Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Dantalion]

All I can point to is that children know of god's due to being told about them. I don't know of any experience where a child experienced a god that they previously did not know about.

Due to this observation, I can conclude that god experiences seem to be a result of indoctrination.

Non sequitur, your observation is consistent with your conclusion, but does not substantiate it at all.

It does as far as I am concerned, but only because I personally know of hundreds of these scenarios and not one that shows otherwise.

Again, I am open to any evidence you have to suggest I am wrong here.

Let me get this right now, your claim 'god experiences are a result of indoctrination' is substantiated by 'no-one has showed otherwise'. Do atheists have a monopoly of shifting the burden of proof?

I am open to any evidence to suggest that you are right, unfortunately you haven't provided any, just the claim.

Didn't he just give you evidence ?
People seem to have to be told about God before they 'experience' him.
This should be ringing loud bells of mighty skepticism.

Show me a group of people with no possible access to the Bible, preachers, or any way of knowing God's message from any other sources except for divine revelation itself. If they then start to convey God's message as written down in the Bible, then we can talk.

[instantc]

Didn't he just give you evidence ?
People seem to have to be told about God before they 'experience' him.
This should be ringing loud bells of mighty skepticism.

How exactly does the fact that people hear about God before they experience his presence show that the experience is not real but a result of the said indoctrination? As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitur.

Show me a group of people with no possible access to the Bible, preachers, or any way of knowing God's message from any other sources except for divine revelation itself. If they then start to convey God's message as written down in the Bible, then we can talk.

You are implying that if God existed, he would reveal himself to people who haven't heard of him before. Do you have any arguments to back up your claim?

[Dantalion]

How exactly does the fact that people hear about God before they experience his presence show that the experience is not real but a result of the said indoctrination? As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitur.

Well I wouldn't say that it SHOWS that, but it is a noteworthy argument nonetheless.

You are implying that if God existed, he would reveal himself to people who haven't heard of him before. Do you have any arguments to back up your claim?

Unless you assert that the very first people ever to receive God's revelation somehow heard of him before, I'd say that's an argument for my claim yes, wouldn't you ?

[Danmark]

Didn't he just give you evidence ?
People seem to have to be told about God before they 'experience' him.
This should be ringing loud bells of mighty skepticism.

How exactly does the fact that people hear about God before they experience his presence show that the experience is not real but a result of the said indoctrination? As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitur.

Non sequitur? Look at the evidence. There is a very strong correlation between the religion one chooses and how he was brought up. You can easily see this in terms of nations. Some are 98% Christian, others 98% Muslim. Do you suppose that is the result of chance and god simply reaching people on his own? That folks somehow 'experience' god differently in different countries and cultures irrespective of what they've heard from friends, family and the rest of the cultural milieu the are born into?

Check out the By Proportion section at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

I've posted these statistics several times on this forum and I've NEVER heard any explanation from Christians, let alone an explanation that reasonably argues for free will in the decision to adopt a religion.

[instantc]

How exactly does the fact that people hear about God before they experience his presence show that the experience is not real but a result of the said indoctrination? As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitur.

Well I wouldn't say that it SHOWS that, but it is a noteworthy argument nonetheless.

It is an interesting fact but doesn't indeed show anything. It might be somewhat convincing intuitionally but in the context of this debate it is not sufficient. The question was whether we can know for certainty that the said experiences are a result of indoctrination, as we can with regard to Santa Claus.

You are implying that if God existed, he would reveal himself to people who haven't heard of him before. Do you have any arguments to back up your claim?

Unless you assert that the very first people ever to receive God's revelation somehow heard of him before, I'd say that's an argument for my claim yes, wouldn't you ?

Fair enough, but you were implying that if God existed he would still at this date reveal himself to people who haven't heard of him.

[instantc]

Didn't he just give you evidence ?
People seem to have to be told about God before they 'experience' him.
This should be ringing loud bells of mighty skepticism.

How exactly does the fact that people hear about God before they experience his presence show that the experience is not real but a result of the said indoctrination? As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitur.

Non sequitur? Look at the evidence. There is a very strong correlation between the religion one chooses and how he was brought up. You can easily see this in terms of nations. Some are 98% Christian, others 98% Muslim. Do you suppose that is the result of chance and god simply reaching people on his own? That folks somehow 'experience' god differently in different countries and cultures irrespective of what they've heard from friends, family and the rest of the cultural milieu the are born into?

Check out the By Proportion section at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

I've posted these statistics several times on this forum and I've NEVER heard any explanation from Christians, let alone an explanation that reasonably argues for free will in the decision to adopt a religion.

The way in which one came to know certain theology doesn't necessarily say anything about the truth of that theology, in claiming so one commits a genetic fallacy. Just because certain theists cannot explain why God would allow this kind of geological distribution of religions doesn't mean that there is no explanation. I think you make a good point about the free will in the decision to pick a religion though.

Essentially you are just asking questions ('why does God mostly reveal himself to those born in Christian countries?' and so forth), while you should be making actual arguments. Just because Christians can't answer these questions doesn't mean that there are no answers. Similarly, we cannot at this point answer some theistic questions like 'how did the laws of physics come to be?' or 'how was life formed?', but that does not mean there are no natural answers to these questions.

[woodpen]

It's quite simple: No Book=No God.

[otseng]

Then to finish off this crap of a post

Moderator Comment

Please avoid all profanity, even if you consider it to be mild.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

All I can point to is that children know of god's due to being told about them. I don't know of any experience where a child experienced a god that they previously did not know about.

Due to this observation, I can conclude that god experiences seem to be a result of indoctrination.

Non sequitur, your observation is consistent with your conclusion, but does not substantiate it at all.

It does as far as I am concerned, but only because I personally know of hundreds of these scenarios and not one that shows otherwise.

Again, I am open to any evidence you have to suggest I am wrong here.

Let me get this right now, your claim 'god experiences are a result of indoctrination' is substantiated by 'no-one has showed otherwise'. Do atheists have a monopoly of shifting the burden of proof?

I am open to any evidence to suggest that you are right, unfortunately you haven't provided any, just the claim.

I was very clear about "my" observations and what it would take to change "my" mind about "my" observations. You even agreed that my observations are consistent with the conclusion.

I am also not pointing to "no one has shown me otherwise" as evidence. Granted, this is a fact. I am pointing to 100's of scenarios where people had god experiences from gods they were already indoctrinated to believe in, and never once (so far) a scenario where someone had a god experience about a god they did not already believe to be real.

I'm sorry, but your complaints cannot make my observations go away.

I'm still open to any observations you have that would suggest otherwise.
And finally, I'm not an atheists.

[instantc]

I was very clear about "my" observations and what it would take to change "my" mind about "my" observations. You even agreed that my observations are consistent with the conclusion.

Fair enough, your observations convince you intuitionally, even though they cannot objectively substantiate your conclusion.

I am pointing to 100's of scenarios where people had god experiences from gods they were already indoctrinated to believe in, and never once (so far) a scenario where someone had a god experience about a god they did not already believe to be real.

Granted, people seem to have God experiences after they have already been educated in the relevant theology. What is your point exactly? How is this related to the question whether or not the experiences are real?