@OP:  Well, there was Mak Thorpe, but he was a very liberal theist.  Seemed to like the idea of God and Jesus without really believing in them, although he did try to tie in a multi-verse quantum physics argument into why humans have souls.

 

I've asked the same question, and after spending more time on theistic forums, I don't think there is anything more than what you see here.  Sure, there are a couple arguments you've not seen pop up here, but you've seen the main ones.  The problem isn't the intelligence of the theists, it is the argument they have to rely on.  From what I've seen there are only a handful of arguments that an intelligent person can rely on.

1. Arguments from personal experience.  A smart person can be overwhelmed by a personal, emotional experience.  The problem is that doesn't help them convince anyone else, and if they are smart they know that.  Luminon (Funny how everyone seems to like Luminon.  Maybe that's his supernatural power).

2. Arguments from pure reason.  If you pick some axioms, you can make a logical argument that is very hard to debunk, and it can easily convince people who agree with you already.  That's the problem though, they aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already have emotional sympathy for theism.  That's the problem with arguments from pure reason.  You've seen variations of this a few times already.

3. Create a personal deity unique to them, and make it so vague that it is difficult to debate it.  You are talking to Cap right now, this is his thing.  David Henson(well, sort of) and Mak Thorpe did the same thing.  Always shifting around, never saying anything concrete that can be falsified.  These people have unique gods.  Part of the problem when trying to show them they're wrong is pinning down exactly what they do believe.

That's pretty much it.  There are tons of other arguments, you see arguments from authority a *lot*, appeals to ignorance a *lot*...those are probably the two largest, but they won't be used by the educated/intelligent theist, at least not in debate.  Well...some intelligent folks will use arguments from ignorance.

Essentially what I'm getting at, is if the Pope himself came onto this forum and started an argument, the above is all you would get.  That's it, the mine is tapped out.

 

I've never seen an argument that would convince an intelligent, objective observer.  Ever.  The only way that objective observer would become an atheist is if overcome by an emotional experience, and they latch onto a deity concept they've been culturally or socially primed to accept.

It is disappointing to me, honestly.  The debates go in the same circles, and you can always tell when the lights go off in the theist.  Push hard/long enough and it always seems to happen, they shut their brains off and start circling the intellectual wagons.

 

Well, I strongly object to the word emotional. I'm not very emotional person, I feel some emotions only ocassionally. I grew up thinking that esoteric stuff is normal, it doesn't raise my emotions. (Social justice can heat me up.) I know personal experiences don't convince other people, this is why I dig into physics and esotericism itself, to find more and more provable parallels between these two.

As for the general principle, do you mean the man who saw a beautiful but perfectly natural waterfall and it made him fell to his knees and accept Jesus to his heart?

I guess that's my Mercury in Aquarius in 7th house (of social relationships), well and strongly aspected. A wonderful thing to make friends among intellectuals, not so wonderful for finding a LTLP in average society.
In other words, if it wouldn't for my perception of things unseen, I'd pretty much agree with most of people here. And as I often like to think, given my observations, anyone in my place would make the same conclusions as I do.

Sure. Is this point Eloise's case? I've seen her messing around with equations. 

nah dude. I'm wicked smart.

I'm not from there, I just used to live there.

Well, perceive many things, but I can usually well discern which is what. It makes me perhaps distracted, occupying a part of attention, but so far I keep my perception well sorted out. 

I always wonder how people experiencing this wonderful feeling of transcendence can get to Bible and hell doctrine, which is quite opposite to that. One would think they were always subconsciously believers and needed only a sufficiently strong stimulus to go over the edge and leap into the giant assumption that Jewish god did it.

Well, I have a lot of perception of things that don't match any kind of synaesthesia, delusion or hallucination I could google up. Tactile hallucinations don't occur unless the person is seriously messed up in many other ways. So the only thing that matches the description is an element of esoteric teaching, called etheric body and etheric matter and so on. Anyone in my place would notice the similarity, I can't help it. Some scientific theories seem to support this idea, for example: http://ezinearticles.com/?Subtle-Bodies-And-Dark-Matter&id=509979 
I would like particularly to turn your attention to the supersymmetry, low density and weak interaction of the particles, passing through solid objects, and so on. That's pretty much how it behaves. I really like the article, it quotes some good sources and explains what I mean to critically thinking people in more appropriate language. What do you think, does it give any sense to you?

If complex lives like ours are primarily etheric and only secondarily dense-physical, then it is no wonder that some individuals are aware of their etheric body counterpart more than majority. Thanks to personal style of development, training and improvement in successive incarnations people like me can get their nerve system so close en rapport with etheric body, (and vice versa) that they are perfectly aware of it. In that case, the brain or even nerve system itself should receive lots of genuine touch perception-related activity even in sensory deprivation water tank.  

I want to make clear that this is a well possible idea based on correlation of personal observations, scientific facts and theories, historical sources and esoteric literature. I'm not that crazy, but I need to study more to pronounce arguments better and comprehend objections to them If I'm lucky, during the course of my life I'll get my head scanned for anomalous perception and somebody else will do the study for me. 

 

Deepak chopra is all about emotional feelings. He uses all these fancy words to get people relax and feel good. 

On the other side, esotericists around 1900's knew about basic forces, like that WN force is derived from SN force and that EM force is derived from WN force. They knew about the 10 dimensional space. They knew, that basic particles are made of strings. And they knew about antimatter. 

This is possible only when esoteric principles are real and can be employed to research the reality in other ways than through external technology. Math is only one approach, another is philosophy and direct observation. 

You really sound like you haven't read this article. You should also look at another article which points to some scientific themes from Leadbetter's Occult chemistry.

Suddenly it all doesn't look so simple and Chopra-like, you see? In esotericism there is a place for smart people too

Well, this is the only falsifiable scenario I can think of, which will work with me alone. Other scenarios would need a similarly gifted person to provide a testable feedback. 

 

Because, knowledge is power.

People will always leave the dim, for the bright.

The 'dim' cannot control or rule.

 

Skeptics and disbelievers are anathema to those who claim to be in the 'Knowledge Business', or "Know the Truth".

Skeptics and disbelievers don't take adopt anything as 'true', on personal 'belief' or 'faith', which is anathema to 'believe' and 'faith'.

 

Religions are shepherds, and their flock are sheeple. The shepherds make the flock feel 'comfort', and 'security'.

'Sheeple' are afraid of 'wolves'.

The shepherds paint the skeptics and disbelievers as 'wolves', and 'presto', it's you against them.

 

Reality is, that the especially 'bright', are always enormously outnumbered, in any society.

'Might makes right' (quite often) whether or not it's actually right about anything.

Get the 'flock' to think collectively as one (herd mentality), and they will do as they are told, if they believe the "One".

 

They will drink the koolaid.

Because they will not stop believing.

It's not in their nature.

Like a moth drawn to a flame.

So, it is, so it shall be.

 

 

As far as Christians go, their problem is, they stopped eliminating 'skeptics' from the gene pool, because the 'skeptics' were the best to 'develop' the technologies to evolve weaponry and 'develop' better fortifications, to better the odds at warfare, and attacks.

Now, we're everywhere!

Skeptics did that with 'empiricism' and 'science'. The is no debate about this. They did not do it through 'incantation'. They did it by observing nature, and exploiting it's potentials.

'Beliefs' don't win wars.

Evolutional and revolutional developments do.

We 'survived', and are here in the modern world, because of 'skepticism'.

Because we 'adapted' best to the 'evolving' surroundings', and did not 'perish'.

 

Science rules, Beliefs drool.

 

Science, not only demonstrates this clearly, so does history.

Bill O'Reilly is wrong.

 

We can explain that! 

In all honesty, you are correct than many people simply are indifferent to esoteric claims, for the reason that it doesn't mesh with their perception of reality.

 

I understand what you are saying, however, my previous point still applies. Astrologers face the same obstacle. They claim all sorts of things, and have a very lengthy history of investigation, and geometry and so forth, that aren't very compelling, or interesting to people like me, anymore.

As a teen, I studied Chinese Astrology to a pretty high level, out of curiousity, with adults who were very knowledgable about it, and concluded it to be nonsensical, and not viable.

I didn't fail Astrology. It failed to be compelling, as a preoccupation, and not viable at all, as a science, or technology.

I respect that you conduct yourself in a diplomatic way, instead of the unilateral approach that's typical of theists and other spiritual groups.

And I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually sincere and objective, about your experience(s).

I have yet to see you try and extend your 'beliefs' and 'experiences', and 'knowledge' to tell anyone, or persecute them for how 'right' or 'wrong' their personal choices and conducts are. So, you're OK, in my book.

And who knows? Maybe there are some things that are viable in what you model in your thoughts.

I don't find a number of your models practical, or useful, but, I could say the same for some of the quantum theory and string theory models I've heard.

None of them, do I find any kind of threat to my reality, or life, in any way, shape, or form. They're benign, in that context.

Ok, this may be the wine talking, but I think you're making a valid point.  I will keep an open mind.  Where do I begin to give this an actual shot?  Give me a book title, preferably over the internet, and I promise I will attempt it.  Also you may be able to guide me in my attempt to understand where you are coming from.

You seem utterly convinced, and you seem like an intelligent person, there has to be something there.  Maybe I can understand it, or understand where you have gone wrong.

So, assume I'm completely ignorant of your position, what's the first thing I should read?

Edit: drunk mistype/spell

This has been discussed.

If that's the only method you can devise as a method of distinction between reality/not reality, then you have the most unreliable method to try and quantify and qualify anything.

It's just that simple.

An individual's personal 'perception' is wholly inadequate to quantify and 'scale' stimuli, or distinguish between there/not there dichotomies.

This is well known, and understood, scientifically.

If you'd like to debate about it, we can do that 1 on 1, and I will demonstrate how this is a completely, and absolutely accurate model of human inadequacy.