Defining what is God.

[TW Scott]

Only in the minds of those are close minded enough to believe in superstition, the paranormal, and other fantasy. For them, proof is the last thing they want to consider. I hope you won't be offended if I don't read the rest of your post. I almost never read more than the first line or two of yours.

I love how people who won't believe in a damn thing unless it can bonk them over the head can claim to be open minded. Is it open minded to deny the possibility of the supernatural, paranormal, or even the ethereal? No.

 

[SkinWalker]

Ah. But I *don't* deny the possibility of the supernatural. I simply ask for evidence for it from those that claim it is fact. Facts are supported by evidence. Fantasy by imagination. What are your beliefs? Facts or fantasy?

 

[Cris]

TW,

I love how people who won't believe in a damn thing unless it can bonk them over the head can claim to be open minded. Is it open minded to deny the possibility of the supernatural, paranormal, or even the ethereal? No.

As skin says, we are simply looking for evidence for reasons to believe. Now the real issue of close mindedness lies squarely with the theist who is unable to consider anything other than god did it.

You do realize that theists are close-minded, right?

 

[TW Scott]

TW,

As skin says, we are simply looking for evidence for reasons to believe. Now the real issue of close mindedness lies squarely with the theist who is unable to consider anything other than god did it.

You do realize that theists are close-minded, right?

I didn't say some weren't however I can honestly say all atheists are. If you talk to a wide varity of theists you will come to understand your opposition better. Not all believe God it, whatever it is. And just becuase we believe that he did it, whatever it is, does not mean we did not consider other options. You are generalizing, and it is ruining your argument

Now the real problme with 'looking for a reason to believe' is that once you have evidence you cannot believe, you know and there is a difference. Like the difference in believing in the good of mankind and knowing just how much good there is. In the first you are left with hope, patience, and understanding, in the second you become cynical and inappreciative.

 

[Cris]

TW,

I didn't say some weren't however I can honestly say all atheists are.

How so? The atheist simply doesn’t find theist claims credible. Why is that closed-minded?

If you talk to a wide varity of theists you will come to understand your opposition better.

I have for the past 50+ years. Their minds are closed to other possibilities other than their God is the ultimate cause – that is what it means to be a theist. This is the epitome of closed mindedness.

Not all believe God it, whatever it is.

Then they aren’t theists then, are they?

And just becuase we believe that he did it, whatever it is, does not mean we did not consider other options.

How they came to their theist conclusions is irrelevant, the point is that they became theist and hence by definition closed their minds to any other alternative.

You are generalizing, and it is ruining your argument.

My argument is entirely sound. The theist believes a god is the cause of everything and there is no alternative.

 

[TW Scott]

TW,

How so? The atheist simply doesn’t find theist claims credible. Why is that closed-minded?

If you have to ask then you are part of the problem. Do yourself a favor and think on that long and hard.

I have for the past 50+ years. Their minds are closed to other possibilities other than their God is the ultimate cause – that is what it means to be a theist. This is the epitome of closed mindedness.

Really, I dobt you have talked to anyone and actually listened. I am sure you heard but you have failed to even try to understand. Next time try asking them who is responsible for peoples actions, how they think the universe was formed and this time listen, really listen, and make sure you skip the fundamentalists and preachers and talk to lay people.

Then they aren’t theists then, are they?

Obviously you misunderstand what a theist is. A theist believes in God or gods. No neccesarily a particular one. A Catholic Priest is a Theist but so is Hindu Monk, or Norwegian Skald, or Priestess of Aphrodite....

How they came to their theist conclusions is irrelevant, the point is that they became theist and hence by definition closed their minds to any other alternative.

Again, you show your ignorance. How sad. The fact that they honestly consider it invalidates your entire argument.

My argument is entirely sound. The theist believes a god is the cause of everything and there is no alternative.

Your argument is the sound a fool screming to the heaven that he can't be wrong.

 

[lightgigantic]

Branches of knowledge are vindicated through intellectual study. This is not so for religious text (in terms of asserting it's truth). I'm sure you will say it is something 'spiritual', but that is meaningless word which has very vague connotations. If intellectual prowess isn't even required to perceive the truth of whatever it is you claim to be true (still something you've been coy about), then it may only be true because a person wants it to be true - belief/delusion/faith.

to begin with I agree with your statement about the use of the word spiritual
... other than that its not clear on what basis you assert that there is no intellectual study innvolved in religiousity since if you examine the history of philosophy, you can perceive quite easily that well over 50% laid claim to something religious as part of their philosophical outlook

yes but where is the factual basis for the direct perception, that started it all, where is the factual basis for the direct perception, that made someone put pen to paper, to write the book on the subject, you quite clearly dont understand subjective from objective.

obviously they had some experience (ie direct experience) that inspired them to put pen to paper - this is the same way that any pen is put to paper for any other branch of knowledge you care to mention

no, those have a factual basis, yours does'nt.

for this statement to be true you would have to assert beyond a doubt the exact nature of what saintly persons are perceiving when they say they are having a direct experience of god - BTW I am certain you could assert a billion tentative claims (the beauty of tentative claims is that the evidence they rest on is so flexible that th e opposite conclusion can easily be asserted based on the same body of circumstantial evidence - for examples see the responses to your comments below) but they will not help you assert anything beyond a doubt

What! how the f**k do you aquire knowledge, without learning from evidence.

how do you learn from evidence without knowledge???

for instance I will not stand in front of a gun thats about to fire, I have the knowledge that the bullet will kill me, but I was'nt born with this knowledge, I learnt it from evidence formed from my visual and audio senses. (Ie: from the media and books and verbal instruction.)

in other words you learnt knowledge from other sources previosuly that enabled you to successfully examine the evidence at hand - a jungle tribesman bereft of association with any of the trappings of western influence certainly wouldn't respond in the same way - why?

another example, we know the periodic table has gaps, we know( can theorise) that there must be elements, not yet discovered, we know this because of the evidence from the other known elements.

the same jungle tribesman would have even more difficulty with this - before one comes to the point of speculating on the fossil record one most certainly has a foundation of knowledge

we know a person is ill from the evidence, yet we dont have to have knowledge of illnesses.

only if you have knowledge to begin with - if you didn't have knowledge of what the norm for healthy existence was how could you possibly detect an abberation in the form of illness?

lg,

What knowledge? No religion has ever demonstrated they have any knowledge outside of science.

That's the point - demonstration, particularly in terms of knowledge that is quite subtle, is dependant on applied knowledge

in the absence of having applied knowledge, because you are not sufficiently equipped to perceive the demonstration, one will make a judgement based on th e perceived credibility of the person making the claim - I have previously given the eg of albert einstein's discovery press release statement by the royal british astronomy society as an example of an affirmative confirmation .... and your inability to entertain anything as valid that comes from a theistic source is an example of a negative confirmation .... both of which rest firmly on how credibile one perceives the source to be - and such confirmations, negative or affirmative, have no bearing on the knowledge at hand because the person making them is relying on credibility, as opposed to the processes advocated as integral to applied knowledge

There is no demonstration that knowledge is possible through your religious indoctrination processes and hence no incentive to participate in brainwashing.

thus it seems you have a firm determination to rely on credibility, as opposed to applied knowledge

What claims? You are the ones making claims but can’t show they have any truth.

- you have claims regarding the claims by theists don't you?

Ah. But I *don't* deny the possibility of the supernatural. I simply ask for evidence for it from those that claim it is fact. Facts are supported by evidence. Fantasy by imagination. What are your beliefs? Facts or fantasy?

facts are supported by applied knowledge - your fault is that you assume that you have the necessary framework already to understand the claims being made, much like the high school drop out's recalcitrant stance in regard to electrons

 

[geeser]

obviously they had some experience

whether it be imagined or not.

(ie direct experience) that inspired them to put pen to paper.

but how does that experience, differ from imagined experience.

this is the same way that any pen is put to paper for any other branch of knowledge you care to mention

no not the same way sorry, they have a factual objective basis, yours is an imagined subjective basis.

for this statement to be true you would have to assert beyond a doubt the exact nature of what saintly persons are perceiving when they say they are having a direct experience of god

why it is all purely subjective, and would be a complete waste of time, it would be like asking what colour red was to a blind man, he could only give an imagined answer, if any.

- BTW I am certain you could assert a billion tentative claims (the beauty of tentative claims is that the evidence they rest on is so flexible that th e opposite conclusion can easily be asserted based on the same body of circumstantial evidence - for examples see the responses to your comments below) but they will not help you assert anything beyond a doubt

it would be infantile to assert anything beyond a doubt, or claim such, do you see the irony in your statement.

in other words you learnt knowledge from other sources previosuly that enabled you to successfully examine the evidence at hand

how did you learn knowledge from other previous sources, without examining the evidence.

a jungle tribesman bereft of association with any of the trappings of western influence certainly wouldn't respond in the same way

yes of course, but that would only happen once or twice for the rest of the tribe, to gather from the evidence, that guns kill, they would then pass that knowledge on. as is obviously what happened in the past.

only if you have knowledge to begin with - if you didn't have knowledge of what the norm for healthy existence was how could you possibly detect an abberation in the form of illness?

again this would only happen once or twice for people to know by the evidence that illnesses are bad, then they pass that information on, so you have the knowledge now to deal with it, if you wish to learn more you become a frigging doctor.

 

[KennyJC]

to begin with I agree with your statement about the use of the word spiritual
... other than that its not clear on what basis you assert that there is no intellectual study innvolved in religiousity since if you examine the history of philosophy, you can perceive quite easily that well over 50% laid claim to something religious as part of their philosophical outlook

It's clear, because there are reams of intelligent skeptics who are very knowledgable in religious philosophies - this does not make them a 'believer'.

And in anycase, if it was simply a case of knowledge, then there would be little need for faith. So your use of the word 'knowledge' with regards to god, is a red herring. God or no god, we simply have no knowledge either way, no matter what bogus process you or the atheist use to justify their stance.

I believe there isn't a god, you believe there is one... see how it works? You cite 'saintly persons' (that makes me laugh every time) as proof of the existence of god. Why don't I cite notable atheists for god's non existence? I'm not desperate enough to seek authority on the matter, since there is no authority regarding on the subject wether it be saintly person or prominant scientific atheist. The Pope or Richard Dawkins, both equally useless in proving gods existence or non existence.

 

[(Q)]

I love how people who won't believe in a damn thing unless it can bonk them over the head can claim to be open minded. Is it open minded to deny the possibility of the supernatural, paranormal, or even the ethereal? No.

By your own logic, people who do accept the possibility of the supernatural, paranormal and the ethereal MUST do so only if it bonks them over the head, that or else it does only exist in their imaginations.

 

[KennyJC]

Haha! Q, it almost sounds like he is calling us fools for refusing to believe in the non-existant!

 

[Cris]

TW,

How so? The atheist simply doesn’t find theist claims credible. Why is that closed-minded? ”

If you have to ask then you are part of the problem. Do yourself a favor and think on that long and hard.

Please don’t be such a condescending prat.

Really, I dobt you have talked to anyone and actually listened. I am sure you heard but you have failed to even try to understand. Next time try asking them who is responsible for peoples actions, how they think the universe was formed and this time listen, really listen, and make sure you skip the fundamentalists and preachers and talk to lay people.

Gee, you really are an arrogant condescending prat aren’t you. How the heck does a naïve school kid like you think they get away with such arrogant BS?

Obviously you misunderstand what a theist is. A theist believes in God or gods. No neccesarily a particular one. A Catholic Priest is a Theist but so is Hindu Monk, or Norwegian Skald, or Priestess of Aphrodite....

So you can go suck eggs as well.

“ How they came to their theist conclusions is irrelevant, the point is that they became theist and hence by definition closed their minds to any other alternative. ”

Again, you show your ignorance. How sad. The fact that they honestly consider it invalidates your entire argument.

So are you saying that someone who believes a god created the universe will also believe that a god didn’t create the universe. Make up your mind. Once you assert one idea as truth you automatically lock yourself out to alternatives – that is being close minded.

Your argument is the sound a fool screming to the heaven that he can't be wrong.

More condescending and arrogant BS. Stop doing that.

Read what you are saying. It is the theist that asserts the conviction that a god exists and there is no alternative and can’t be wrong. You seem to have your argument totally reversed.

I don’t think you understand atheism either, do you? Try this link so we can begin your education -

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

 

[Cris]

LG,

That's the point - demonstration, particularly in terms of knowledge that is quite subtle, is dependant on applied knowledge

Again, what knowledge?

Your claim is for personal direct perception. No matter how subtle the nature of the fantasy, I’ll ask again, how do you distinguish such a claim from delusion? Remember, there are many in mental institutions who can concoct incredibly complex and subtle fantasies and are convinced they are true. Why are your claims for your religious perspective any different to such delusions?

 

[lightgigantic]

geeser

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
obviously they had some experience
”
whether it be imagined or not.
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(ie direct experience) that inspired them to put pen to paper.
”
but how does that experience, differ from imagined experience.

if an experience can be reproduced (ie if a person accepts a process and receives a result) then it indicates it is not imaginative
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
this is the same way that any pen is put to paper for any other branch of knowledge you care to mention
”
no not the same way sorry, they have a factual objective basis, yours is an imagined subjective basis.

the problem is that you vigourously assert the basis is imaginative yet you don't have an inkling what the process is, much less having applied it

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
for this statement to be true you would have to assert beyond a doubt the exact nature of what saintly persons are perceiving when they say they are having a direct experience of god
”
why it is all purely subjective, and would be a complete waste of time, it would be like asking what colour red was to a blind man, he could only give an imagined answer, if any.

ok then -
for this statement to be acceptable you would have to assert the exact nature of what saintly persons are perceiving when they say they are having a direct experience of god
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
- BTW I am certain you could assert a billion tentative claims (the beauty of tentative claims is that the evidence they rest on is so flexible that th e opposite conclusion can easily be asserted based on the same body of circumstantial evidence - for examples see the responses to your comments below) but they will not help you assert anything beyond a doubt
”
it would be infantile to assert anything beyond a doubt, or claim such, do you see the irony in your statement.

your perceived limits regarding the nature of knowledge reflect the limits of empiricism - but even then , your claims, even if examined empirically, fail.
You have a certain person asserting a certain process for a certain result and you are ignorant of the nature of the person, the nature of the process and the nature of the result and declare the whole thing is imagination

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in other words you learnt knowledge from other sources previosuly that enabled you to successfully examine the evidence at hand
”
how did you learn knowledge from other previous sources, without examining the evidence.

it only appears as evidence, by dint of your fund of knowledge - without knowledge, you don't have the ability to extrapolilate anything from the given evidence
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a jungle tribesman bereft of association with any of the trappings of western influence certainly wouldn't respond in the same way
”
yes of course, but that would only happen once or twice for the rest of the tribe, to gather from the evidence, that guns kill, they would then pass that knowledge on. as is obviously what happened in the past.

correct - after they have acquired knowledge, then the evidence enables a correct understanding

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
only if you have knowledge to begin with - if you didn't have knowledge of what the norm for healthy existence was how could you possibly detect an abberation in the form of illness?
”
again this would only happen once or twice for people to know by the evidence that illnesses are bad, then they pass that information on, so you have the knowledge now to deal with it, if you wish to learn more you become a frigging doctor.

who said anything about a doctor - if you cannot detect the symptoms of bad health (ie you have no knowledge of what it means to be healthy) how does one determine whether another is unhealthy or not - this can be observed, to a degree, amongst young children who's experience is not sufficient enough to determine the well being of others (although existence in a corporeal body makes as a swift teacher regarding the perception of illness)

It still stands - without a foundation in knowledge one has no possibility of perceiving evidence - so your demand that the evidence for spiritual truths be brought before you while you remain bereft of the foundations of knowledge to value them is absurd

what is your response to this evidence ?

 

[lightgigantic]

It's clear, because there are reams of intelligent skeptics who are very knowledgable in religious philosophies - this does not make them a 'believer'.

I agree that logic is and material intelligence is not sufficient to determine the nature of god - obviosuly there is the question of the sincerity of the practioner, which you must admit is likely to be absent in an atheistic scholar.

Actually this is getting off the subject - you were asserting that there is no application of intelligence in religion - I am asserting, that intelligence, while not sufficient, certainly gives a contribution - the evidence is that over 50% of all philosophers include some theistic element as integral to their treatises

And in anycase, if it was simply a case of knowledge, then there would be little need for faith. So your use of the word 'knowledge' with regards to god, is a red herring. God or no god, we simply have no knowledge either way, no matter what bogus process you or the atheist use to justify their stance.

therefore logic is only sufficient to bring one to the point of application of theistic processes (you know, worshipping god by reciting his names with a humble attitude and all that other stuff you just love to think about)

I believe there isn't a god, you believe there is one... see how it works? You cite 'saintly persons' (that makes me laugh every time) as proof of the existence of god.

actually I cite the processes advocated by saintly persons as the means to determine the nature of god - every time you respond like this I resist the urge (not always successfully) to bring up the eg of the high school drop out and the electron (after all, he is also laughing at all those "eggheads")

Why don't I cite notable atheists for god's non existence?

you could try but you would make a buffoon of yourself - no atheist, at least in philosophical circles, takes a positive stance about the non existence of god (not even dawkins) - but rather than me tell you exactly why, offer your evidence and I will show you what I mean

I'm not desperate enough to seek authority on the matter, since there is no authority regarding on the subject wether it be saintly person or prominant scientific atheist

oh come on now, I am sure you could cite some authority, even if its your own

....
the saintly person has the process, which is the missing ingredient from the vehemently athiest's portfolio

The Pope or Richard Dawkins, both equally useless in proving gods existence or non existence.

I have to ask, aside form the pope, how many saintly persons can you name?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

Again, what knowledge?

the knowledge that god exists as the cause of all causes and the ultimate controller and enjoyer, that one is constituitionally an eternal servant of him in all time places and circumstances etc etc - what sort of knowledge do you think?

Your claim is for personal direct perception. No matter how subtle the nature of the fantasy, I’ll ask again, how do you distinguish such a claim from delusion?

By the process - if a certain person of certain qualtiies takes a certain process and gets a certain result ......
(like for instance if someone who understands advanced mathmatics and high school science(the qualities) goes to university and after 4 years (the process) gets a degree that enables them to work in a lab (the result)

and if that certain person (the newly arrived lab technician) instructs a person possessing the same certain qualities (a person with sufficent merit in high school math and science) to also perform the same process (go to uni) and they do so and also get the same result (sufficient qualification to become an apprentice to professional scientific examination)

.....isn't it apparent that it is not delusional?

Remember, there are many in mental institutions who can concoct incredibly complex and subtle fantasies and are convinced they are true. Why are your claims for your religious perspective any different to such delusions?

there are also many persons not skilled in high school mathmatics or posing as scientifically credible despite a lack of qualification - the easiest way to detect them is to determine whether they can deliver the goods or not

-regarding theism, the easiest way to determine whether they are the real McCoy is to see how much they are attracted to the allurements of material life (name, fame adoration, profit distinction, money, wealth, the opposite (or in some cases the same) gender, false prestige etc)
On a more subtle level one can see how their statements tally with scripture (like for instance if a guru states "we are all god and sin is an imagination" it suggests at least a few follow up q's would be in order)

 

[KennyJC]

I agree that logic is and material intelligence is not sufficient to determine the nature of god - obviosuly there is the question of the sincerity of the practioner, which you must admit is likely to be absent in an atheistic scholar.

Sounds like a contradiction. How is someone sincere only if they already have belief, and therefor unconditionally believe what they read? The atheist quite rightly, starts off skeptical, hence isn't going to find anything to go on upon reading the Bible and finding truth in it's farout claims.

Actually this is getting off the subject - you were asserting that there is no application of intelligence in religion - I am asserting, that intelligence, while not sufficient, certainly gives a contribution - the evidence is that over 50% of all philosophers include some theistic element as integral to their treatises

50% is quite a low figure bearing in mind the percentage of theists in the general public. Intelligence wether it be of an extinguised philosopher, or a mindless peasant - if they believe in god, intelligence has nothing to do with it. Especially when high levels of intelligence amongst a general population correlates with a general decline in religiosity.

therefore logic is only sufficient to bring one to the point of application of theistic processes (you know, worshipping god by reciting his names with a humble attitude and all that other stuff you just love to think about)

So prayer and worship are logical pressuming god exists? Yes, why not... It's logical to go on a spending spree because I think I have won the lottery.

actually I cite the processes advocated by saintly persons as the means to determine the nature of god - every time you respond like this I resist the urge (not always successfully) to bring up the eg of the high school drop out and the electron (after all, he is also laughing at all those "eggheads")

Eggheads (science) see's no valid practice involved in processes advocated by 'saintly persons' (HEHEHE). If they did, as a consensus, then it would evoke my interest. I'm sure the processes seem valid to a person who works under the assumption that god is there, but this is a delusion in the first place. People may be impressed by the 'processes' used by expert astrologers, but it's only impressive if you start off with the supersition that the position of the planets/stars has influence on your life. Find a process that will convince skeptics.

The reason why your comparison is false, is that in science, we are all skeptics to new ideas, but are eventually brought around to it if the evidence is there. The only way your saintly person (HEHE) can bring us around is with evidence.

you could try but you would make a buffoon of yourself - no atheist, at least in philosophical circles, takes a positive stance about the non existence of god (not even dawkins) - but rather than me tell you exactly why, offer your evidence and I will show you what I mean

I wouldn't flatter yourself, most atheists put god on an equal footing with the celestial teapot which is as close to saying something doesn't exist as a rational person will go. Conversely, how many theists state positively that god exists? It's rarely in a theists nature to express doubt over gods existence, unless only to inevitably feel the joy of 'finding' god again.

the saintly person has the process, which is the missing ingredient from the vehemently athiest's portfolio

A portfolio on the non-existence of something? Why prove a negative? Atheists only react to those around them forcing their absurd beliefs on society. The only reason we don't bother about invisible pink unicorns, is because it doesn't have billions of believers worldwide. Imagine a world full of believers in something like that, basing their actions on the presumption that it exists?

I have to ask, aside form the pope, how many saintly persons can you name?

You realize if the invisible pink unicorn was the dominant superstition, you would be asking me to name 'experts' in it's field? Why bother naming prominant proponents if it's absurd in the first place?

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I agree that logic is and material intelligence is not sufficient to determine the nature of god - obviosuly there is the question of the sincerity of the practioner, which you must admit is likely to be absent in an atheistic scholar.
”
Explain.

a few para's down from here

“
Actually this is getting off the subject - you were asserting that there is no application of intelligence in religion - I am asserting, that intelligence, while not sufficient, certainly gives a contribution - the evidence is that over 50% of all philosophers include some theistic element as integral to their treatises
”
50% is quite a low figure bearing in mind the percentage of theists in the general public. Intelligence wether it be of an estinguised philosopher, or a mindless peasant - if they believe in god, intelligence has nothing to do with it. Especially when high levels of intelligence amongst a general population correlates with a general decline in religiosity.

over 50% is a majority - and this is still getting off the topic (although feel free to start a thread on this, but this point has been raised several times before) - I am asking on what basis do you say that intelligence has no contribution to play in theistic understanding when many erudite intelligent persons have elaborated upon it?

“
therefore logic is only sufficient to bring one to the point of application of theistic processes (you know, worshipping god by reciting his names with a humble attitude and all that other stuff you just love to think about)
”
So prayer and worship are logical pressuming god exists? Yes, why not... It's logical to go on a spending spree because I think I have won the lottery.

therefore its not practical to apply a process until you have properly arrived there by logic, just like its not appropriate to drive off the ferry until the docking bay bridge is firmly in place (I am sure you can cite a few examples of theists who "took off from the ferry to early")

“
actually I cite the processes advocated by saintly persons as the means to determine the nature of god - every time you respond like this I resist the urge (not always successfully) to bring up the eg of the high school drop out and the electron (after all, he is also laughing at all those "eggheads")
”
Eggheads (science) see's no valid practice involved in processes advocated by 'saintly persons' (HEHEHE).

type one error
there are numerous scientists who displayed a profound respect for saintly persons
the more you try to explain it the more you fulfill the criteria for the high school dropout in the analogy

If they did, as a consensus, then it would evoke my interest.

interesting that you assert whether something is true or not by consensus - if there was a consensus that it was alright to kill all people from a particular class or creed would you also agree to that too?

I'm sure the processes seem valid to a person who works under the assumption that god is there, but this is a delusion in the first place.

you misunderstand - the process actually delivers a result - a direct experience .... that is the claim

People may be impressed by the 'processes' used by expert astrologers, but it's only impressive if you start off with the supersition that the position of the planets/stars has influence on your life. Find a process that will convince skeptics.

what's the point? a skeptic's opinion only bears witness if they have applied the relevant process to determine credibility (like for instance an investigation of the claims of medical malpractice is investigated by medically qualified persons - not fruit vendors - why?)
If one insists on remaining an adamant skeptic (ie does not attempt to apply the process) then nothing much transpires except the back and forth of discussions of logic

The reason why your comparison is false, is that in science, we are all skeptics to new ideas, but are eventually brought around to it if the evidence is there. The only way your saintly person (HEHE) can bring us around is with evidence.

the only difference is that the skeptics in science apply the process to develop a theoretical foundation - like for instance the high school drop out certainly isn't convinced of the electron - why?

“
you could try but you would make a buffoon of yourself - no atheist, at least in philosophical circles, takes a positive stance about the non existence of god (not even dawkins) - but rather than me tell you exactly why, offer your evidence and I will show you what I mean
”
I wouldn't flatter yourself, most atheists put god on an equal footing with the celestial teapot which is as close to saying something doesn't exist as a rational person will go.

yes - its not a positive assertion - only a probability (which they frequently leave the security of when they make bold assertions regarding the nature of existence)

Conversely, how many theists state positively that god exists?

why all of the successful ones of course

It's rarely in a theists nature to express doubt over gods non-existence, unless only to inevitably feel the joy of 'finding' god again.

just like its rare to find a person who goes into a state of absolute anxiety after seeing the sun go behind the horizon, thinking that in a matter of hours the temperature of the earth will drop to sub zero temperatures and life as we know it will be finished

“
the saintly person has the process, which is the missing ingredient from the vehemently athiest's portfolio
”
A portfolio on the non-existence of something? Why prove a negative?

no - the ability to apply the process and get the result

Atheists only react to those around them forcing their absurd beliefs on society.

so thats why you hang out on a religion thread huh?

The only reason we don't bother about invisible pink unicorns, is because it doesn't have billions of believers worldwide.

intelligent move - most people don't think that pink unicorns are god - on th e contary it seems to be the exclusive strawman in possession by atheists (following in the footsteps of Bertrand Russel, although due to his nobility he was more fond of the tea pot)

Imagine a world full of believers in something like that, basing their actions on the presumption that it exists?

yes it would be absurd - but what your strawman (or more precisely the straw man of Mr Russell) lacks is the claim that there are personalities at the point of direct perception and also processes that enable direct perception

“
I have to ask, aside form the pope, how many saintly persons can you name?
”
You realize if the invisible pink unicorn was the dominant superstition, you would be asking me to name 'experts' in it's field? Why bother naming prominant proponents if it's absurd in the first place?

so in other words, including the pope, 1?

maybe I could accept your arguments more readily if you could actually exhibit the symptoms of serious investigation instead of the confidence statements one is likely to encounter from ahigh school drop out's rantings about the non existence of the electron

 

[KennyJC]

you misunderstand - the process actually delivers a result - a direct experience .... that is the claim

Yes, an emotional experience perhaps, amongst the already delusional. When I read details of religion and the suffering of martyrs like Jesus, and what god wants from us, and so on... I confess it stirs up emotions. I can only imagine what it must be like for people who believe this crap in the first place.

And my fundamental point is how do you get agnostic scientists, with an open mind to read details by saintly persons (HEHE) and verify it's truth? They may come away with some respect, interest, provoked emotions... but how is this in any way proof either way of the existence of god? If god doesn't exist, then what does that say for people who have followed this 'process' and believed in god?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I love how people who won't believe in a damn thing unless it can bonk them over the head can claim to be open minded. Is it open minded to deny the possibility of the supernatural, paranormal, or even the ethereal? No.

*************
M*W: Bonk me, please bonk me. Is it open-minded to deny a creator? No way, Jose. There is no "creator" just like there is no "savior." Get a life, dude.