Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,910
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What am I saying that you disagree with?
What am I saying that you disagree with?That entire post I responded to was the same thing, sentence after sentence...and not making the distinctions or the argument that you believe.
(And what 'excitement?')
What am I saying that you disagree with?
"Nothing new"? But you can't tell me what that is. You refer me back to your reactions, reactions which have led me to verify that you understand what you're reacting to.Nothing new. So my previous posts stand unless you manage to actually address my comments specifically instead of repeating the same garbage over and over. This specific discussion is new to me, my responses are individual. You are posting cut and paste dogma that fits your belief system and you seem unable to actually explain it in your own words.
"Nothing new"? But you can't tell me what that is. You refer me back to your reactions, reactions which have led me to verify that you understand what you're reacting to.
What am I saying, whether new or old, that you disagree with?
What is this "dogma" you attribute to me? Just a sentence spelling it out.Correct, you keep posting the same repetititous dogma that I have answered directly on previous ocassions. You have been seemingly unable to provide your own answers outside of the dogma that you have swallowed as 'truth.' YOu cant give me your own answers. You just keep repeating 'because THIS said so!'
A few posts back I had answered alot of that specifically and directly and you keep posting the same dogma over and over, as if that's an argument.
What is this "dogma" you attribute to me? Just a sentence spelling it out.
Yours is a good post as it affords an opportunity for clarity. We should make it an OP in a thread entitled "Clarity."
So here's some clarity. Atheism is by definition the denial of God's existence. However, among current internet atheists there are many who try to deny that atheism is the denial of God's existence, and would have us believe that atheism is the denial of a particular religion's concept of God. This ploy enables them, they think, to avoid the responsibility of the denial implicit in atheism. Instead of asserting There is no God, they assert Christianity has not made out a convincing case for God. They attempt to shift the responsibility for their atheism onto others. It's a sham. And a shame.
You're making the same category mistake as these equivocating internet atheists. You are unable to distinguish between belief in God and belief in a conception of God. You have an excuse. Your connection to God is by way of a particular conception of God. The atheist has no excuse. If her disconnection from God is by way of a particular conception of God, then she is not an atheist in the strict sense; she is simply not a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist -- she rejects a particular religious conception of God; her rejection does not reach the existence of God outside the religious conception. And that last is what makes her an atheist, whether she is willing to admit it or not.
Again, an interesting and weird argument, and not the first I have heard it. But the argument seems to have missed my original point, and I have discussed it already, that the experience I am discussing isn't actually an emotion, emotion is a reaction to the experience. The experience defies my ability to explain, but it isn't emotion. The closest I can was in passing on John Wright's explanation of his experience where in he stated it was "like" falling in love. Whether love is purely an emotion is debatable, and I think those who assert it would have a hard time justifying it, since anyone who has experienced love knows intimately that it can illicit any emotion, indicating it is something more fundamental that we have only borrowed linguistically and employed to describe the better emotions attributed to love.
If you love someone is it subjective? You can certainly claim to love someone and not really love them. But that is kind of along the same point of the inexplicable nature of the faith experience. The experience is closest, in words, to falling in love. But I think that, while it comes closest, it is only "like" falling in love, but it is something noticeably different than that. More complex, less connected to language.
You'd have to experience it. As I think I have been clear, my experience has proven it to me, but it is a personal experience so I really can't share it with you beyond words, and words are limiting.
Again, from my previously stated argument, I drifted away from my youthful faith because my faith as a child had no ability to differentiate God and Santa Clause, or the Boogey Man and you point out. It was a childish understanding of God. What I experienced in my mid twenties, and have been following ever sense is not that kind of faith.
I'm not asking anyone to do anything with my statements. I'm just stating them.
That entire post I responded to was the same thing, sentence after sentence...and not making the distinctions or the argument that you believe.
(And what 'excitement?')
Having been an atheist for a decade or so, I ended up becoming a Christian again in my mid 20s.
I am familiar with that overwhelming feeling. I got it when I became a born again Christian in my 20s. I have had similar experiences in shrooms as well. But while I now attribute it all to brain activity, I do agree that language isn’t suited for describing the situation.
That's not a sentence and it spells out nothing. I believe I am right in my surmise that you don't even know the view you're opposing in this instance, and vehemently opposing at that.This whole 'new atheist agenda' thing.
Tell it to the Marines.Atheism is not a denial of anything.
And how can you deny something that is not established as being factual?
You're agreeing with me in oppositional tones. Please take some reading lessons.The general concept of god is nothing more than a concept. Atheism is not reaction to particulars of beliefs in god(s), but the general notion of god. Atheism is about lacking belief in the existence of god(s), but atheists can be aware that there is a concept of god(s) that some believe in as being more than merely concept and existing in reality. The concept of god is not deserving of special consideration.
Tell it to the Marines.
That's a new one on me.The complete sentence is "Tell it to the Horse Marines"
So you think anytime we have an experience, the supposed subject of it must be necessarily real?
Remember, this is not questioning the experience, just that having the experience must mean there must be an external reality to its subject.
You're agreeing with me in oppositional tones. Please take some reading lessons.
You so little understand what you post rapid-fire when you drop in that you mistook your agreement for opposition. The post is there. But its incompetence need not be recognized any further than it already has been.No, I'm not agreeing with you in any tones. Make believe is make believe, whether it's about sprites, small or large gods, superheroes, supernatural crap, or any other totally made up thing. Human imagination dies not create reality. Go find your rutabaga.
That's not a sentence and it spells out nothing. I believe I am right in my surmise that you don't even know the view you're opposing in this instance, and vehemently opposing at that.
Happy New Year. Seattle.
Nope, I never claimed any such thing. In fact I have gone to great lengths to qualify my statement as it relates to me, and me alone. In my life, in the very fundamental nature of my being and my perception of the world it is very real, and real as my need for food and water to live. As real as my love for my wife and family. Me without this new faith was very real, too, and that me is dead.
As I have said repeatedly, when you experience it, you understand. I can't blame you for not understanding what I can barely comprehend myself even after having gone through it.
Please tell us what that "view" is, that "theory" as you call it. Please make some good-faith showing that you understand what you presume to criticize. Thank you.Of course I know that view...you've posted it ad nauseum.
And that theory does not hold water. For reasons I and others have given you. That, in your own words, you seem incapable of refuting. We dont accept your (the theory's) basic premise...so you dont know how to deal outside that scope.
Of course I know that view...you've posted it ad nauseum.
And that theory does not hold water. For reasons I and others have given you. That, in your own words, you seem incapable of refuting. We dont accept your (the theory's) basic premise...so you dont know how to deal outside that scope.
Please tell us what that "view" is, that "theory" as you call it. Please make some good-faith showing that you understand what you presume to criticize. Thank you.
Yeah, I would think that you'd be able to rephrase the "view" and "theory" that you spout off against... It shouldn't be that hard to do if you have truly made the effort to understand it and soak it in before being opposed to it...
You so little understand what you post rapid-fire when you drop in that you mistook your agreement for opposition. The post is there. But its incompetence need not be recognized any further than it already has been.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?