Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:23PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Are you willing to equate the philosophical concept of solopism, that we can not know if we experience red in the same way as others, by saying that "red" is an "imaginary" color?  

It is clear to me that Theists including Christians have different subjective experiences UPG's relating to God.  

Most Christians I know claim the they have a "personal(subjective)relationship with Jesus-God. 

Some will go so far as to say that Chrisitianity is NOT A RELIGION, but a "personal relationship" with Jesus-God.  

What I am very certain of is that Jesus-God cannot be objectively-independently "experienced".  

I might suggest that solipsism is too loaded a word to be used in religious discussions.  The subjective personal experience of God seems to be a necessary part of theism, and as important is faith that the experience was in fact God.  This faith is typically the result of long exposure to a particular mythology of God or in your case Jesus-God.  I have no problems with this except that I also have studied the mythologies and have come to a different conclusion.  I find much that is wrong with the Christian mythology, at least as it related to the modern world, I find less wrong with the Jesus mythology, but obviously don't get to the Jesus-God, just the Jesus man. 

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:23PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Some will go so far as to say that Chrisitianity is NOT A RELIGION, but a "personal relationship" with Jesus-God.  

What I am very certain of is that Jesus-God cannot be objectively-independently "experienced".  

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:54PM, steven_guy wrote:

You know that the Argument from Religious Experience is a particularly weak one and none of the atheists here (and others!) buy it?

I would agree that Atheists here(and others)are not going to "buy" my argument from an Unverifable Person Experiencewith Jesus.    

But then a Christian would not "buy" an Unverifable Personal Gnosis that someone had that did not involve Jesus.   

And I am not trying to "seel" the Arugment from an Unverifable Personal Experince with Jesus. 

I would also add that there are Christian Gnositic who have had Unverifed Person Gnosis. 

Gnosticism comes in different varieties. 

Basically gnosticism is a hidden knowledge based on UPG's- mystical expereinces.   

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:54PM, steven_guy wrote:

 

The serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe, the infamous Yorkshire Ripper, claimed that he had a religious experience in which God told him to murder a lot of women. How valid was his religious experience? Well, how valid is any supposedly religious experience?

I can't verify the subjective, unveriable experience that Peter Sutcliffe had with God. 

It "could" be that he Satan decieved Peter Sutcliffe into "believing" he was being told by God to murder a lot of women.  

What I can verify is the Peter Sutcliffe, the infamous Yorkshire Ripper was "psychiatrists diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia."

Certainly people imagine many things, some of them being good and some are bad. According to the Bible Abraham had a "religious experience" in which God told him to murder his son Isaac.

Mental asylums contain people who imagine and act upon all sorts of things.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:54PM, steven_guy wrote:

You see, the Argument from Religious Experience is not impressive in the slightest. People are sometimes insane, temporarily insane, ill, honestly deluded or they are telling lies. Which was more likely with Sutcliffe? {/quote]

Do you see that the Argument from UPG's   is not impressive in the slightest. People are sometimes insane, temporarily insane, ill, honestly deluded or they are telling lies.

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:54PM, steven_guy wrote:

 Which was more likely with Sutcliffe?

 Did God speak to him or was it more likely that one of the aforementioned reasons was more likely?

A Christian Gnostic would say that it was "more" likely that he had a "personal experince with SATAN.   

Even Christian who is not a gnostic would say that it is very, very, very "unlikely" that he had a "personal experience with God.  

A Christian might also say that he was clinicaly insane and suffering from paranoid schizophenia.  

Believe it or not but there are at least one and perhaps as many as five Christians who are....almost rational and accept that people are mentally ill. 

Jul 20, 2012 -- 7:54PM, steven_guy wrote:

Did God speak to him or was it more likely that one of the aforementioned reasons was more likely?

As I said previously there are very, very,very, very, very,very, few Christians, even slack jawed, inbreed, ultra-conservative-fundamentalist Christians who would say that it is "likely"  that Peter had a "personal experience with Jesus, in which he was told by Jesus to become a serial killer".

It might be as "unlikely-improbable" as winning a million dollar more than once or being hit by lightning and surviving five times. 

I suck at math, so I can't calculate probablities.  

I personally however would agree that it is "more probable" that in the case of Peter Sutcliffe that he did not hear God tell him to be a serial killer. 

And it is "more" likely that he was clinically insane and  suffering from paranoid schizophenia. 

I would also add that very few people who have had unveriable personal experiences with Jesus heard him say that they should become "serial killers."  

 

Jul 21, 2012 -- 7:48AM, Eudaimonist wrote:

Jul 20, 2012 -- 9:25AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.^[1] The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen), composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook').^[2] It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it.

That's how I use the term as well.  I don't see this term as having any intrinsic connection to religion, at least the way the term is used today.  I often describe myself as having a particular worldview, albeit a thoroughly atheistic and naturalistic one.

 

eudaimonia,

Mark

Thanks for speaking up for the possibility of non-religiously based worldviews. :)

I was scratching my head to find a new way to describe the way some people I know think.:)

The Online Dictionary seems to agree that it's possible to have an non-religious worldview.

 world·view  (wûrldvy)

I will note that I don't mean an "atheist worldview", which I've heard used. I might describe some atheists I know as having a rational or humanistic worldview, but wouldn't describe their perspective by what it doesn't include.  

La

Jul 28, 2012 -- 8:39AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Your welcome La Rousse.  It seems to me that it is "self evident" that because Atheists are Atheists that they have a worldview that the world-universe is materialistic. That their worldview is that the world-universe is the result of purely "natural" causes. 

It seems "self-evident" that Atheists discount a a dualist worldview.  They discount the existence of a "super"-natural world-universe.   They discount the superatural worldview that the "natural-materialist" world was caused by anything "supernatural." 

Your second statement is true.  But that is only the starting point for the worldview of an atheist.  Materialism and naturalism may be small and unimportant parts of that world view, but social humanism would generally be the foundation of the world view.  Many individual nuances as there is no supernatural unifier.  But I for one would be comfortable with a social humanist worldview description as a first layer cut. 

Jul 28, 2012 -- 8:39AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

It seems "sndelf-evident" that Atheists discount a a dualist worldview.  They discount the existence of a "super"-natural world-universe.   They discount the superatural worldview that the "natural-materialist" world was caused by anything "supernatural."  

It is a self evident "fact" that there are Atheists and that Atheists have a "materialist-natural" worldview. 

It is also a self evident fact that most if not all Theist are dualist. Dualist have the worldview that there are two worlds-universes.  

And there are some who have they view that both Atheists and Theists are making a false dichotomy.   Although this a a bit tautolgical in my view. 

Jul 29, 2012 -- 4:10AM, Eudaimonist wrote:

None of these things are self-evident to me.  An atheist can be a dualist as long as she doesn't believe in the existence of any deities.

 

 

I understand that it is not "snelfevident" to you. 

But it is "sneflevident" to me that there are Atheists who are not "dualists".

There are Atheists who can beleive in dualism.  There are Buddhists who do not believe in god but who do believe in both the natural and supernatural worldview.   

I am sure that there are other examples of people who are Atheists but who are also have a dualist worldview.   

Most of the Atheists that I know are not dualists.  Therefore there are Atheists who are not dualists.   

If I had said that is seems to me that ALL Atheists are not dualists then I could see your point. 

By defination an Atheist means that you do not believe in the existence of god or gods.   

There are Atheists who are Adualists.     And there are atheists who are dualists.  

Literally by defination an Atheists could "believe" in the myth of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.  But I think it is fair to say that most Atheists do not believe in the myth of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.   I don't know any who do, but it is possible.   Therefore it is snelfevident to me that there are no Atheists that do believe in the myth of Santa Claus and the Easter  Bunny. 

It is more probable that there are Atheists who believe in the existence of a "soul" or "angels" or "demons"  so long as they are not gods-god.     

I guess it is possible that there are Theists who do not believe in dualism, but the vast majority of Theists that I know of and have heard of are dualists.    

 There are also Christian Humanists, Jewish Humanists and even Muslim Humanists. 

They have the worldview that their respective religions are "social"  and are not in conflict with "humanism".