.

[_Runtu]

I choose to believe that certain experiences I have had came from God. Could I find some other rational explanation? Sure, but I choose not to. For whatever reason, those experiences have deep meaning for me, and I can't just wave them off as wishful thinking.

[_Scottie]

I choose to believe that certain experiences I have had came from God. Could I find some other rational explanation? Sure, but I choose not to. For whatever reason, those experiences have deep meaning for me, and I can't just wave them off as wishful thinking.

When you say God, you mean the Mormon God Elohim?

[_Valorius]

I wouldn't say it was the "logical arguments of intellectuals". There are intellectuals with persuasive logical arguments. The arguments that convince me are logical, but the presentations I have read and heard were only occasionally by those I would label as "intellectuals". Most considered themselves theologians or philosophers. The arguments of Scholastic Metaphysics convince me even today, of certain qualities of God. They certainly convince me of the necessity and obviousness of God. Piggy-backing on that are my own perspicacity and experiences. My experiences on their own, I would over-analyze. As it is, even combined with my other-derived understanding, I question the first-hand experiences. Oddly, I seem to give more credit to the experiences of others, especially in near-death experiences, than to my own first-hand experiences.

Besides reasoned arguments and metanatural experiences, in seeking to understand the cohesiveness of existence, and the as yet uncollapsed harmony of the spheres, I find a third convincing subject for the Why of my belief in God, namely, that inherent cohesiveness and that uncollapsed, and apparently uncollapsable, harmony.

[_Mephitus]

The only real sin is taking life too seriously.

"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men."

A phrase that has become about as close to a life code anything else in my life. Along with: http://xkcd.com/150/

Hense why i rarely post anything particularly serious here any more. I find the back and forth amusing though to still lurk.

[_Quasimodo]

This board is board is skewed towards Atheist/Skeptic types, and that tends to create a hostile environment for Theists of any stripe. This board struggles with trying to keep Ms. Jack and Smith somewhat active here, because it’s comments like yours (you know, the humor that insinuates that they are dumb) that make them question why they bother to post here. As of right now, we (non-theist types) have three common types to engage with, we get to choose between:

A) Getting trolled by BCSpace with his absurd certainty about anything to do with politics or religion.

B) Going to the ER, because we tried arguing with Simon and subsequently bashed our heads against a wall.

Or

C) Dealing with such charming figures like Yahoo Bot and Pahoran, and frankly, my pug leaves better coils of personality on the lawn.

Ezias started an interesting thread that let’s believers outside of TBMs (a group that is almost totally absent by the way) opine about their beliefs and justifications. I’d like to give some people a chance to open up some and talk about their faith, before the majority of us start telling them how irrational and silly they are.

You've scored a point.

My comment was just off the top of my head (an off hand joke) and I can see now that it might have been offensive to some. That was not my intent. That's the reason I posed it as a question.

The way Ezias qualified his poll struck me as very funny and I just reacted to that.

My apologies.

[_Mephitus]

Personaly atheist. I find the entire thinking behind why people argue that there is a god entirely within the realm of human mental limits trying to magic away science not yet known. Its far too easy to say XYZ that we don't know = god did it. I find the majesty of discovery much too cool to try and limit what i think the universe can show me.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1128/326 ... 6000_o.jpg

Im too awed by reality to be awed by things that people can't adequately explain, or try to set outside of knowable existance.

[_Runtu]

When you say God, you mean the Mormon God Elohim?

If I did, I would most likely still be an active LDS member, wouldn't I?

[_Chap]

When you say God, you mean the Mormon God Elohim?

If I did, I would most likely still be an active LDS member, wouldn't I?

Through the mysterious spiritual communion that knits all atheists, living and departed, into one mystical body, I think I get what Scottie is pointing at (apologies in advance if this is a misreading)

Why, if people on this board believe in religious stuff, is it assumed that it will be some variant of the deity of the Abrahamic religions - which is, of course, what almost everybody in a western country means when they say the G word? This 'God' entity is talked about as if the only problematic thing about it was whether one chooses to believe it is real, or not.

Why could the source of their said-to-be-ineffable experiences not be Thoth, or Marduk, or Dionysus, or Alaunus, or Erzulie? Or some entity as yet entirely unsuspected by any human religion so far? Why is the only choice in the restaurant between 'with Yahweh or some variant thereof' or 'without Yahweh'?

As i suggested in an earlier post, this points to the fact that the Abrahamic deity just happens to be the one that most children in the USA catch from their parents. In a Buddhist country the 'God/nonGod' problem is not really there at all in the sense we are being asked to confront it here. Does that not seem to demand a bit of a rethink of what is really being asked in questions like the OP?

[_Runtu]

Through the mysterious spiritual communion that knits all atheists, living and departed, into one mystical body, I think I get what Scottie is pointing at (apologies in advance if this is a misreading)

Why, if people on this board believe in religious stuff, is it assumed that it will be some variant of the deity of the Abrahamic religions - which is, of course, what almost everybody in a western country means when they say the G word? This 'God' entity is talked about as if the only problematic thing about it was whether one chooses to believe it is real, or not.

Why could the source of their said-to-be-ineffable experiences not be Thoth, or Marduk, or Dionysus, or Alaunus, or Erzulie? Or some entity as yet entirely unsuspected by any human religion so far? Why is the only choice in the restaurant between 'with Yahweh or some variant thereof' or 'without Yahweh'?

As i suggested in an earlier post, this points to the fact that the Abrahamic deity just happens to be the one that most children in the USA catch from their parents. In a Buddhist country the 'God/nonGod' problem is not really there at all in the sense we are being asked to confront it here. Does that not seem to demand a bit of a rethink of what is really being asked in questions like the OP?

I should clarify. I don't really hold to any particular dogma, but I choose to believe in something beyond myself, God, if you will. I can think of a million rational reasons not to believe in a higher power, but I choose to believe anyway.

[_Aristotle Smith]

stak,

I just remembered that I was pretty familiar with the arguments of philosophy of religion vis-a-vis existence and non-existence of God and the problem of evil. I was also familiar with the problems of trying to solve the problem of evil through the Bible from Ehrman's "God's Problem."

I don't know if you care, but I thought I add that for completeness. I have a hard time remembering when I studied certain topics.