claiming relativism is absolutely a claim about morals, because you are assuming there is no objective morality. Am i wrong? If I am, where does that objective morality come from?

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

No, they are not "calls for a performance". That's ridiculous. Why would I call for a performance from something I don't believe in? Do you demand Leprechauns bring you a pot of gold or you won't believe in them? No, of course you don't! You just skip right to not believing.

They are requests for evidence. Any evidence. Any. Best you've got. Certainly better than what you are quoted below.

I don't understand what you are saying here at all. You won't call for a performance from something you don't believe in, but you want evidence from something you don't believe in? Isn't a performance by something evidence of that thing's existence? What i'm hearing is that you don't really want any evidence, because you've already mentally made your decision. As you said, you are not open to anything. You simply don't believe.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

OK, I apologize for paraphrasing you when you said this: "In my view, when I see the world and how it works, how complex it is, how beautiful and consistent mathematics is, how beautiful music is etc., it is more rationale for me to believe they did not all happen by chance"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

since you love citing wikipedia, here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_desire#:~:text=Here%20is%20one%20way%20Aquinas,nature%5D%20is%20capable%20of%20fulfillment. That is essentially my argument, the argument from desire, which has an intellectual history going back to Thomas Aquinas. I am not even going to bother to convince you on this argument, but my only point is that this is not a "I feel/heard a voice talking to me and assumed it is God" argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I keep telling you my mind is not closed on the subject, I am willing to listen, enjoy discussing it and will change my mind when shown sufficient evidence. Again, you are ascribing a position to me I do not hold. Please stop that.

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better.

Now a note here. Many atheists/agnostics cannot get over the hump that one religion may be right and all others therefore wrong. They think it is disrespectful to all those other religions (and their believers) to claim one Truth. This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own). Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

The claim you made is that there is OBJECTIVE meaning to life. You need to show evidence of that claim or it can be dismissed.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.

This is the craziest question of all. Obviously I have no idea, or I would have sought that evidence out and changed my belief. Obviously the things you have said fall far short of evidence in my opinion. Nothing is demonstrable, replicable, observable, testable, verifiable, etc. It's just "I feel him" and when asked how you could tell someone who genuinely "felt" god and someone who mistakenly felt him there is no criteria, rendering it worthless as a path to truth.

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

“Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better. “

Good point.

Also pp won’t clarify if they are an atheist or anti-theist.

I think most people think they are the type of atheist that is above it all and open to all possibilities but just doesn't have any evidence, but what i've found is most of these people are actually repulsed by the idea of an objective Truth. And I think that makes them anti-theist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I keep telling you my mind is not closed on the subject, I am willing to listen, enjoy discussing it and will change my mind when shown sufficient evidence. Again, you are ascribing a position to me I do not hold. Please stop that.

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better.

Now a note here. Many atheists/agnostics cannot get over the hump that one religion may be right and all others therefore wrong. They think it is disrespectful to all those other religions (and their believers) to claim one Truth. This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own). Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

The claim you made is that there is OBJECTIVE meaning to life. You need to show evidence of that claim or it can be dismissed.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.

This is the craziest question of all. Obviously I have no idea, or I would have sought that evidence out and changed my belief. Obviously the things you have said fall far short of evidence in my opinion. Nothing is demonstrable, replicable, observable, testable, verifiable, etc. It's just "I feel him" and when asked how you could tell someone who genuinely "felt" god and someone who mistakenly felt him there is no criteria, rendering it worthless as a path to truth.

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

DP - so you "felt a need" and made the leap to decide that that what you needed was God, and that God existed. And you think others should feel this same need? and decide the same thing you did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_desire#:~:text=Here%20is%20one%20way%20Aquinas,nature%5D%20is%20capable%20of%20fulfillment. This is not "my" argument but it has been a strong source of evidence for the existence of God on my own faith journey. I have no comment on whether others should feel this need, but rather, I claim that they do indeed feel it. What they do with it is up to them. Some will rationalize it away. Some will find partial relief in "spiritual but not religious."

[Anonymous]

Christian pp here. Here is a more laid out explanation for the argument from desire: https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm. I think among Christians, this is not the favored argument, so I'm not trying to say this is the objective best argument simply that it appeals to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I keep telling you my mind is not closed on the subject, I am willing to listen, enjoy discussing it and will change my mind when shown sufficient evidence. Again, you are ascribing a position to me I do not hold. Please stop that.

Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better.

Now a note here. Many atheists/agnostics cannot get over the hump that one religion may be right and all others therefore wrong. They think it is disrespectful to all those other religions (and their believers) to claim one Truth. This is a mental/logical hump seekers must get over in order to find any answers. Regardless of what people may believe, there is either one Truth or no truth (aka to each their own). Decide which road you want to go down. If you cannot accept hurting other people's feelings, then embrace relativism but know that you are making a conscious decision to place fear of hurting others over search for Truth because there is no Truth down that road by definition. For many seekers, they ultimately realize the relativism is not enough, does not satisfy, and they are finally able to pursue Truth at all costs. They realize that Truth by definition means some people are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's disrespectful or intentionally mean-spirited. That's where the journey starts. Personally (note, speaking only for myself here), I think the route to Christianity is quite easy after people get over the hump of hurting other's feelings.

The claim you made is that there is OBJECTIVE meaning to life. You need to show evidence of that claim or it can be dismissed.

My claim is that your SUBJECTIVE/RELATIVISM is as much a claim as my OJECTIVISM. You are right they are both claims and I am not seeking to show evidence here. Just stating that you are not neutral, that objectivism and relativism are opposites and you have staked your claim on one.

This is the craziest question of all. Obviously I have no idea, or I would have sought that evidence out and changed my belief. Obviously the things you have said fall far short of evidence in my opinion. Nothing is demonstrable, replicable, observable, testable, verifiable, etc. It's just "I feel him" and when asked how you could tell someone who genuinely "felt" god and someone who mistakenly felt him there is no criteria, rendering it worthless as a path to truth.

Yeah, see, so all those requirements for demonstration, replication are precisely a call for performance. In my view, God has demonstrated himself in the creation of the world, the power of nature, the depth and complexity of human souls, but you don't consider that demonstration because it didn't happen on your timetable or the way you want it. I'm still struggling to understand what kind of demonstrations would satisfy you.

And I did not once use the "I feel him" argument so I don't know what you are talking about. I said that I (and many throughout history) felt a need for something beyond this world. That is a different statement altogether, an objective and observable statement.

“Look, it's not about willingness to listen, it's about whether you find life unsatisfying. If you are satisfied, it doesn't matter if you are willing to listen. It's like you are just debating as a hobby, for intellectual curiosity at best. If you are unsatisfied, then you have a drive to search. If you are the former, this has been fun but ultimately meaningless for you. If you are in the latter group, then I encourage you to look objectively at all the religions out there and see which one explains the deepest questions of life better. “

Good point.

Also pp won’t clarify if they are an atheist or anti-theist.

Sorry been away from the forum for a bit. No, I don't think I am an anti-theist, defined as "opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods." However I do see religion creating a lot of problems in the world. But as I have stated, I have no issue with anyone believing in whatever god they choose, and embrace, support, and will defend their constitutional rights to do so.

In addition I have said, over and over and over, that once shown evidence of a god I will change my belief, so...

Good enough? Not sure why it matters anyway, what matters is does god exist?

[Anonymous]

You said all I need to know.

What that's it's a hobby because it is a topic I enjoy discussing? That's some kind of reveal or gotcha? Ridiculous. I also enjoy talking about sports, music, food, wine, economics, real estate and other topics. What do you think your point means?

No, I am saying regardless of what you and I think, only two possibilities exist in objective reality: either there is Truth or no truth. And whatever the answer is, it is the reality for everyone, including you and I, regardless of what we personally believe. I don't think this is controversial, just pure logic.

Ummmm, no, the concept of "no truth" is nonsense. "It is impossible for there to be no truth, since if it were true that there is no truth, then the nonexistence of truth would be, itself, a truth." Something is either true or not true, but there is no condition I know of known as "no truth".

Ok, so then these words are not for you. Maybe they don't apply to you or maybe you refuse to understand, but it's quite clear what I am saying.

No it isn't, and I asked for clarification, so if you won't give it, then let's drop that point and you can have a W on that one.

Now I think you are being intentionally dense. Claiming relativism is absolutely a claim about morals, because you are assuming there is no objective morality. Am i wrong? If I am, where does that objective morality come from?

No, I have made NONE OF THOSE CLAIMS. None. I am simply saying I do not see sufficient evidence to believe in a god or gods. Can't beleive how many times I repeat this and you keep strawman-ing.

Copy and paste this response to my answer when ever you ask any question such as "where does X come from if not god?":

I. DON'T. KNOW.

I don't understand what you are saying here at all. You won't call for a performance from something you don't believe in, but you want evidence from something you don't believe in? Isn't a performance by something evidence of that thing's existence? What i'm hearing is that you don't really want any evidence, because you've already mentally made your decision. As you said, you are not open to anything. You simply don't believe.

Is asking for evidence in a trial "calling for performance"? Is asking for evidence of the efficacy of a medicine "calling for performance"? No, it is not, and you straw man yet again. To be clear, I am not asking for a miracle, that would be ridiculous and futile, since I do not believe in them.

I'll not address this again until you answer my question: Do you demand Leprechauns bring you a pot of gold or you won't believe in them?

Come to think of it, you don't answer many questions I ask, and I try to answer all of yours....

since you love citing wikipedia, here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_desire#:~:text=Here%20is%20one%20way%20Aquinas,nature%5D%20is%20capable%20of%20fulfillment. That is essentially my argument, the argument from desire, which has an intellectual history going back to Thomas Aquinas. I am not even going to bother to convince you on this argument, but my only point is that this is not a "I feel/heard a voice talking to me and assumed it is God" argument.

You are touting a presuppositional fallacy completely free of any evidence as your reason for believing? One that is essentially as weak as the swiss cheese syllogism?

Why didn't you say that in your first post? You could have saved us all this work.