SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Achronos]

And I said that I believe that our experiences are usually generally reliable. If I didn't believe so, life wouldn't be worth living.

And I said that you have no grounds to believe this, which is fine, but don't pretend that it's a logical position to hold.  You keep rambling on and on about how materialistic atheism is somehow a logical and reasonable conclusion, when it is anything but.  Yes, it's an axiom, but that does not excuse it from being a faith position.

How are our brains random? A stimuli happens. My brain responds. That's not random.

Materialism says that life is the product of random, unguided processes.  This would include the neurological structure of the brain, i.e. how the brain works.  If you deny this, then what do you propose in its place?

Thanks, I'm glad my logic astounds you with its brilliance.

LOL!

I wouldn't call axioms "faith positions", but call them whatever you want, as long as you realize how necessary they are.

If it quacks like a duck...

But yet he does, assuming he exists and all.

As far as suffering goes, though it’s hard to imagine why God would let it happen, my point was that we can always turn to the cross and see that at least God has become part of it, rather than ignore it. This gives Christians hope that somehow, he is working everything into good, even if we don’t understand it.  If a cathedral is bombed, you can still find hints of its original beauty.  Suffering is a very important concept that needs to be dealt with.  The universe doesn’t show a one-sided, unmitigated picture of how things are, total suffering or total joy, etc., so in and of itself, this is not an argument against God, per se, considering we have positive evidence for God.  But the question is, do we have sufficient evidence to trust God in the midst of a universe that has ragged edges.  And that’s what brings us to the cross.  God has come into our world, and taken part in human suffering, and this gives us enough to trust him.

AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. You are ignoring what I'm saying.

I'm not ignoring anything.  You're just not saying anything...

Most people in your religion believe it, actually. Of course, I keep forgetting you don't believe the basis of your religion.

It's not the only thing you apparently keep forgetting. The Orthodox do not believe in this notion of Original Sin and Atonement that you think we do.  It's not the basis for anything in our faith.

Do you not even believe in the story of Jesus then?

What on earth are you talking about?

Sandwich is not amused.

Not my job to amuse you.

[LegendarySandwich]

And I said that I believe that our experiences are usually generally reliable. If I didn't believe so, life wouldn't be worth living.

And I said that you have no grounds to believe this, which is fine, but don't pretend that it's a logical position to hold.  You keep rambling on and on about how materialistic atheism is somehow a logical and reasonable conclusion, when it is anything but.  Yes, it's an axiom, but that does not excuse it from being a faith position.

Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

How are our brains random? A stimuli happens. My brain responds. That's not random.

Materialism says that life is the product of random, unguided processes. This would include the neurological structure of the brain, i.e. how the brain works.  If you deny this, then what do you propose in its place?

You mean evolution? That's not random. And even if our brains are a result of random processes, this does not make them random themselves.

Thanks, I'm glad my logic astounds you with its brilliance.

LOL!

Yes, the truth can be quite hilarious.

I wouldn't call axioms "faith positions", but call them whatever you want, as long as you realize how necessary they are.

If it quacks like a duck...

Like I said, call them what you will, but they aren't illogical.

But yet he does, assuming he exists and all.

Blah blah blah I have faith blah blah blah considering we have positive evidence for God blah blah blah God is good blah blah blah.

Whoa, wait a second -- positive evidence for God? Care to share some of this "evidence"?

AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. You are ignoring what I'm saying.

I'm not ignoring anything.  You're just not saying anything...

I'm saying that God didn't have to make things the way they are. Why is not having free will bad?

Most people in your religion believe it, actually. Of course, I keep forgetting you don't believe the basis of your religion.

It's not the only thing you apparently keep forgetting. The Orthodox do not believe in this notion of Original Sin and Atonement that you think we do.  It's not the basis for anything in our faith.

Ah, okay.

Do you not even believe in the story of Jesus then?

What on earth are you talking about?

Why did Jesus have to die, if not to correct original sin?

Sandwich is not amused.

Not my job to amuse you.

Then what the hell am I paying you for?

...Oh, right. I don't pay you. It's not your job to do anything at this forum.

[Inevitable Droid]

Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

ACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

At this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.  
   
The above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

[LegendarySandwich]

Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

ACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

At this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.  
   
The above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

I see what you're saying, and I agree.

One point I really want to make that I haven't seen an atheist make before is that God could make the universe in any way he wanted. They say that suffering is necessary because without it, we wouldn't have free will, and without free will, there is no love. Why is it like this? Because God made it so.

[Achronos]

Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

Which response are you referring to?  Had you presented any sort of reasonable argument in your childish diatribe against what you think Orthodox Christians believe (which I'm still baffled by, considering how much effort I have put to correct you)I could've responded with much less sarcasm.  But alas, such was not the case.

ACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

My faith in Christ is logical and rational, not because it's axiomatic, but because it's the fruit of historical inquiry, philosophy, scientific inquiry and personal experience; i.e. the way everyone comes to conclusions about anything.

At this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.

Do you live on a farm?  Because the endless amount of straw you seem to have available for these caricatures of yours is remarkable!

Let me know when you're actually ready and willing to engage serious ideas.

The above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

I love chess. But truly, how do you expect to converse with someone when you're so unwilling to understand where they're coming from?  I've mentioned it in almost every single post, and you never address it, but seriously, I'm shocked at what you still think Orthodox Christians believe.  Do you realize you've not once provided a response to anything I actually believe? Tell me how this supposed conversation you want to have is supposed to happen under these circumstances?  Because I am obviously willing to engage you and yet you keep these ramblings that have absolutely no bearing on what anything I say.  Forgive me if I find it tiring...

[LegendarySandwich]

Achronos is playing chess with your responses.  Sometimes he flanks and sometimes he makes a full-on assault.  I'll pretend a full-on assault in this case to illustrate.

Which response are you referring to?  Had you presented any sort of reasonable argument in your childish diatribe against what you think Orthodox Christians believe (which I'm still baffled by, considering how much effort I have put to correct you)I could've responded with much less sarcasm.  But alas, such was not the case.

ACHRONOS: Jesus Christ is axiomatic for me.  He is necessary for my happiness and my salvation.  My faith in Him is therefore logical and rational.

My faith in Christ is logical and rational, not because it's axiomatic, but because it's the fruit of historical inquiry, philosophy, scientific inquiry and personal experience; i.e. the way everyone comes to conclusions about anything.

At this point your head (if it's like mine) explodes.

The problem with the above imaginary response is that it treats the word necessary differently from how you meant it.  When you said necessary you meant absolutely necessary, such that, without certain axioms life could not in any sense proceed, because all motion, all decision-making, all strategic or logistical thought would be paralysed.  To seriously and comprehensively question the validity of logical empiricism leads inexorably to complete paralysis.  That's what you meant when you said necessary.  Call it strong necessity.  But in the chess game, your word will be warped so as to imply, instead, weak necessity, of the sort that could include, say, comic books as necessary for the happiness of the comic book fanatic, or the sacrament of baptism as necessary for salvation.

Do you live on a farm?  Because the endless amount of straw you seem to have available for these caricatures of yours is remarkable!

Let me know when you're actually ready and willing to engage serious ideas.

The above illustrates why I no longer engage directly with Achronos.  It's pointless.  He isn't really conversing.  He's playing chess.

I love chess. But truly, how do you expect to converse with someone when you're so unwilling to understand where they're coming from?  I've mentioned it in almost every single post, and you never address it, but seriously, I'm shocked at what you still think Orthodox Christians believe.  Do you realize you've not once provided a response to anything I actually believe? Tell me how this supposed conversation you want to have is supposed to happen under these circumstances?  Because I am obviously willing to engage you and yet you keep these ramblings that have absolutely no bearing on what anything I say.  Forgive me if I find it tiring...

Once again, you seem so keen on showing that you have no individual thoughts of your own. I guess you don't want the Devil to take over your brain because, you know, that's what will happen if you start to think.

I'm ready to keep going on if you respond to my post.

[Achronos]

Axioms are completely logical. They may be "faith" positions, but, like I've already said like, three times, they're completely necessary, which makes them logical and rational. Stop trying to say they aren't. They are.

What I'm addressing is the double standard materialists have. You said earlier that religious experiences are basically the brain playing tricks on you, and materialists will outright reject the experiences of people who believe in God because they don't think they're trustworthy. I'm applying the logic right back on you in the sense that you have no reason to trust your experiences anymore than a believer's experience of God.

In large part, I'm actually agreeing with you. We have to start somewhere. My point is that you're in no position to assert that the religious experiences of people aren't something to be trusted. You're in no position to scoff at people for believing in Jesus Christ because they claim to have had a genuine experience of him.

I follow what is known as the Principle of Credulity:  It is rational to accept what experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  We accept what experience tells us in the absence of special reasons not to.

Blah blah blah I have faith blah blah blah considering we have positive evidence for God blah blah blah God is good blah blah blah.

And you wonder why I find it tiresome interacting with you...

Whoa, wait a second -- positive evidence for God? Care to share some of this "evidence"?

I did. I forgot the thread, but you'll find my resurrection post which never got "debunked"; bascially I was saying the only logical conclusion we have as of now i that the Ressurection of Christ did occur.

I'm saying that God didn't have to make things the way they are. Why is not having free will bad?

Because love is not possible without it.

It's not the only thing you apparently keep forgetting. The Orthodox do not believe in this notion of Original Sin and Atonement that you think we do.  It's not the basis for anything in our faith.

Ah, okay.

Still waiting for this to be addressed...

Why did Jesus have to die, if not to correct original sin?

To defeat death. Orthodox Christians do not believe in the imputation of "original sin."  We are only accountable for our own sins.  But that's beside the point.

[Achronos]

Sandwich, I am not sure why you spend so much time debating with Achronos. Based on his statement that you refer to in your footer it seems apparant that Achronos does not think as he believes that thinking is an affliction of the devil. He is purley based on faith. If you want to know what he thinks read the bible and then read some transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church.
If you want to open up Achronos's mind you would have to get your ideas published in the bible or the transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church. Achronos does not afford himself the luxioury of thinking.

He seems very intelligent however his logic seems illogical. I like that he tries to introduce the concept that logic and reasoning are simply beliefs, however I don't agree on this. I do get a bit frustrated with regards to my conversations with him because his responses with regards to his stance do often get mixed up with the stance of his Orthodoxy. I would like to view him as an individual but he does not afford me that luxioury.

I was surprised with regards to his stance on thinking so have posted something that I was hoping would get a reaction, I was hoping he would backtrack and suggest that he does engage his own brain towards thinking things through rather than strictly adhere to what he is told by his spiritual advisors. I am sure he is a thinker so maybe he has a little bit of devil in him.

If he doesn't think then it seems to be a waste of god's gift (his intellect and reasoning capacity) to him.

And the caricatures continue...

[LegendarySandwich]

What I'm addressing is the double standard materialists have. You said earlier that religious experiences are basically the brain playing tricks on you, and materialists will outright reject the experiences of people who believe in God because they don't think they're trustworthy. I'm applying the logic right back on you in the sense that you have no reason to trust your experiences anymore than a believer's experience of God.

In large part, I'm actually agreeing with you. We have to start somewhere. My point is that you're in no position to assert that the religious experiences of people aren't something to be trusted. You're in no position to scoff at people for believing in Jesus Christ because they claim to have had a genuine experience of him.

I follow what is known as the Principle of Credulity:  It is rational to accept what experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  We accept what experience tells us in the absence of special reasons not to.

And now I'm going to attempt to bring this back on you. Do you accept the religious experiences people of other religions claim to have as true? Do you accept the extra-terrestrial experiences people claim to have as true?

I actually agree with your last paragraph. I think the reason "It's been proven how easy this stuff is to make up and it's batshit crazy" is a good enough reason to distrust them, not to mention the lack of evidence.

And you wonder why I find it tiresome interacting with you...

Same for you, buddy.

I did. I forgot the thread, but you'll find my resurrection post which never got "debunked"; bascially I was saying the only logical conclusion we have as of now i that the Ressurection of Christ did occur.

Ugh, the Jesus story debate. I don't want to even get into that.

Because love is not possible without it.

Why? Who made this the way it is?

Still waiting for this to be addressed...

I acknowledged that I did not know this, and so I withdraw my original argument.

To defeat death. Orthodox Christians do not believe in the imputation of "original sin."  We are only accountable for our own sins.  But that's beside the point.

To defeat death? Huh? Care to elaborate?

[Inevitable Droid]

What I'm addressing is the double standard materialists have. You said earlier that religious experiences are basically the brain playing tricks on you, and materialists will outright reject the experiences of people who believe in God because they don't think they're trustworthy. I'm applying the logic right back on you in the sense that you have no reason to trust your experiences anymore than a believer's experience of God.

In this case Achronos employed a different full-on attack than the one I suggested he might, but he used the same essential tactic.  When you or I say experiences we mean, "information gleaned from the senses."   In the quote above, Achronos is using the same word, experiences, but he doesn't mean information gleaned from the senses.  He means information gleaned from emotion and intuition.  He may mention logic, but logic needs premises, and religious premises come from emotion and intuition, either one's own or someone else's.  You and I reject out of hand any notion that emotion or intuition provide data, as they can only suggest hypotheses to be tested by the senses - and Achronos knows we reject that notion out of hand because atheists have been telling him that from day one.  What the senses cannot detect isn't knowledge.  This isn't some weird arbitrary stance you and I (and others) take.  Emotion and intuition provide questions, not answers.  I love questions.  You probably do too.  But answers about reality come only from the senses.  Achronos thinks otherwise and therein lies the epistemological divide that can never be bridged.  All we can do is keep lobbing grenades at one another.  Our grenades say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.      

Now sometimes he'll employ a flanking maneuver, and start talking about the history, tradition, and authority of his church, but if we press him hard enough for what these ultimately rest on, he'll answer that they're based on religious experiences, by which he means, emotion and intuition, since he can't possibly mean the senses.  He accepts the history, tradition, and authority of his church because of his own emotional and intuitive experiences, and those of his advisors, and those of a long line of people stretching backwards two thousand years into the past, all of which he considers to be evidence, and none of which you and I consider to be evidence, because none of it is derived from the senses, and only the senses provide evidence.  Once again, we lob grenades over the divide.  Ours say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

So then we say, "Wait a minute, Muslims have religious experiences too!  Why should we believe yours and not theirs?"  He scoffs at this, of course, because, unlike us, he considers emotion and intuition to be sources of answers rather than questions, and, of course, answers can be true or false.  For him, then, it is perfectly appropriate for his emotions and intuitions, his answers, to be true, while a Muslim's emotions and intuitions, a Muslim's answers, are false, and not just a Muslim's, but a Jew's also, and not just theirs, but a Catholic's or Protestant's, even a Catholic's or Protestant's, fellow Christians though they are.  This is ludicrous to you and me, because, where reality is concerned, we deem the senses to be the sole arbiters of what is true and what is false.  Once again, we lob grenades over the divide.  Ours say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

The above three paragraphs summarize pages and pages of going back and forth and round and round.  No resolution is available.  He won't accept the senses as the sole arbiters of truth or falsehood about reality, and we won't accept anything other than that.  The divide remains tall and thick and insurmountable and will remain so forever.

[Stevil]

Great breakdown Inevitible Droid

I would be OK with it if it were simply an epistemological divide, however my intuition tells me that although we have been honest and sincere with regards to our discussions, Achronos is using us to practice and perfect his ability to deceive.

He is perfecting this art at the expense of our time spent in dialogue with him. His goal in deception is to create confusion. Confusion is a powerful and dangerous marketing and recruitment tool. I feel this behaviour is dispicable and I am annoyed and I do not like to see Achronos doing it to other members of this forum.

Droid - do you think I am off the mark here?

[Achronos]

And now I'm going to attempt to bring this back on you. Do you accept the religious experiences people of other religions claim to have as true? Do you accept the extra-terrestrial experiences people claim to have as true?

I accept what a person's experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  Perhaps some examples might help...

Suppose it seems to you that you are looking at a tree.  Your visual experience indicates as much.  Is it rational for you to believe that there is indeed a tree before you?  Under normal circumstances, the answer is yes, of course.  But let's consider two other circumstances.  First, you have been wandering around a desert for days on end, with no water.  You are severely dehydrated.  You have a visual experience that seems to be a refreshing pool of water surrounded by trees.  In this circumstance, you have a good reason to doubt what your visual experience is communicating to you.  You're likely hallucinating.

Second, suppose you see a tree running.  You know trees don't run.  This is absurd.  You have a good reason to believe your visual experience is false.

In the first example, even though you wouldn't question seeing trees and water under normal circumstances, the special circumstances change everything.  In the second example, apart from the circumstances in question, you have a good reason to doubt your visual experience, because you know trees don't run.

The Principle of Credulity tells us, essentially, to give the benefit of the doubt to our experience in the sense of direct awareness.  We accept what our experience tells us when there aren't any good reasons to think otherwise.

When it comes to the religious experience of other people or alien encounters, I'm not willing to make blanket statements so I'd have to look into the details of each case.

Ugh, the Jesus story debate. I don't want to even get into that.

That's fine, we don't have to.  You asked me a question and I answered it.  Isn't that how this works?

I acknowledged that I did not know this, and so I withdraw my original argument.

Fair enough.

To defeat death? Huh? Care to elaborate?

Romans 6:9: "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him."

1 Corinthians 15: "20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

[LegendarySandwich]

And now I'm going to attempt to bring this back on you. Do you accept the religious experiences people of other religions claim to have as true? Do you accept the extra-terrestrial experiences people claim to have as true?

I accept what a person's experience indicates unless special reasons apply.  Perhaps some examples might help...

Suppose it seems to you that you are looking at a tree.  Your visual experience indicates as much.  Is it rational for you to believe that there is indeed a tree before you?  Under normal circumstances, the answer is yes, of course.  But let's consider two other circumstances.  First, you have been wandering around a desert for days on end, with no water.  You are severely dehydrated.  You have a visual experience that seems to be a refreshing pool of water surrounded by trees.  In this circumstance, you have a good reason to doubt what your visual experience is communicating to you.  You're likely hallucinating.

Second, suppose you see a tree running.  You know trees don't run.  This is absurd.  You have a good reason to believe your visual experience is false.

In the first example, even though you wouldn't question seeing trees and water under normal circumstances, the special circumstances change everything.  In the second example, apart from the circumstances in question, you have a good reason to doubt your visual experience, because you know trees don't run.

The Principle of Credulity tells us, essentially, to give the benefit of the doubt to our experience in the sense of direct awareness.  We accept what our experience tells us when there aren't any good reasons to think otherwise.

When it comes to the religious experience of other people or alien encounters, I'm not willing to make blanket statements so I'd have to look into the details of each case.

That is all good, and I agree. The problem is, religious experiences aren't just limited to your religion alone; in fact, they're not just limited to religion, but to a whole wide range of crazy things I assume you don't believe. I choose to remain skeptical regarding these types of experiences.

Ugh, the Jesus story debate. I don't want to even get into that.

That's fine, we don't have to.  You asked me a question and I answered it.  Isn't that how this works?

Yes, although I don't accept it.

To defeat death? Huh? Care to elaborate?

Romans 6:9: "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him."

1 Corinthians 15: "20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Throwing some scripture at me doesn't help. Pretend I'm a member of your Bible study or something. What does that mean?

[Achronos]

In this case Achronos employed a different full-on attack than the one I suggested he might, but he used the same essential tactic.  When you or I say experiences we mean, "information gleaned from the senses."   In the quote above, Achronos is using the same word, experiences, but he doesn't mean information gleaned from the senses.  He means information gleaned from emotion and intuition.

I mean your definition, actually.  Perhaps emotion and intuition can play important roles at times, but that's not what I'm talking about.

He may mention logic, but logic needs premises, and religious premises come from emotion and intuition, either one's own or someone else's.  You and I reject out of hand any notion that emotion or intuition provide data, as they can only suggest hypotheses to be tested by the senses - and Achronos knows we reject that notion out of hand because atheists have been telling him that from day one.

Good, we're on the same page then.

What the senses cannot detect isn't knowledge.  This isn't some weird arbitrary stance you and I (and others) take.  Emotion and intuition provide questions, not answers.  I love questions.  You probably do too.  But answers about reality come only from the senses.  Achronos thinks otherwise and therein lies the epistemological divide that can never be bridged.  All we can do is keep lobbing grenades at one another.  Our grenades say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

I'm not sure what I said that indicated emotion and intuition was what I meant, but I assure you, it wasn't.

Now sometimes he'll employ a flanking maneuver, and start talking about the history, tradition, and authority of his church, but if we press him hard enough for what these ultimately rest on, he'll answer that they're based on religious experiences, by which he means, emotion and intuition, since he can't possibly mean the senses.

Actually, when you press me I write a lengthy summation to which you reply (or lackof), "I got nothing, I agree..." and then say, "Ugh, I don't want to talk about that."  I'm not really sure what you want...

He accepts the history, tradition, and authority of his church because of his own emotional and intuitive experiences,

I'm not quite sure what that would look like, but again, it's quite simply not the case.

and those of his advisors, and those of a long line of people stretching backwards two thousand years into the past, all of which he considers to be evidence, and none of which you and I consider to be evidence, because none of it is derived from the senses, and only the senses provide evidence.

I don't fully agree with you here about sense perception (surprise!) but the only thing I've provided as evidence is history, philosophy, science and personal experience.

So then we say, "Wait a minute, Muslims have religious experiences too!  Why should we believe yours and not theirs?"

You shouldn't believe anyone's.  You should believe your own.  The invitation of Orthodoxy is to come and see for yourself.  Don't rely on my experience or anyone else's if you don't want to.

He scoffs at this,

I'm having trouble remembering when and where I did this.  Care to provide a quote?

because, unlike us, he considers emotion and intuition to be sources of answers rather than questions, and, of course, answers can be true or false.  For him, then, it is perfectly appropriate for his emotions and intuitions, his answers, to be true, while a Muslim's emotions and intuitions, a Muslim's answers, are false, and not just a Muslim's, but a Jew's also, and not just theirs, but a Catholic's or Protestant's, even a Catholic's or Protestant's, fellow Christians though they are.  This is ludicrous to you and me, because, where reality is concerned, we deem the senses to be the sole arbiters of what is true and what is false.  Once again, we lob grenades over the divide.  Ours say, "Senses!"  His say, "Emotion and intuition!"  And so it goes.

The above three paragraphs summarize pages and pages of going back and forth and round and round.  No resolution is available.  He won't accept the senses as the sole arbiters of truth or falsehood about reality, and we won't accept anything other than that.  The divide remains tall and thick and insurmountable and will remain so forever.

Well, at least we now know why we've been talking past each other!  And, much to everyone's surprise, the answer is yet again your inability to understand what anyone is really saying.  At what point, anywhere on this message board, did I ever say anything about a Muslim or Jewish, Catholic or Protestant person's religious experience?  When did I ever tell you that by experience I meant "emotion and intuition"?  The divide remains tall and thick because your cherished "debunk thinking" all deal with a Christianity that Orthodox Christians do not adhere to, and you don't know how to grapple with anything I've put forward on your own, so you have nothing left to do but continue down the path of assuming you know what I believe and we end up talking in circles.

[LegendarySandwich]

You shouldn't believe anyone's.  You should believe your own.  The invitation of Orthodoxy is to come and see for yourself.  Don't rely on my experience or anyone else's if you don't want to.

I've been a sincere Christian most of my life, and I can honestly say I haven't found God. Even when I believed in that shit I never felt like prayer worked, or I could feel God, or anything like that. I wasn't a Greek Orthodox, so maybe that's the problem according to you, but I don't really feel like trying all the different denominations when I've researched it and safely say with reasonable certainty that Christianity is a bunch of bullshit.