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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You just made all of that up. You don’t get to tell people what they think or believe.

[Anonymous]

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?

It's fine for you to have a hobby, it's a free country after all. But unlike other hobbies, this "hobby" will actually lead you farther away from any hope of finding answers. My two cents: go live your life and stop thinking about religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's fine for you to have a hobby, it's a free country after all. But unlike other hobbies, this "hobby" will actually lead you farther away from any hope of finding answers. My two cents: go live your life and stop thinking about religion.

Maybe pp is not seeking answers, as many religious people seem to be doing -- even after being taught, without evidence, that God is real. The answers found in religion come from within, not from some empirical measure. Any clergy person will tell you that faith (not facts) is what is needed for belief in the Divine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's fine for you to have a hobby, it's a free country after all. But unlike other hobbies, this "hobby" will actually lead you farther away from any hope of finding answers. My two cents: go live your life and stop thinking about religion.

Maybe pp is not seeking answers, as many religious people seem to be doing -- even after being taught, without evidence, that God is real. The answers found in religion come from within, not from some empirical measure. Any clergy person will tell you that faith (not facts) is what is needed for belief in the Divine.

No clergy person will tell you that, if they are Christian. Orthodox Christianity claims that God is knowable and self evidence to all humankind. Specific articles of faith will require revelation, but the existence of God can be known by reason alone. Now, that doesn't mean it follows everyone will believe in God's existence. We have people today still arguing that the earth is flat, so clearly we are quite the unpredictable species. That pesky free will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's fine for you to have a hobby, it's a free country after all. But unlike other hobbies, this "hobby" will actually lead you farther away from any hope of finding answers. My two cents: go live your life and stop thinking about religion.

Are you actually saying that by asking questions and thinking about it I will learn less?

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. There is no other topic where that would apply.

Is it possible that you are simply wishing informed people would be quiet and not offer positions that contradict yours?

[Anonymous]

Atheist PP, the below is a Q&A from a Catholic bishop on your question of evidence. It touches on our miscommunication throughout the thread on what is "evidence." I really don't have anything further to say beyond what the Bishop says in terms of evidence.

Question: ...It reminds me of the great atheist philosopher
Bertrand Russell. He was asked what he would
say if he found himself standing before a god
on judgement day, and God asked him, “Why
didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell said he would
reply, “Not enough evidence, God. Not enough
evidence.” What do you say to someone who says
there’s just no evidence?

BISHOP BARRON: Actually, I’m pleased to
hear that’s maybe the number one thing that you
hear on your website, because in some ways it’s
very easy to refute that. The trouble is the loaded
term, “evidence.” Evidence is a term that’s drawn
largely from the sciences, so you’re looking for
physical evidence for whatever phenomenon
you’re discussing. Or you form a hypothesis, and
then you say, “Let’s look for evidence that would
back up this hypothesis.” That’s fine, within the
scientific framework. That’s part of the scientific
method, looking for empirically verifiable or
physical traces in the world.
Well, if that’s what you mean by evidence, I agree
with them, there’s no evidence for God. Here’s
the trick: God is not subject to the norms of the
scientific method, because God is not a being in
the world. God is rather, as Thomas said, Ipsum
Esse, the sheer act of “to be” itself, in and through
which all things that the sciences look at come to
be. The one thing you’re not going to find is God
using the scientific method, because He is prior
to and more ontologically basic than anything the
scientists can investigate.

Here’s what I would suggest, and I have done this
to new atheists who use that appeal to evidence.
I’ll say, “No, there’s no evidence for God, if you
mean it in your typical scientific way; but there
are plenty of rational warrants for belief in God.”
I put it that way, because then you’re not limiting
it to what the sciences can discover. Then you’re
open to Thomas Aquinas, who argues from the
contingency of the world to the non-contingent
ground. You’re open to all sorts of rational approaches, which aren’t scientific. I would urge
people that appeal to this argument to broaden
their epistemological horizons. What I mean is,
there’s more than science. There’s more than the
scientific method. You can be utterly rational and
not be scientific.

The trouble with the whole evidence appeal, or
“Science is the only way to know reality,” well,
you’re saying that Homer and Plato and Shakespeare and Dante have no truth claims to make.
Well, that’s nonsense. They’re saying all kinds of
true things about the world, but not in a scientific
way. Change the term from evidence to rational
warrant, and then we’ll take it from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheist PP, the below is a Q&A from a Catholic bishop on your question of evidence. It touches on our miscommunication throughout the thread on what is "evidence." I really don't have anything further to say beyond what the Bishop says in terms of evidence.

Question: ...It reminds me of the great atheist philosopher
Bertrand Russell. He was asked what he would
say if he found himself standing before a god
on judgement day, and God asked him, “Why
didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell said he would
reply, “Not enough evidence, God. Not enough
evidence.” What do you say to someone who says
there’s just no evidence?

BISHOP BARRON: Actually, I’m pleased to
hear that’s maybe the number one thing that you
hear on your website, because in some ways it’s
very easy to refute that. The trouble is the loaded
term, “evidence.” Evidence is a term that’s drawn
largely from the sciences, so you’re looking for
physical evidence for whatever phenomenon
you’re discussing. Or you form a hypothesis, and
then you say, “Let’s look for evidence that would
back up this hypothesis.” That’s fine, within the
scientific framework. That’s part of the scientific
method, looking for empirically verifiable or
physical traces in the world.
Well, if that’s what you mean by evidence, I agree
with them, there’s no evidence for God. Here’s
the trick: God is not subject to the norms of the
scientific method, because God is not a being in
the world. God is rather, as Thomas said, Ipsum
Esse, the sheer act of “to be” itself, in and through
which all things that the sciences look at come to
be. The one thing you’re not going to find is God
using the scientific method, because He is prior
to and more ontologically basic than anything the
scientists can investigate.

Here’s what I would suggest, and I have done this
to new atheists who use that appeal to evidence.
I’ll say, “No, there’s no evidence for God, if you
mean it in your typical scientific way; but there
are plenty of rational warrants for belief in God.”
I put it that way, because then you’re not limiting
it to what the sciences can discover. Then you’re
open to Thomas Aquinas, who argues from the
contingency of the world to the non-contingent
ground. You’re open to all sorts of rational approaches, which aren’t scientific. I would urge
people that appeal to this argument to broaden
their epistemological horizons. What I mean is,
there’s more than science. There’s more than the
scientific method. You can be utterly rational and
not be scientific.

The trouble with the whole evidence appeal, or
“Science is the only way to know reality,” well,
you’re saying that Homer and Plato and Shakespeare and Dante have no truth claims to make.
Well, that’s nonsense. They’re saying all kinds of
true things about the world, but not in a scientific
way. Change the term from evidence to rational
warrant, and then we’ll take it from there.

TL,DR but you can forget the whole "evidence" discussion and just think in terms of "why is God the only non-evident being we believe in past childhood?"

Answer: because otherwise, people like Bishop Barron above would be out of work.

[Anonymous]

I say that people who say that not knowing Jesus is the reason they are depressed, poor, etc., obviously have not read the book of Job.

[Anonymous]

^^^^ Lots of words there, but to be succinct:

There are many other kinds of evidence than scientific evidence.

There is legal evidence, historical evidence, empirical evidence...

...no atheists specifically asks for scientific evidence. We ask for ANY evidence.

So saying "god doesn't conform to science" is both a flawed circular argument as well as a poor response to the request for evidence.

The rest of that post is strawman from the Bishop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's fine for you to have a hobby, it's a free country after all. But unlike other hobbies, this "hobby" will actually lead you farther away from any hope of finding answers. My two cents: go live your life and stop thinking about religion.

Are you actually saying that by asking questions and thinking about it I will learn less?

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. There is no other topic where that would apply.

Is it possible that you are simply wishing informed people would be quiet and not offer positions that contradict yours?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. And God is not a topic, that's the point. Imagine a relationship between husband and wife where one spouse is always demanding and looking for evidence of love and presence from the other spouse but only within the narrow confines of what the first spouse finds acceptable as evidence. The evidence seeking spouse will probably get more and more bitter, feel more and more self-righteous (see! I have given my spouse SO MANY CHANCES to prove he/she loves me and is there for me, and I have look at every action with magnifying glasses for love, don't say I didn't try!). It would probably be better for the first spouse to just live his/her life without obsessing over this issue for a bit, and then revisit the issue in the future with fresher eyes.

Not a perfect analogy of course, because there is no perfect analogy for the relationship between God and man, but the point is that God wants a relationship with you, not to be a hobby for you. The more you think of him in terms of a hobby, intellectual curiosity, comparable to football or cheese, the farther away you deviate from the true relationship you are meant for. And the more you deviate from that, the less likely you are to find him (or more accurately, for him to get through to you).

Caveats. First, this is my personal opinion only. Second, i know you're going to say you don't even see evidence of God so all this relationship nonsense is irrelevant. And I acknowledge that everything I wrote assumes a Christian God is real and the one true God. The road you are on will lead you farther away from him, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's fine for you to have a hobby, it's a free country after all. But unlike other hobbies, this "hobby" will actually lead you farther away from any hope of finding answers. My two cents: go live your life and stop thinking about religion.

Are you actually saying that by asking questions and thinking about it I will learn less?

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. There is no other topic where that would apply.

Is it possible that you are simply wishing informed people would be quiet and not offer positions that contradict yours?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. And God is not a topic, that's the point. Imagine a relationship between husband and wife where one spouse is always demanding and looking for evidence of love and presence from the other spouse but only within the narrow confines of what the first spouse finds acceptable as evidence. The evidence seeking spouse will probably get more and more bitter, feel more and more self-righteous (see! I have given my spouse SO MANY CHANCES to prove he/she loves me and is there for me, and I have look at every action with magnifying glasses for love, don't say I didn't try!). It would probably be better for the first spouse to just live his/her life without obsessing over this issue for a bit, and then revisit the issue in the future with fresher eyes.

Not a perfect analogy of course, because there is no perfect analogy for the relationship between God and man, but the point is that God wants a relationship with you, not to be a hobby for you. The more you think of him in terms of a hobby, intellectual curiosity, comparable to football or cheese, the farther away you deviate from the true relationship you are meant for. And the more you deviate from that, the less likely you are to find him (or more accurately, for him to get through to you).

Caveats. First, this is my personal opinion only. Second, i know you're going to say you don't even see evidence of God so all this relationship nonsense is irrelevant. And I acknowledge that everything I wrote assumes a Christian God is real and the one true God. The road you are on will lead you farther away from him, IMO.

So many flaws, just some quickly pointed out:

1. Yes religion is a topic, whether you like that or not, and as evidenced by the existence of a religion forum. The idea that anything is not a "topic", meaning it is above critical thinking and discussion is preposterous.

2. Yes spouses show evidence of love all the time, and yes it is often a problem when a spouse does not show evidence of love and is often indicative that mutual love does not exist.

3. All your "relationship with god" comments are fully presuppositional of his existence and therefore flawed and circular.

4. Your post essentially asserts that the existence of football and cheese has a lower bar for proof than the existence of a supreme being! Crazy! I love both football and cheese, and have seen evidence that both exist.

5. I repeat the idea that looking for evidence of a god brings me further from him... well... I have to be honest, the claim you make - if true - is the best evidence I have ever heard that he does NOT exist. So thanks for supporting the atheist position better than I do! But don't worry, I do not make that claim so I will not be using it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ Lots of words there, but to be succinct:

There are many other kinds of evidence than scientific evidence.

There is legal evidence, historical evidence, empirical evidence...

...no atheists specifically asks for scientific evidence. We ask for ANY evidence.

So saying "god doesn't conform to science" is both a flawed circular argument as well as a poor response to the request for evidence.

The rest of that post is strawman from the Bishop.

Great, so i presented some rational arguments. Or do you not believe rationality to be evidence? Go google arguments for existence of God, it's not hard to find. I think you are being honest to say there's no evidence (which is the same as saying there are no arguments). You should just say you don't find the available arguments for existence of God to be persuasive. And we would have all saved ourselves like 10 pages of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ Lots of words there, but to be succinct:

There are many other kinds of evidence than scientific evidence.

There is legal evidence, historical evidence, empirical evidence...

...no atheists specifically asks for scientific evidence. We ask for ANY evidence.

So saying "god doesn't conform to science" is both a flawed circular argument as well as a poor response to the request for evidence.

The rest of that post is strawman from the Bishop.

Great, so i presented some rational arguments. Or do you not believe rationality to be evidence? Go google arguments for existence of God, it's not hard to find. I think you are being honest to say there's no evidence (which is the same as saying there are no arguments). You should just say you don't find the available arguments for existence of God to be persuasive. And we would have all saved ourselves like 10 pages of this thread.

Used the term "insufficient evidence" over and over again. Over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's fine for you to have a hobby, it's a free country after all. But unlike other hobbies, this "hobby" will actually lead you farther away from any hope of finding answers. My two cents: go live your life and stop thinking about religion.

Are you actually saying that by asking questions and thinking about it I will learn less?

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. There is no other topic where that would apply.

Is it possible that you are simply wishing informed people would be quiet and not offer positions that contradict yours?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. And God is not a topic, that's the point. Imagine a relationship between husband and wife where one spouse is always demanding and looking for evidence of love and presence from the other spouse but only within the narrow confines of what the first spouse finds acceptable as evidence. The evidence seeking spouse will probably get more and more bitter, feel more and more self-righteous (see! I have given my spouse SO MANY CHANCES to prove he/she loves me and is there for me, and I have look at every action with magnifying glasses for love, don't say I didn't try!). It would probably be better for the first spouse to just live his/her life without obsessing over this issue for a bit, and then revisit the issue in the future with fresher eyes.

Not a perfect analogy of course, because there is no perfect analogy for the relationship between God and man, but the point is that God wants a relationship with you, not to be a hobby for you. The more you think of him in terms of a hobby, intellectual curiosity, comparable to football or cheese, the farther away you deviate from the true relationship you are meant for. And the more you deviate from that, the less likely you are to find him (or more accurately, for him to get through to you).

Caveats. First, this is my personal opinion only. Second, i know you're going to say you don't even see evidence of God so all this relationship nonsense is irrelevant. And I acknowledge that everything I wrote assumes a Christian God is real and the one true God. The road you are on will lead you farther away from him, IMO.

So many flaws, just some quickly pointed out:

1. Yes religion is a topic, whether you like that or not, and as evidenced by the existence of a religion forum. The idea that anything is not a "topic", meaning it is above critical thinking and discussion is preposterous.

2. Yes spouses show evidence of love all the time, and yes it is often a problem when a spouse does not show evidence of love and is often indicative that mutual love does not exist.

3. All your "relationship with god" comments are fully presuppositional of his existence and therefore flawed and circular.

4. Your post essentially asserts that the existence of football and cheese has a lower bar for proof than the existence of a supreme being! Crazy! I love both football and cheese, and have seen evidence that both exist.

5. I repeat the idea that looking for evidence of a god brings me further from him... well... I have to be honest, the claim you make - if true - is the best evidence I have ever heard that he does NOT exist. So thanks for supporting the atheist position better than I do! But don't worry, I do not make that claim so I will not be using it.

I didn't say religion was above critical thinking. I said it's above YOUR way of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ Lots of words there, but to be succinct:

There are many other kinds of evidence than scientific evidence.

There is legal evidence, historical evidence, empirical evidence...

...no atheists specifically asks for scientific evidence. We ask for ANY evidence.

So saying "god doesn't conform to science" is both a flawed circular argument as well as a poor response to the request for evidence.

The rest of that post is strawman from the Bishop.

Great, so i presented some rational arguments. Or do you not believe rationality to be evidence? Go google arguments for existence of God, it's not hard to find. I think you are being honest to say there's no evidence (which is the same as saying there are no arguments). You should just say you don't find the available arguments for existence of God to be persuasive. And we would have all saved ourselves like 10 pages of this thread.

Used the term "insufficient evidence" over and over again. Over and over.

Ok so we are agreed then. There probably won't be any new evidence of God emerging anytime soon, so you can probably stop thinking about it.