Re: Atheists Trying Hard to Study Theism

On 16 Feb 2008 21:50:33 GMT, satanservice.org@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (boboro**** of
TOKUS) wrote:

>>>Dubh Ghall <puck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>> bobo:
>>>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>
>>>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
>
>bobo:
>>>objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
>>>
>>>>> what would that look like?
>>>>
>>>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>>>
>>>no, gods don't have objective existence that
>>>i can confirm 
>
>dg:
>>Which makes them imaginary creatures, mere flights of fancy:
>
>that's your supposition. why do you suppose that?

Because they do not have objective existence.

>
>>Why should we be impressed by such?
>
>should you? did i say that you should? 

Why tell us, if not to impress us?


>I think i've 
>merely said that gods are more real than Santa Claus 
>or the Easter Bunny, more real than unicorns, and more
>real generally than imaginary concepts without referent.
>there are soft sciences studying god peripheries and 
>mystics study the god phenomenon directly.
>
>>>and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
>>>their existence is in a subjective dimension.
>
>here's the point that i was making. you are ignoring
>this or supposing that subjective = unreal without,
>to my observation, any reason.

From the Oxford English Dictionary.

subjective 
n	adjective 
1	based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or
opinions. 
2	dependent on the mind for existence. 


> 
>>>most theists don't understand this because
>>>they aren't scientifically-minded.
>>>
>>>>> examples? 
>>>>
>>>> What convinced you?
>>>
>>>subjective experience in interaction with 
>>>my God in which She pointed out information
>>>that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
>>>to my mind, that gods exist on some level
>>>internally at a remove from consciousness,
>>>even as a subset of overall consciousness.
>>
>>So you were convinced by wishful thinking, 
>>and your fancy.
>
>you have mischaracterized the interaction.

I don't think so, "subjective experience", says it all.

>it is an avoidance-mechanism. 
>
>>>I don't expect that this will serve the
>>>average atheist, who demands "objective
>>>evidence" 
>>
>>Correct
>
>differentiating between objective evidence
>and evidence of other kinds can be helpful,

There is no other kind.

>but i don't expect this of atheists who are,
>by and large, dogmatic materialists.
>
>>>and never specifies what they 
>>>would think convincing 
>
>>When a scientist makes a discovery/claim/whet-have-you, 
>
>this is preceded by hypotheses-generation on the part
>of the scientist. part of that specificity is the
>identification of what constitutes evidence for what
>is possibly being observed in the manner stipulated.

Irrelevant.

>
>>he does not ask the skeptics, "What will convince you?", 
>
>correct!
>
>>he says "There is the *objective*, evidence, 
>
>the objective character is only a cultural bias.

Bull****e!

Objective, is objective, culture is irrelevant.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

objective 
n	adjective 
1	not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in
considering and representing facts. 
2	not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. 


>
>>and how I reached it; verify it for your
>>selves".
>
>in the objective world this works quite well, agreed.
>
>>>(the old Atheist Cup and Balls Game).
>>
>>The old theist "Duck and Weave".
>
>not when you specify from the outset 'objective'
>evidence. 

There is no other kind.