Are Theists Psychics by Default?

Thanks for responding. We've had our differences but I won't be changing you & vice versa. I extend the olive branch but I will still ask a few questions...

Why would this 'sensing' or 'knowing' not be considered psychic activity? I'm a little confused here. I went to dictionary.com and pulled out this definition: sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. Does this definition need refining when it is God and if so how would you word it?

How does God make His presence known without us being able to sense Him? By their own power do you mean we are not equipped with the mechanism to detect and if so then do you have a notion as to how is it done?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems a pretty good definition. But note it says the person has the Sensitivity. There again is the focus on the person having the power to detect the non-physical. It is their power. This is the difference between a psychic and what i have experienced.

I guess i could try to describe it as God having a path of communication directly into ones conscience. Now how can one tell if the prompting of ones conscience comes from God or is just the conscience doing it's own thing.

I will give a personal example. Soon after i had actually accepted the Messiah Jesus as my Redeemer i had a long dream (thinking about it now it probably was on the first night after) in that dream i was reminded of all the times i had said things to others that caused them deep hurt, i relived the moments. But the thing is. At the time when i actually said these things i never had any idea they would cause such hurt, i never felt any regret at the time i said them. My level of my insensitivity astounded me after i had that dream. In the dream as i said the words to the other person i felt their hurt. When i awoke the next day i relived the dreams over in my mind shaking my head and often saying to myself, what a jerk. Now before that night i had no idea that what i had said was wrong. At the time i did it i never felt any remorse nor was i actively trying to hurt the other people. But God had through the dream brought me to the awareness of the things i had said to others that had caused them a lot of emotional pain. Only after tis did i feel remorse for what i had done. I believe God was bring forward in my mind things that i needed to be repentant of. i guess it was a clearing of the books at the start of my relationship with God.

This example was an external entity acting upon my conscience to bring to my attention things that until that time my own conscience had never deemed worthy of bringing to my attention. Up until that time they where non-issues and would have remained so without the outside revelation.

So i believe God has a Means of communication directly to our inner most being that is independent of any physical means of transfer.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a pretty good answer Adstar. However one could interpret the dream to be of a psychic nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: You're right. It is your conscience that tells you what to do. It's no god putting those thoughts in your head. What about the people who believe in a god and your messiah jesus, but say, commit murder? Did god tell them to do that? If a god could send thoughts and ideas into your head, seems to me that you would have the mental capacity to pick the correct lottery numbers, or be a big winner at a casino, or to let you in on the perfect car you should buy. Why are these things hard to do if there's a god out there? It seems like your messiah jesus would make your life stand out in a way that other non-believers don't do. It also seems that god would give you and Sandy the right information about the catholic church.

The word "catholic" is a description that means "to bring everyone together as 'one.' It does not replace or stand for the word "christian." A "catholic" is a type of christian like saying a "Lutheran christian" or a Baptist christian." Get your facts straight. Just because I don't believe in catholic or any type of christianity, you people disgust me with your ignorance.

 

But he didn't say that.

This is not a logical argument. We can have people who listen to earthly authorities, for example, doctors. Then someone can say 'why did you listen to a doctor I know someone who listened to a doctor who said that smoking was not bad for you.

You can't rule out something because of what some people do.

This seems to be based on assumptions I do not see in most religions. Though the people who chant Nah Myo Ho Renge Kwo, they had that kind of religion.

This is also a weak argument. I doubt even Sandy would claim that God is telling her about everything and she is infallible, herself.

Wow. Nice. This kind of disgust would seem more worrisome if your arguments were more logical.

 

Doreen, it is quite common for Christians to claim that God tells them things.

 

I know. You have to give me a bit more so I can understand what you mean.

 

I mean that Medicine Woman was asking valid questions about Adstars claim.

I agree with you that it is a fallacy to assume that some commuication means all communication.
However, it's a valid question to ask, "If there is some, why not more or all?"

In claiming that God tells people things, such as they claim that God gave them a career choice, one must ask why it is always a VAGUE communication that could have been made without the suggestion being made by a divine being.

Most Christian denominations seem to support the claim that God tells people things, so even if you do not see churches claiming God will tell you winning lottery numbers, it's a fallacy to assume that a choice made by a person for which a God is unnecessary, was inspired by a supernatural being.
That said, it's not unrealistic to ask, "If some suggestions help choices, why not give more obvious or productive ones that DO demonstrate the presence of a divine being?"

 

Some of it was statements. Like her opening where she 'agrees' with and says something he did not say.

That's a valid question, but I felt she was arguing, not really asking. Notice the next question where she says what she thinks makes sense for God to do. It is inside a question, but it is a presentation of what she thinks makes sense. So it is both a question and an assertion.

Sure. I mean, her opening set some of the tone for my response. I think real, valid questions can be asked along the lines you are pursuing. I felt in her case it was more rhetorical. And then some of it was simply making a case that I do not think works.

Notice she ends by telling him that people like him disgust her. So there was an opening where she misrepresented his position and an ending with an attack. The middle I took rhetorically. But I absolutely agree with your main point about the questions you are raising.

I simply meant that she is assuming that lottery tickets should be covered by God, along with car choices, and I see no reason to make this assumption. Christians may need to defend the way they describe God as behaving, but this does not mean it is logical for an atheist to make up stuff out of thin air and claim it is logical.

That's a reasonable question. I am not a Christian so I am not going to give my take on it here in this context. But even among Christians I know they do claim to have gotten advice on practical matters. I think they would have a wide variety of answers as to why God doesn't give people the magic bullet info that would convince everyone on earth God existed. But I will leave it to them.

 

*************
M*W: You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and you're trying to derail the thread. Argue the point all you want, but you're wasting your time arguing how I express my opinions.

 

Again, no. If you make claims you cannot back up, it is fair to call you on them. This happens everywhere here in sciforums. Ignore my posts if you like, but it is not derailing a thread to point out where you are not logical or are asserting things that are incorrect. I am not sure why you think your claims or assertions should go by unquestioned while you question and criticize the claims of other people. And by the way, please don't tell me what my motives are. Unless you are a psychic, you really don't know.

 

psychic powers, are just not powers but is actually a gift given by god ,some other forces can be psychic powers from the devil, coz belive me when i say this ,there forces of gud and evil, to think about it how would we know gud from evil , if say a particular person didnt know that stealing was bad so he goes around stealing , does his conciense tell him other wise , or is he just a free spirit.

hey jesus him self walked on water, now tell me what type of power was that, is there a psychic ability that make ppl walk on water, it is a gift given by god.......

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oh by the way did god tell them to commite murder, no coz as a christian one must always be in constant battle with the devil , dont you think that the devil can actually influense ones thought , even drive one crazy, coz theres another realm to this one its called the spiritual realm , and once the spirit of a person is weak it tends to act on the physical.dont you ppl realise that there are other forces out there, which tend to confuse us and get us all caught up in petty things, for i know you atheist belive in a god , so why fight it roll with the flow

 

*************
M*W: Doreen, sweety, get a grip! Anyone can assume what they think their god is like. I used to be a christian and fervently believed in the christian god. I idealized god's existence in my perception, but came to realize he didn't exist at all. It's all a myth. There are no supernatural gods. My understanding and dialog, therefore, emerges from my belief that there are no gods.

You are spending more time evaluating my writing composition than you are discussing the topic.

 

*************
M*W: It's pretty obvious what your motives are.

 

Please follow forum rules and stick to the issues. Thank you.

 

This implies that your writing does not reflect your thinking. Look, all we have here is each other's writing. I read what people write and respond to this. You said things that were incorrect or illogical. I pointed this out. If it wasn't what you meant, fine, you can say this. If it was what you meant, then my post is relevent and has nothing to do with your writing abilities. I assume people mean what they say until they tell me otherwise. We all make mistakes and say or imply things we do not mean, on occasion. I would not hold it against you if you wrote something that misrepresented your opinions. But just as you respond to people's ideas, beliefs and opinions, I am responding to yours.

 

*************
M*W: When I was a christian, I believed there was a devil looming over me to make me sin. It was based on fear. But to get to your point, there are people who thought they heard god tell them to murder their children (Andrea Yates, etc.), who really believed god was talking to them. I guess she lost her battle with the devil, according to you.

There are "other forces out there" if you believe there are. There are gods and devils and angels and demons, if you believe it. What it boils down to, these religious manifestations are simply in your head.

 

*************
M*W: No. You are NOT responding to my ideas, beliefs or opinions, you are responding to the way I presented them. I've been here a long time, and no one else has had this reading comprehension problem (except well, maybe SAM). Since you don't understand what I write when everyone else seems to get it, I suggest you put me on Ignore. There is no point in discussing how I write on this forum. Take it to the linguistics forum, and you can grade my writing over there.

 

Allow me to off topic and say: That was excellently put. One cannot assume anothers motives, even though it's awful tempting (Especially when talking to conspiracy believers). Rather than get upset, it is far more productive to address the issues.

OT: Doreen, MW was not making up athiest views out of thin air.
Sometimes one substitutes one absurdity for another in order to clarify to a claimant that they have stated an absurdity.

For example: Claimant says that God tells him what is right or wrong or tells him what to do.
Opponent then asks if a Flying Flatulent Fungus Fairy tells him what lottery numbers are winners and what to pick.

Although it is a fallacy to assume that because God does not give lottery numbers, there must be no God- that is not the claim or intent of Absurdity Substitution.
The substitution is done to make the claimant THINK about the absurdity in his claims by simple trasnsposing one absurdity with another.