The Truth of All Other Religions vs. Christianity

[Foster Zygote]

In another thread I asked Christian Dude what evidence was available that validated a belief in Christianity over all other religions.

I stated:
Then show me real facts that are evidence that your religious beliefs are any more valid than any other religious proclamations about the origin of the universe.

You are saying "prove it to me and I still won't accept it". However, if you can just show me conclusive evidence that Christianity is true and all other religions false, then I will accept that evidence and convert to Christianity.
We both agree that the subject was off topic in the original thread but that it warranted a thread of its own.

So, take it away Christian Dude...

[Robert Oz]

It should be added that Christian Dude has said:

"...yes I know the Bible is true and will stand by it always"

here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4105663#post4105663.

[Silentknight]

Hey! You can't prove a negative!

Just kidding. :D

It's too bad for him though that he'd have to not only establish the truth of Christianity from the ground up, he'd also have to demonstrate how this is exclusive from all other religions by disproving them one by one. This is bound to take a good chunk of time to accomplish. Actually it's more like impossible, since anyone who studies world religions knows that all religions touch on the truth at some points but not on others. There are typically 3 things most religions have in common.

1) A set of moral rules or code of conduct for how to live your life.
2) The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity.
3) Some kind of promise of an afterlife. Oh but the details...

You are saying "prove it to me and I still won't accept it". However, if you can just show me conclusive evidence that Christianity is true and all other religions false, then I will accept that evidence and convert to Christianity.
I'll second that, only if I'm allowed to bring my scissors and glue in true Thomas Jefferson style.

[Robert Oz]

It's too bad for him though that he'd have to not only establish the truth of Christianity from the ground up, he'd also have to demonstrate how this is exclusive from all other religions by disproving them one by one. This is bound to take a good chunk of time to accomplish.


Well, actually, if Christian Dude could prove the truth of Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt, he wouldn't need to disprove all other religions since Christianity expressly states all other religions are wrong. By proving Christianity, Christian Dude would automatically disprove all other religions, wouldn't he?

But that's the hard part.

[PBTree]

It should be added that Christian Dude has said:

"...yes I know the Bible is true and will stand by it always"

here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4105663#post4105663.



Standby to commence stonings......................Commence stonings.



I fear we are doomed. Ain't that sad?

:nope:

[H'ethetheth]

It's too bad for him though that he'd have to not only establish the truth of Christianity from the ground up, he'd also have to demonstrate how this is exclusive from all other religions by disproving them one by one. This is bound to take a good chunk of time to accomplish. Actually it's more like impossible, since anyone who studies world religions knows that all religions touch on the truth at some points but not on others.It is very much impossible, but I don't think he has to do this.
It would be necessary to satisfy us by rational argument, but obviously rational arguments aren't necessarily available when...
Jesus has proven to me that he is who scripture says he is and that scripture is the revealed truth of God so many times I can’t count.
Apparently that's what it takes to believe the Bible literally.

[arthwollipot]

I'd be interested in the story behind the statement "Jesus has proven to me...".

[H'ethetheth]

I'd be interested in the story behind the statement "Jesus has proven to me...".
Exactly.

[Foster Zygote]

I'd be interested in the story behind the statement "Jesus has proven to me...".

And how it is any more than superficially different from "[insert deity] has proved to me".

[Beerina]

Or a normal mortal for that matter.

Proof is proof, regardless of source.

[H'ethetheth]

Or a normal mortal for that matter.

Proof is proof, regardless of source.I'm not sure I agree here. I'm pretty sure if some Jesus would supernaturally step up to me and say: 'the Mormons got it right,' I'd be more inclined to believe him than if just some christian dude told me.

More inclined than completely uninclined, that is.

[Rodibidably]

I'm not sure I agree here. I'm pretty sure if some Jesus would supernaturally step up to me and say: 'the Mormons got it right,' I'd be more inclined to believe him than if just some christian dude told me.

More inclined than completely uninclined, that is.
I'd be even MORE impressed if he said that Buddhism (or Pastafarian or any other "religion" without jesus) was correct...

[krazyKemist]

Jesus has proven to me that he is who scripture says he is and that scripture is the revealed truth of God so many times I can’t count.

... ok. Then by the same reasoning I can say : FSM has proven to me that He is the only true god by the Miracle of Pasta. Each time I have spaghetti, the truth of the FSM is revealed to me, and twice more if it's with meatballs on tuesday's lunch. Santa Claus, whom everybody knows is Jesus' good buddy, came to me in a dream to tell me so. Also, pirates exist. Ramen.

There. My religion is the only truth.

[H'ethetheth]

I'd be even MORE impressed if he said that Buddhism (or Pastafarian or any other "religion" without jesus) was correct...

"Listen guy, I never really existed, forget the Bible...

...uhuh, all made up...

...yes the FSM...

... because of the Noodles, yes. Byeeeeeeeeee"

:hypnotize

[Silentknight]

Wait, wait. I have several more conditions I'd like to add to what I said previously. Before I consider converting, mainstream Christianity must first clean up its act. This means putting an end to the child abuse, the religious violence, the homophobia, the misogynism, the corrpution, and the misinformation campaigns in Africa. This means it must allow people to decide for themselves and stop preaching itself into their private lives, the laws of the land, the education system, or scientific fields where faith has no business. This also means that it must start going out of its way more to help people in need, and stop spending so much money on itself to build gaudy churches or to buy the finest dresses and gold jewelry for its clergy. In other words, Christianity needs to start actually listening to Jesus...

Oops, I guess that kind of breaks the deal right there.

[arthwollipot]

Hmm. Not seeing much sign of Christian Dude so far...

He's probably busy.

[Christian Dude]

OK, just letting you know I see the thread. I will come back later.

[Hokulele]

In another thread I asked Christian Dude what evidence was available that validated a belief in Christianity over all other religions.


Which version of Christianity?

It should be added that Christian Dude has said:

"...yes I know the Bible is true and will stand by it always"


Which version of the Bible?

[arthwollipot]

OK, just letting you know I see the thread. I will come back later.We'll be here.

[Zelenius]

Since this is closely related, I would like to know the position of the Christians when it comes to religion/God belief in general versus non-belief: Is a person better off being an atheist, or are they better off as a believer in a "false" religion, like a Muslim, Jew or Hindu? Or are they equivalent? Also, is it safer being a monotheist or a polytheist? How about henotheism for that matter, which means you believe in the existence of other gods, but believe the God of the Bible is supreme? Thanks.

[PBTree]

OK, just letting you know I see the thread. I will come back later.


Could we classify this as a 'second coming'?

:)

[RandFan]

Which version of Christianity? Excellent question. There are at least two posters on this forum who know it's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). God told them and there is no question in their minds.

So, I'm glad we put that to rest.

[arthwollipot]

Since this is closely related, I would like to know the position of the Christians when it comes to religion/God belief in general versus non-belief: Is a person better off being an atheist, or are they better off as a believer in a "false" religion, like a Muslim, Jew or Hindu? Or are they equivalent? Also, is it safer being a monotheist or a polytheist? How about henotheism for that matter, which means you believe in the existence of other gods, but believe the God of the Bible is supreme? Thanks.Well I'm far from an expert, but I can repeat what I was told when I was a church-goer. That'll at least give you one perspective.

Any activity that you do that is not an act of worshipping Jesus Christ is by that very fact aiding Satan's cause in the world.

So essentially, if you're not a Christian (and in fact the "right" kind of Christian) then you are be default a satanist. It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Hindu, atheist or whatever. They're all the same.

As I said, this is only what I was told when I went to church. YMMV.

[Pidge]

Could we classify this as a 'second coming'?

:)

Whats' white and...

ah, let's not got there... :blush:

[Foster Zygote]

Which version of Christianity?

That's up to Christian Dude. As he claims to be able to prove the validity of Christianity I would hope that he will establish which interpretation of Christianity is most accurate.

By the way, wouldn't it be a hoot if it turned out that the One True Faithtm was practiced by the Ebionites or Marcionists or some other extinct sect?

[joobz]

Which version of Christianity?

Well, the True Christian version, of course.



Which version of the Bible?
and the true bible.*


*which, incidentally, as only one sentence

Don't be an asshat

[Rodibidably]

That's up to Christian Dude. As he claims to be able to prove the validity of Christianity I would hope that he will establish which interpretation of Christianity is most accurate.

By the way, wouldn't it be a hoot if it turned out that the One True Faithtm was practiced by the Ebionites or Marcionists or some other extinct sect?
My money would be on scientology... I mean it's got "science" (sort of) right in the name... And who's not into the idea of an 80 TRILLION year war (I mean other than people who understand the age of the universe).

[Christian Dude]

OK, first let me start off by clarifying and qualifying a few things. In another thread FZ, Robert, I and others have been discussing the topic of evolution vs. creation in a broad scope at a high level. In that discussion I have plainly stated Jesus has proven to me that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the Christian belief system, based on the Bible, is the correct view of how things work (though not in exactly those words). I did not say that I can prove Christianity true, FZ said to me “Show me real facts”, that, I believe I can do. Believe me, I would love to be able to prove beyond any doubt Christianity is true, that Jesus is God, and that all other belief systems are false. In the other thread I said we can discuss and explore these things. All I can do is present my evidence, assert my facts, hope people will see the truth of what I say, accept the facts as facts, and then correctly interpret the data.

I know this will not be the case though. I know most here will disagree with the relevance of my evidence or that my facts are even facts, and that my argument is even logical. This is what I ask of you, that you respect that I believe my evidence is relevant and I believe my facts are facts. I have no problem with being challenged that I hold an incorrect view and interpretation of these things as long as we remain respectful, polite and courteous to each other. Posts that are condescending, disrespectful or insulting will be ignored by me.

I completely respect your different and/or opposing views. I do not agree with them, so do not confuse my respect to imply I believe them to be valid as I know you do not agree with my views, although, I would hope you respect them. (The context and definition I am using for respect is not to esteem or honor an opposing belief, but to consider or show regard for an opposing view.) The respect (regard) I have for your views stems from the respect (esteem) I have for you. The vast majority of the forum members at JREF clearly are intelligent thoughtful people; that is something to respect and admire. I will respectfully challenge your views to best of my ability as I expect the same from you.

Here are my commitments to you all. I will not use mystical, esoteric, vague or ambiguous answers to deflect a question and avoid a solid answer. I will do my best to stay away from the metaphysical as much as possible, but, you must understand, the metaphysical (supernatural) can not be separated from the Christian experience or belief system. It is an intricate part of Christianity, it is the pinnacle of the Christian experience; if it does not exist, all of Christian faith is in vain. (open door for you guys) I ask that you respect that it is part of my experience and I do not know how to completely separate it from my thought processes. My commitment is that I will offer real, straight forward, clear answers and arguments to the topic being discussed. If I do not know an answer to any specific question in a topic, I will clearly state so.

Going back to what I said in the first paragraph above, I do not believe I can personally prove the Bible is true, and that the Christian belief system is the correct one, to the people here on this forum. That is not my goal. My goal is to offer real, clear and straightforward answers to the topics being discussed. My hope is that people will see that Christians can provide intelligent logical answers that do not require “blind” (implying unreasoned) faith. I will tell you truthfully what is going on in scripture, and I will tell you truthfully who Jesus is, but I will leave the proving up to the Holy Spirit. (oops, I got a little mystical there, sorry ;) )

One other thing to note, this discussion, on my part, can not progress at a rapid rate. I have to manage my time between family, work, study, ministry and other miscellaneous items (the forum on JREF falls into the last category). I will do my best to post at least once a day and should be able to meet that. Please be patient.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, if you're going to be reasonable and polite, then forget the whole thing.:D

[H'ethetheth]

Going back to what I said in the first paragraph above, I do not believe I can personally prove the Bible is true, and that the Christian belief system is the correct one, to the people here on this forum. That is not my goal. My goal is to offer real, clear and straightforward answers to the topics being discussed. My hope is that people will see that Christians can provide intelligent logical answers that do not require “blind” (implying unreasoned) faith. I will tell you truthfully what is going on in scripture, and I will tell you truthfully who Jesus is, but I will leave the proving up to the Holy Spirit. (oops, I got a little mystical there, sorry ;) )

One other thing to note, this discussion, on my part, can not progress at a rapid rate. I have to manage my time between family, work, study, ministry and other miscellaneous items (the forum on JREF falls into the last category). I will do my best to post at least once a day and should be able to meet that. Please be patient.Let me kick off with a question then:

What do you mean when you say that the holy spirit proves the truth of the Bible to someone? How did that work or feel in your case? What exactly happens on such an occasion?
In other words: Exactly how did you yourself become convinced?

You may be as mystical as you like, but I'd like it to be as specific as possible.

Thanks.

[Rodibidably]

What do you mean when you say that the holy spirit proves the truth of the Bible to someone? How did that work or feel in your case? What exactly happens on such an occasion?
In other words: Exactly how did you yourself become convinced?

You may be as mystical as you like, but I'd like it to be as specific as possible.
Also along these lines, if people of other religions (let's say scientology, buddhism, islam, hinduism, and paganism for the sake of this discussion) have the same (or as similar as possible) experience with their deity, how can one differentiate their experience from your own with christianity?

How about people who have a different form of christianity than your own? Charles Manson at variious times claimed to be the second coming of christ, and was given visions from the holy spirit/god. How can somebody objectivly differentiate that type of experience from a "genuine" one?

The main thing I'm getting at is that if you look at descriptions of people who strongly believe in their religion and believe that they have been "told" in some way that their faith is the "true" faith, you'll notice many similarities in their experiences, regardless of the actual religion they practice.

I'm curious if only christianity is "true" (and specifically in your view, one particular brand of christianity) how can somebody objectivly differentiate between the "genuine" experience of coming to jesus vs the "false" experience of coming to mohammad, krishna, buddha, mother nature, l ron hubbard, etc?

[kerikiwi]

Jesus has proven to me that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the Christian belief system, based on the Bible, is the correct view of how things work .

How did he do that? Aside from what it says in the bible...

[Galaxie]

Christian Dude,

Assuming you really did have contact with Jesus, was there anything about Christianity that he indicated he disagreed with?

Or is it all true?

[SimonD]

Also along these lines, if people of other religions (let's say scientology, buddhism, islam, hinduism, and paganism for the sake of this discussion) have the same (or as similar as possible) experience with their deity, how can one differentiate their experience from your own with christianity?

See this is what I don't get. All these gods are meant to be all knowing and all seeing, why can't they just get along with each other:)

[joobz]

All I can do is present my evidence, assert my facts, hope people will see the truth of what I say, accept the facts as facts, and then correctly interpret the data.
This is reasonable. I look forward to learning your reasons for believing as you do.

Please note that when you do present your arguments, I will, in kind, respond with the same type of dilligence and critical thinking that I apply to all aspects of my life and work. I will accept the elements you present which pass this filter, and reject those that do not.

In doing so, it is not as a criticism of you or your belief. It is, in fact, my way of respecting you as an individual by holding you to the same high standard of reason that I hold myself, my graduate students, my undergraduates and all those that I love. You are, of course, welcome to reject my agreements and criticisms as it is not my goal to change your view, but simply learn.


Thank you for taking the time to qualify your intent and I look forward to your posts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... All I can do is present my evidence, assert my facts, hope people will see the truth of what I say, accept the facts as facts, and then correctly interpret the data.Contrary to the views expressed above by joobz, I do not find this all that reasonable. This is a version of the fallacious "argument by authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)". We should believe as evidence the fact someone else believes. It may be polite, but it is hardly reasonable, IE implying reason and or logic.



.... I know this will not be the case though. I know most here will disagree with the relevance of my evidence or that my facts are even facts, and that my argument is even logical. This is what I ask of you, that you respect that I believe my evidence is relevant and I believe my facts are facts. I have no problem with being challenged that I hold an incorrect view and interpretation of these things as long as we remain respectful, polite and courteous to each other. Posts that are condescending, disrespectful or insulting will be ignored by me.No doubt disagreement can be voiced in either a respectful or a disrespectful manner. We here on the forum span the continuum from respectful to rude.

I can't mince words. I lack a respect for 'magical beliefs'. That should not be taken as a lack of respect for the person who holds those beliefs. Unfortunately having one's beliefs challenged is not always so pleasant. That can be especially true when one is challenged to support one's beliefs with something more than "because I believe".



....My goal is to offer real, clear and straightforward answers to the topics being discussed. My hope is that people will see that Christians can provide intelligent logical answers that do not require “blind” (implying unreasoned) faith. I will tell you truthfully what is going on in scripture, and I will tell you truthfully who Jesus is, but I will leave the proving up to the Holy Spirit. (oops, I got a little mystical there, sorry ;) )....This and your statement above, "present my evidence, assert my facts", are contradicted by your failure to present any evidence or even any researchable facts. I respectfully suggest this is wishful thinking on your part. It shows cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization of the beliefs in question.

You seem to be saying you fancy yourself as believing in your religion based on actual evidence of some kind. But when asked to provide some of that evidence, you resort to this long explanation about having evidence that skeptics are simply dismissing and discounting.

The fact you believe is not 'evidence'.

[joobz]

Contrary to the views expressed above by joobz, I do not find this all that reasonable. This is a version of the fallacious "argument by authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)". We should believe as evidence the fact someone else believes. It may be polite, but it is hardly reasonable, IE implying reason and or logic.
I was simply responding to what I believe was christian dude's intent. I simply wish to reserve my critique of his position until he actually provides his position.

[Hokulele]

I only have one question for Christian Dude.

Have you always been a Christian?

[Silentknight]

Which version of the Bible?
and the true bible.*


*which, incidentally, as only one sentence

Don't be an asshat
But that's only the New Testament of the True Bible. You're skipping the entirety of the Old Testament of the True Bible which is summed up in the following sentence:

Don't be an asshat or else I will kill you.

Whats' white and...

ah, let's not got there... :blush:
Q: What's black, and white, and red all over?

A: A nun falling down the stairs with an axe.

[Robert Oz]

I only have one question for Christian Dude.

Have you always been a Christian?


This question has already been answered at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4102723#post4102723:

I was a secular evolutionist before I came to be a Christian. I came to believe that Jesus is the savior of mankind, and that his is also the Lord of all, because he made it clear that sin is real. I had questions about evolution and he answered them over time by directing my path to find the truth in these matters. Since the time I came to believe in him, he has made it clear and real in many many supernatural ways; not Hollywood supernatural or the junk and counterfeit supernatural of so much done in the name of Christianity. He has proven over and over to me the Christian Bible is all true. Christianity is about truth more than anything else. Jesus said “if you are my disciple, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

In all honesty, I can’t go back, it is not likely any event that brings so called “facts” to light that prove God does not exist, or that evolution is correct, could change what I believe. Jesus has already proven to me beyond any doubt he is real and scripture is the absolute truth of God. The truth is that everything exists for love and because of love. If people want to call me a fanatic, go ahead. If people want to call me dangerous and unreasonable, I’m fine with that. I am a dangerous and unreasonable to hate and violence, and I am a fanatic about love, the love of the Creator God Jesus Christ.

[Hokulele]

This question has already been answered...


Ah, that explains quite a bit. In that case, I need to revise my question.

Christian Dude, when you changed from "secular evolutionism" (whatever that might mean) to Christianity, was it a sudden, emotional conversion, or a gradual process?

Some of the language and imagery you are using remind me strongly of Saul of Tarsus, and several people have theorized that his type of conversion can be linked to temporal lobe seizures or strokes. Given your claim to be an older dude, and the evidence that such things can happen, it would make sense in context.

Granted, this does not disprove the truth of Christianity or the Bible, but it does explain a few things about your style.

[arthwollipot]

For my part I will merely repeat my statement from the beginning of the thread:

I'd be interested in the story behind the statement "Jesus has proven to me...".CD, we appreciate the fact that you are one person with limited available time. A lot of people are here asking questions. I, for one, promise to be patient and not hound you for answers. I trust that my fellow skeptics will show you the same courtesy. Post your responses in your own time, in whatever order you deem necessary.

[Robert Oz]

CD, we appreciate the fact that you are one person with limited available time. A lot of people are here asking questions. I, for one, promise to be patient and not hound you for answers. I trust that my fellow skeptics will show you the same courtesy. Post your responses in your own time, in whatever order you deem necessary.


Agreed.

Christian Dude has been very polite with every post he has made and has given no indication that he dodges questions. I, too, am happy to wait for his answers.

[PBTree]

OK, first let me start off by clarifying and qualifying a few things. In another thread FZ, Robert, I and others have been discussing the topic of evolution vs. creation in a broad scope at a high level. In that discussion I have plainly stated Jesus has proven to me that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the Christian belief system, based on the Bible, is the correct view of how things work (though not in exactly those words). I did not say that I can prove Christianity true, FZ said to me “Show me real facts”, that, I believe I can do. Believe me, I would love to be able to prove beyond any doubt Christianity is true, that Jesus is God, and that all other belief systems are false. In the other thread I said we can discuss and explore these things. All I can do is present my evidence, assert my facts, hope people will see the truth of what I say, accept the facts as facts, and then correctly interpret the data.

I know this will not be the case though. I know most here will disagree with the relevance of my evidence or that my facts are even facts, and that my argument is even logical. This is what I ask of you, that you respect that I believe my evidence is relevant and I believe my facts are facts. I have no problem with being challenged that I hold an incorrect view and interpretation of these things as long as we remain respectful, polite and courteous to each other. Posts that are condescending, disrespectful or insulting will be ignored by me.

I completely respect your different and/or opposing views. I do not agree with them, so do not confuse my respect to imply I believe them to be valid as I know you do not agree with my views, although, I would hope you respect them. (The context and definition I am using for respect is not to esteem or honor an opposing belief, but to consider or show regard for an opposing view.) The respect (regard) I have for your views stems from the respect (esteem) I have for you. The vast majority of the forum members at JREF clearly are intelligent thoughtful people; that is something to respect and admire. I will respectfully challenge your views to best of my ability as I expect the same from you.

Here are my commitments to you all. I will not use mystical, esoteric, vague or ambiguous answers to deflect a question and avoid a solid answer. I will do my best to stay away from the metaphysical as much as possible, but, you must understand, the metaphysical (supernatural) can not be separated from the Christian experience or belief system. It is an intricate part of Christianity, it is the pinnacle of the Christian experience; if it does not exist, all of Christian faith is in vain. (open door for you guys) I ask that you respect that it is part of my experience and I do not know how to completely separate it from my thought processes. My commitment is that I will offer real, straight forward, clear answers and arguments to the topic being discussed. If I do not know an answer to any specific question in a topic, I will clearly state so.

Going back to what I said in the first paragraph above, I do not believe I can personally prove the Bible is true, and that the Christian belief system is the correct one, to the people here on this forum. That is not my goal. My goal is to offer real, clear and straightforward answers to the topics being discussed. My hope is that people will see that Christians can provide intelligent logical answers that do not require “blind” (implying unreasoned) faith. I will tell you truthfully what is going on in scripture, and I will tell you truthfully who Jesus is, but I will leave the proving up to the Holy Spirit. (oops, I got a little mystical there, sorry ;) )

One other thing to note, this discussion, on my part, can not progress at a rapid rate. I have to manage my time between family, work, study, ministry and other miscellaneous items (the forum on JREF falls into the last category). I will do my best to post at least once a day and should be able to meet that. Please be patient.



I'm sorry (trying very hard not to be insulting) but this has to be the biggest load of 'twaddle' I have seen for a long time. You are basing everything you are saying, on something that was made up (rpt) made up, a few hundred years ago by superstitious old men who believed in dragons, witches, the evil eye, divine right, that the world was flat, that women, homosexuals and dark skinned people were sub-human and could be treated any way you liked.

So unless you are telling me that everything they wrote down, was exactly how god transcribed it to them, then I would have to ask 'what sort of example are they to follow' ???


Quick question: When you are doing your ministry studies and you come across something in the bible that you don't understand, who do you ask for clarification?

:nope:

[joobz]

Christian Dude,
Anytime you wish to present your arguments, I'd love to read them.

[Moochie]

Is there really anything to be learned here, except for how yet another individual has traded reality for a fantasy that somehow appears to be "better"?


M.

[Hokulele]

Is there really anything to be learned here, except for how yet another individual has traded reality for a fantasy that somehow appears to be "better"?


M.


Actually, I find the "how" to be fascinating. There is still so much we do not know about how the brain works, why faith can be so overwhelming, and the process people use when changing their minds about anything, it is interesting to see how conversions happen in others.

From what little I have read, there are major differences between those who experience a sudden epiphany and those who change their mind in a more gradual process.

[RandFan]

What do you mean when you say that the holy spirit proves the truth of the Bible to someone? How did that work or feel in your case? What exactly happens on such an occasion?
In other words: Exactly how did you yourself become convinced?

Also along these lines, if people of other religions (let's say scientology, buddhism, islam, hinduism, and paganism for the sake of this discussion) have the same (or as similar as possible) experience with their deity, how can one differentiate their experience from your own with christianity?Let me reiterate Mormonism and the fact that Mormons put a lot of weight on god telling them directly that Mormonism is true and that is why they know that it is true. There are posters on this very forum who have made much of that. How is it that Mormons could be wrong and CD is right? How can one objectively judge internal subjective experiences?

[H'ethetheth]

Is there really anything to be learned here, except for how yet another individual has traded reality for a fantasy that somehow appears to be "better"?


M.What Hokulele said,





except for the reading part.

[Moochie]

Actually, I find the "how" to be fascinating. There is still so much we do not know about how the brain works, why faith can be so overwhelming, and the process people use when changing their minds about anything, it is interesting to see how conversions happen in others.

From what little I have read, there are major differences between those who experience a sudden epiphany and those who change their mind in a more gradual process.

It is fascinating. I remember a roommate I had in the 70s. One night he came in at 4 am and woke me up to announce that he had "found Jesus." I told him to STFU and turn off the light. He must have taken that literally, because the next day whatever he'd been on had worn off, and "Jesus" was nowhere to be seen or heard from again. :)


M.

[Silentknight]

Ah, that explains quite a bit. In that case, I need to revise my question.

Christian Dude, when you changed from "secular evolutionism" (whatever that might mean) to Christianity, was it a sudden, emotional conversion, or a gradual process?

Some of the language and imagery you are using remind me strongly of Saul of Tarsus, and several people have theorized that his type of conversion can be linked to temporal lobe seizures or strokes. Given your claim to be an older dude, and the evidence that such things can happen, it would make sense in context.

Granted, this does not disprove the truth of Christianity or the Bible, but it does explain a few things about your style.

I'm sorry, but that made me laugh for some reason. :D

However, I would be interested in reading up on these theories and how they relate to conversion. Do you have any sources?

Also, I'm a little confused as to what you meant by his writing style. What specific imagery and language are you talking about? Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see anything blatantly suspicious or unusual. :confused:

[articulett]

I think religion encourages this idea that you can "feel" the truth. People have the capacity to feel all sorts of "transcendent" feelings. They tend to interpret them in varying ways based on what they've been indoctrinated to believe such feelings are "signs" of.

Religions and mystics all capitalize on this idea of an "inner knowingness"-- but it's not really about "knowing" anything true or real. It "feels" good and "realer than real", but it's indistinguishable from all the other similar delusions and "transcendent" mystical feelings and "higher truths" people have imagined themselves having through the eons. There is no way to tell these "truths" from delusions/illusions/misperceptions/seizures/hypnogogic dreams or being high.

In retrospect, I was probably "arrogant" when I believed in such things-- I felt "special" or "in on" some secret of the universe. I think nonbelievers have the same range of feelings as believers; we just don't attribute them to "divine entities" or "higher truths" or "special knowledge".

I don't like being in a position where I feel like I have to walk on eggshells to avoid shattering someone's comforting delusion, but I feel the same way about their "beliefs" as they feel about the crazy believers of other things (Scientology, psychics, etc.). I see that it makes people feel "good"-- but that doesn't make me believe it's true.

[Ladewig]

Actually it's more like impossible, since anyone who studies world religions knows that all religions touch on the truth at some points but not on others. There are typically 3 things most religions have in common.

1) A set of moral rules or code of conduct for how to live your life.
2) The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity.
3) Some kind of promise of an afterlife. Oh but the details...


Does Judaism have 2 and 3?

[phantomb]

Continuing from what articulett said about religion and the religious using feelings as evidence for their beliefs, I would like to ask some questions to find out what you think about these feelings and their relation to Christianity and the Christian god.

I will start out by saying that never in my life have I had what I would call a religious experience or feeling. Sure, I have emotional experiences, feelings of deja vu, etc. but I've never felt anything that I believe defies explanation or understanding, and nothing has ever seemed out of place.

The problem, as I see it, is that for the god of the Christian bible to make sense, everyone would have to be given these religious experiences (seeing as god doesn't seem to like showing up in person anymore), or else how can the punishment of non-believers be justified. I've heard more than one Christian extremist call me, or all non-Christians, liars, based on this same reasoning that if someone claims not to have had a ChristianTM experience, then they must be lying. Explanations for this deceit have ranged from satanic influence to an active desire to deny god so as to enable a sinful life.

So here are my questions:

1. Do you believe I am being sincere when I say that I have not had any religious experiences or feelings?

2. If so, or if not, why do you think this is? Do you think I must have had a religious experience at some point but misidentified it, do you think I must be actively denying god, or do you think I have actually never had a religious experience?

3. If, as I believe, I have actually never had a religious experience or feeling, how do you consolidate this with the negative statements in the bible regarding non-believers and what you should think of them? In addition, why do you think god has not provided me with evidence of his existence?

4. Large groups of people have historically shared religious beliefs, which in many cases were/are not Christian ones. Today, many people have the ability to choose where to live and what to believe, yet most keep to the religion of their parents or of the society they were brought up in, even when those beliefs are not Christian. Are people in non-Christian countries being denied, mistaking, or actively denying, evidence of the Christian god, and regardless, why does it appear that demographics and indoctrination are, for the most part, the deciders of one's religious beliefs?

[Silentknight]

Does Judaism have 2 and 3?

For #2, technically it does (http://www.jewfaq.org/brother.htm).
For #3, yes but it's not the main focus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology#The_afterlife_and_olam_haba_.28 the_.22world_to_come.22.29) like it is in Christianity.

[Hokulele]

I'm sorry, but that made me laugh for some reason. :D

However, I would be interested in reading up on these theories and how they relate to conversion. Do you have any sources?


This BBC program (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml) is probably the best place to start. I first heard about this reading Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain, in the chapter titled "God and the Limbic System". If you google temporal lobe epilepsy and conversions or religion, you will find a bunch of stuff. This study (http://www.uni-graz.at/~schulter/se04_religiosity.pdf) is pretty old, but it gives you an idea of the depth of this field.

Also, I'm a little confused as to what you meant by his writing style. What specific imagery and language are you talking about? Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see anything blatantly suspicious or unusual. :confused:


Phrases such as the following.

I will do my best to stay away from the metaphysical as much as possible, but, you must understand, the metaphysical (supernatural) can not be separated from the Christian experience or belief system. It is an intricate part of Christianity, it is the pinnacle of the Christian experience; if it does not exist, all of Christian faith is in vain. (open door for you guys) I ask that you respect that it is part of my experience and I do not know how to completely separate it from my thought processes.

I will tell you truthfully what is going on in scripture, and I will tell you truthfully who Jesus is, but I will leave the proving up to the Holy Spirit. (oops, I got a little mystical there, sorry ;) )


Temporal lobe strokes and seizures do not seem to impair communication or rational thought, but it imbues a sense of the personal, connectedness, and meaning in even mundane experiences. One of the articles I have read indicates that people with temporal lobe epilepsy have a much stronger sense of "being one with everything" and experiencing feelings, thoughts, or emotions that seem to be direct communication from something spiritual.

There are numerous papers and writings regarding the theory that Saul of Tarsus experienced a temporal lobe seizure on the road to Damascus. This is an example (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1032067).

[PBTree]

I think religion encourages this idea that you can "feel" the truth. People have the capacity to feel all sorts of "transcendent" feelings. They tend to interpret them in varying ways based on what they've been indoctrinated to believe such feelings are "signs" of.

Religions and mystics all capitalize on this idea of an "inner knowingness"-- but it's not really about "knowing" anything true or real. It "feels" good and "realer than real", but it's indistinguishable from all the other similar delusions and "transcendent" mystical feelings and "higher truths" people have imagined themselves having through the eons. There is no way to tell these "truths" from delusions/illusions/misperceptions/seizures/hypnogogic dreams or being high.

In retrospect, I was probably "arrogant" when I believed in such things-- I felt "special" or "in on" some secret of the universe. I think nonbelievers have the same range of feelings as believers; we just don't attribute them to "divine entities" or "higher truths" or "special knowledge".

I don't like being in a position where I feel like I have to walk on eggshells to avoid shattering someone's comforting delusion, but I feel the same way about their "beliefs" as they feel about the crazy believers of other things (Scientology, psychics, etc.). I see that it makes people feel "good"-- but that doesn't make me believe it's true.

:) Hey welcome back Art. Your rapier like responses have been sorely missed. I was even on the point of sending an; "As Articulett used to point out quite succinctly, 'why is your religion etc etc'....." for this thread when I read your post.

I'm afraid we are still way behind in the 'sense and nonsense' area but I think we are catching up slowly.

[kitakaze]

OK, first let me start off by clarifying and qualifying a few things. In another thread FZ, Robert, I and others have been discussing the topic of evolution vs. creation in a broad scope at a high level. In that discussion I have plainly stated Jesus has proven to me that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the Christian belief system, based on the Bible, is the correct view of how things work (though not in exactly those words). I did not say that I can prove Christianity true, FZ said to me “Show me real facts”, that, I believe I can do. Believe me, I would love to be able to prove beyond any doubt Christianity is true, that Jesus is God, and that all other belief systems are false. In the other thread I said we can discuss and explore these things. All I can do is present my evidence, assert my facts, hope people will see the truth of what I say, accept the facts as facts, and then correctly interpret the data.

I know this will not be the case though. I know most here will disagree with the relevance of my evidence or that my facts are even facts, and that my argument is even logical. This is what I ask of you, that you respect that I believe my evidence is relevant and I believe my facts are facts. I have no problem with being challenged that I hold an incorrect view and interpretation of these things as long as we remain respectful, polite and courteous to each other. Posts that are condescending, disrespectful or insulting will be ignored by me.

I completely respect your different and/or opposing views. I do not agree with them, so do not confuse my respect to imply I believe them to be valid as I know you do not agree with my views, although, I would hope you respect them. (The context and definition I am using for respect is not to esteem or honor an opposing belief, but to consider or show regard for an opposing view.) The respect (regard) I have for your views stems from the respect (esteem) I have for you. The vast majority of the forum members at JREF clearly are intelligent thoughtful people; that is something to respect and admire. I will respectfully challenge your views to best of my ability as I expect the same from you.

Here are my commitments to you all. I will not use mystical, esoteric, vague or ambiguous answers to deflect a question and avoid a solid answer. I will do my best to stay away from the metaphysical as much as possible, but, you must understand, the metaphysical (supernatural) can not be separated from the Christian experience or belief system. It is an intricate part of Christianity, it is the pinnacle of the Christian experience; if it does not exist, all of Christian faith is in vain. (open door for you guys) I ask that you respect that it is part of my experience and I do not know how to completely separate it from my thought processes. My commitment is that I will offer real, straight forward, clear answers and arguments to the topic being discussed. If I do not know an answer to any specific question in a topic, I will clearly state so.

Going back to what I said in the first paragraph above, I do not believe I can personally prove the Bible is true, and that the Christian belief system is the correct one, to the people here on this forum. That is not my goal. My goal is to offer real, clear and straightforward answers to the topics being discussed. My hope is that people will see that Christians can provide intelligent logical answers that do not require “blind” (implying unreasoned) faith. I will tell you truthfully what is going on in scripture, and I will tell you truthfully who Jesus is, but I will leave the proving up to the Holy Spirit. (oops, I got a little mystical there, sorry ;) )

One other thing to note, this discussion, on my part, can not progress at a rapid rate. I have to manage my time between family, work, study, ministry and other miscellaneous items (the forum on JREF falls into the last category). I will do my best to post at least once a day and should be able to meet that. Please be patient.

Christian Dude, that is an excellent post and I look forward to your upcoming posts in this thread.

I would also like to know how Jesus has proven himself to you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

While trying not to condemn CD and trying to be respectful of the "time is an issue" excuse (I've been there), I still can't help yawning......we've heard this all before. Does anyone really expect anything different this time? I certainly don't.

[MattusMaximus]

I know this will come off as a bit snarky, but what the hell...

I've always found it interesting, humorous, and sad to see how much time & energy some religious folk spend making the "My religion is the One True religion" argument to each other. I got to see this first hand as a young boy growing up in the buckle of the Bible Belt, southcentral Kentucky.

My parents had divorced and they both decided to "get religion", I suppose as a way of filling the emotional holes they were experiencing. One weekend I'd go to church with my mother, who had started attending an Assembly of God church - complete with the writhing on the floor, speaking in tongues, and other assorted nutiness. Meanwhile, my father decided to start going to the local Seventh Day Adventist church, who were all about the Book of Revelations and the End Times - I was fed a steady diet of hellfire, brimstone, and damnation.

After a while, I came to realize that these two Christian sects hated each other (so much for displaying the love of Jesus...). The Assembly of God folks thought the Adventists were a Satanic cult, and the Adventists thought the AoG people were doomed to hell just because they went to church on Sunday (instead of Saturday). Both groups were what I'd call fundamentalist Christian sects, but it didn't matter - each side thought they had The Truth and the other was wrong, wrong, wrong and doomed to the fires of damnation.

Is it any wonder that I became an atheist? :rolleyes:

[H'ethetheth]

I know this will come off as a bit snarky, but what the hell...

I've always found it interesting, humorous, and sad to see how much time & energy some religious folk spend making the "My religion is the One True religion" argument to each other. I got to see this first hand as a young boy growing up in the buckle of the Bible Belt, southcentral Kentucky.

My parents had divorced and they both decided to "get religion", I suppose as a way of filling the emotional holes they were experiencing. One weekend I'd go to church with my mother, who had started attending an Assembly of God church - complete with the writhing on the floor, speaking in tongues, and other assorted nutiness. Meanwhile, my father decided to start going to the local Seventh Day Adventist church, who were all about the Book of Revelations and the End Times - I was fed a steady diet of hellfire, brimstone, and damnation.

After a while, I came to realize that these two Christian sects hated each other (so much for displaying the love of Jesus...). The Assembly of God folks thought the Adventists were a Satanic cult, and the Adventists thought the AoG people were doomed to hell just because they went to church on Sunday (instead of Saturday). Both groups were what I'd call fundamentalist Christian sects, but it didn't matter - each side thought they had The Truth and the other was wrong, wrong, wrong and doomed to the fires of damnation.

Is it any wonder that I became an atheist? :rolleyes:I guess not, but that may be precisely the point. You've pretty much been forced to assume a more objective viewpoint. Once there, you cannot escape the conclusion that there is no objective difference between this kind of religion, so you cannot hold any particular one of these worldviews; you'd have to withdraw to to at least some kind of deistic or universalist view, or, as you did, to atheism.

[shuttlt]

OK. Christian Dude is chewing over his answer. I'll have a go some devils advocacy....

It seems to me that it isn't quite the same thing to say, as I believe Christian Dude does, that there is no objective reason that he can use to persuade anyone else to choose one religion over all others, and to say that there is no rational grounds for him as an individual to choose one religion over all others.

Regardless of Science, it either IS, or IS NOT the case that one of these religions is 'TRUE'. I don't see that Science has much to say on the odds of there being a true religion, or for that matter which one is true. Christian Dude has presumably had some kind of religious 'experience', isn't it a case of him either finding that experience convincing, or not. Objectively we have no reason to prefer his experience over anybody else's, but for him, it's HIS experience and perhaps it is not so illogical for him to treat it preferentially.

To ask the question a different way, is there any personal experience that anybody on this forum could imagine that would convince them that any religion was 'TRUE'?

[Moochie]

While trying not to condemn CD and trying to be respectful of the "time is an issue" excuse (I've been there), I still can't help yawning......we've heard this all before. Does anyone really expect anything different this time? I certainly don't.


Yeah, I'm not exactly beside myself with anticipation. Still, I'll read what CD has to say until the yawn factor overcomes me.


M.

[Moochie]

I know this will come off as a bit snarky, but what the hell...

I've always found it interesting, humorous, and sad to see how much time & energy some religious folk spend making the "My religion is the One True religion" argument to each other. I got to see this first hand as a young boy growing up in the buckle of the Bible Belt, southcentral Kentucky.

My parents had divorced and they both decided to "get religion", I suppose as a way of filling the emotional holes they were experiencing. One weekend I'd go to church with my mother, who had started attending an Assembly of God church - complete with the writhing on the floor, speaking in tongues, and other assorted nutiness. Meanwhile, my father decided to start going to the local Seventh Day Adventist church, who were all about the Book of Revelations and the End Times - I was fed a steady diet of hellfire, brimstone, and damnation.

After a while, I came to realize that these two Christian sects hated each other (so much for displaying the love of Jesus...). The Assembly of God folks thought the Adventists were a Satanic cult, and the Adventists thought the AoG people were doomed to hell just because they went to church on Sunday (instead of Saturday). Both groups were what I'd call fundamentalist Christian sects, but it didn't matter - each side thought they had The Truth and the other was wrong, wrong, wrong and doomed to the fires of damnation.

Is it any wonder that I became an atheist? :rolleyes:


I think it's a wonder you grew up sane. Good on you. :)


M.

[H'ethetheth]

OK. Christian Dude is chewing over his answer. I'll have a go some devils advocacy....

It seems to me that it isn't quite the same thing to say, as I believe Christian Dude does, that there is no objective reason that he can use to persuade anyone else to choose one religion over all others, and to say that there is no rational grounds for him as an individual to choose one religion over all others.

Regardless of Science, it either IS, or IS NOT the case that one of these religions is 'TRUE'. I don't see that Science has much to say on the odds of there being a true religion, or for that matter which one is true. Christian Dude has presumably had some kind of religious 'experience', isn't it a case of him either finding that experience convincing, or not. Objectively we have no reason to prefer his experience over anybody else's, but for him, it's HIS experience and perhaps it is not so illogical for him to treat it preferentially.

To ask the question a different way, is there any personal experience that anybody on this forum could imagine that would convince them that any religion was 'TRUE'?Sure, though it would take some pretty convincing s***, because I'm used to doubt most of the things I experience.
However, everyone can become convinced of something if the evidence is convincing enough. I'm not necessarily drawing parallels here, but that schizophrenic Nobel laureate (what's his name?) who wrote 'a beautiful mind' was convinced of some pretty strange stuff too.
What I'm trying to say, rather ham-handedly, is that it would take something as convincing as a very persistent hallucination to convince me of something like that, but history shows that that sort of thing happens.

And that's why a lot of posters just want to hear how he himself became convinced of this truth. I think even Christian Dude himself acknowledges that he can't objectively prove he's right. He admitted to leave that to the holy spirit.

[shuttlt]

Sure, though it would take some pretty convincing s***, because I'm used to doubt most of the things I experience.
However, everyone can become convinced of something if the evidence is convincing enough. I'm not necessarily drawing parallels here, but that schizophrenic Nobel laureate (what's his name?) who wrote 'a beautiful mind' was convinced of some pretty strange stuff too.
What I'm trying to say, rather ham-handedly, is that it would take something as convincing as a very persistent hallucination to convince me of something like that, but history shows that that sort of thing happens.

And that's why a lot of posters just want to hear how he himself became convinced of this truth. I think even Christian Dude himself acknowledges that he can't objectively prove he's right. He admitted to leave that to the holy spirit.
So, if we've understood Christian Dude so far... you, me (possibly everyone else?) and Christian Dude all agree. This isn't much of a debate.

Does anyone disagree?

[Hokulele]

So, if we've understood Christian Dude so far... you, me (possibly everyone else?) and Christian Dude all agree. This isn't much of a debate.

Does anyone disagree?


Honestly, I don't think the point of this thread was a debate, but an explanation.

[H'ethetheth]

Honestly, I don't think the point of this thread was a debate, but an explanation.Quite.

[articulett]

:) Hey welcome back Art. Your rapier like responses have been sorely missed. I was even on the point of sending an; "As Articulett used to point out quite succinctly, 'why is your religion etc etc'....." for this thread when I read your post.

I'm afraid we are still way behind in the 'sense and nonsense' area but I think we are catching up slowly.

Thanks :blush:

I'm trying to be a little less "rapier" like...

(but it's hard for me.)

I remember my own little confirmation biased ways I had for telling myself my beliefs were true-- first when I was raised Catholic, and then later when I veered towards new-age type beliefs (quantum flapdoodle :) )

Then later, I realized (in part, through Randi) that everyone was doing that with their religions and superstitions and assorted beliefs. We're always trying to make sense of our world and get the most accurate view, and understand correlation and causation.

Religion, hijacks that-- it claims to have a "means" of knowledge called "faith"-- as if you could "know" something by "believing" it or "feeling" that it's true. I suppose, in absence of any actual evidence, instinctive feelings are really useful guides for behavior and choices. They just aren't the best guides for understanding what is true.

It bothers me that religion claims to have "higher truths", but it's got nothing more than a myth or superstition. Sure, some religions turn out nicer adherents than others... --but none of them have any evidence of having more "truth" than any other, do they?--even though they all are sure they have "the truth".

(It's weird how religion makes what people BELIEVE more important than what is true.)

[cannotthinkofaname]

I think this one of those arguments that comes down to what may be truth to one person may be bollocks to the next person, but with most religions touching on some sort of common truth couldn't it possibly be same higher power different ways of looking at the higher power

[PBTree]

(It's weird how religion makes what people BELIEVE more important than what is true.)


If only all of the believers could understand this one simple line.....

:)

[kurious_kathy]

Well, actually, if Christian Dude could prove the truth of Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt, he wouldn't need to disprove all other religions since Christianity expressly states all other religions are wrong. By proving Christianity, Christian Dude would automatically disprove all other religions, wouldn't he?

But that's the hard part.Hi Robert Oz, this is Christian dudes wife. I figure this is why we are taught faith is a gift from God, not of ourselves so no one can boast. When we as fallen creatures take God at His Word that's when he reveals himself to us as true believers. Oh but that I wish I could help all become believers, but it takes faith my friend then you will know and the truth that sets us sinners free. I can't explain it much better than that. It's a heart thing more than a head knowledge thing if you ask my opinion.

I just know from my own painful trun around that a life without God, left to myself was pretty much self explosive as a sinner ruled by my sin. It does take us away from what we need, HIM! He will show you the way out of darkness if you'll seek him with all your heart, and trust That he is who he says he is. Jesus is how we come to know God, only through Christ!

[kurious_kathy]

Ah, that explains quite a bit. In that case, I need to revise my question.

Christian Dude, when you changed from "secular evolutionism" (whatever that might mean) to Christianity, was it a sudden, emotional conversion, or a gradual process?

Some of the language and imagery you are using remind me strongly of Saul of Tarsus, and several people have theorized that his type of conversion can be linked to temporal lobe seizures or strokes. Given your claim to be an older dude, and the evidence that such things can happen, it would make sense in context.

Granted, this does not disprove the truth of Christianity or the Bible, but it does explain a few things about your style.Hi Hokulele, this is Christian dudes wife. He's not here right now and I won't answer for him but I can shed a little light on this subject. He had a gradual change as far as the theory of evolution verses creation, he's pondered much of the subject and continues to study more in depth others works on the subject.

As a Christian I think his toughest question was about the six days, was it actual days or could God days be different? After finding out the faults in radio active measuring equiptment he had a big breakthrough. The tecniques people come up with for dating rocks and dinasours is faulty, it is not accruate and there are many scientists out there sharing this info with people to help them see what is being taught in our schools as truth is not actually the case.

I'm pretty sure it's been more a process of eliminating some of his questions that took my husband a while to come to know what scripture teaches is absolutely true. It's all in the Bible. If you want more referrals let us know.

[kurious_kathy]

Let me reiterate Mormonism and the fact that Mormons put a lot of weight on god telling them directly that Mormonism is true and that is why they know that it is true. There are posters on this very forum who have made much of that. How is it that Mormons could be wrong and CD is right? How can one objectively judge internal subjective experiences?HI RF, it's been a long time. My husband is at his inductive Bible study class right now but I wanted to ask you something about what you are questioning? Have you viewed the DNA verses the Book of Mormon documentary yet? Joseph Smith followers are deceived and DNA is the proof. Their DNA shows they are of native indian descent, not jewsih descent. If you haven't seen this yet I would be more than happy to mail you my copy if you are interested? Just let me know, blessings Kathy

[Robert Oz]

Hi Robert Oz, this is Christian dudes wife. I figure this is why we are taught faith is a gift from God, not of ourselves so no one can boast. When we as fallen creatures take God at His Word that's when he reveals himself to us as true believers. Oh but that I wish I could help all become believers, but it takes faith my friend then you will know and the truth that sets us sinners free. I can't explain it much better than that. It's a heart thing more than a head knowledge thing if you ask my opinion.


You are starting with what you believe to be an inerrant conclusion and then looking for confirmation of the conclusion. The title of this thread is "The Truth of All Other Religions vs. Christianity". How is God's revelation any different from Allah's revelation or Vishnu's revelation? The type of revelation you refer to happens all over the world with different gods. If we cannot trust the revelation of others, how can we trust your's or even our own?


I just know from my own painful trun around that a life without God, left to myself was pretty much self explosive as a sinner ruled by my sin. It does take us away from what we need, HIM! He will show you the way out of darkness if you'll seek him with all your heart, and trust That he is who he says he is. Jesus is how we come to know God, only through Christ!


I acknowledge this as a generalisation, but your above post reminded me of a statement I once heard. As far as I know, there is no supporting scientific evidence that this is the case, but I found the comment intriguing: "Born-again Christians almost always have an incredible amount of guilt over something they've done in the past".

I don't mean to be intrusive, and you don't have to reply to this part of my post, but it seems to me that this applies to you.

[Robert Oz]

Hi Hokulele, this is Christian dudes wife. He's not here right now and I won't answer for him but I can shed a little light on this subject. He had a gradual change as far as the theory of evolution verses creation, he's pondered much of the subject and continues to study more in depth others works on the subject.

As a Christian I think his toughest question was about the six days, was it actual days or could God days be different? After finding out the faults in radio active measuring equiptment he had a big breakthrough. The tecniques people come up with for dating rocks and dinasours is faulty, it is not accruate and there are many scientists out there sharing this info with people to help them see what is being taught in our schools as truth is not actually the case.

I'm pretty sure it's been more a process of eliminating some of his questions that took my husband a while to come to know what scripture teaches is absolutely true. It's all in the Bible. If you want more referrals let us know.


kurious_kathy,

Can I ask what both of your beliefs were when you met each other? Can I also ask in what order you each "found God"? And, finally, if there was a time when one believed and the other didn't, did it cause tension or conflict?

[articulett]

If your life sucks and you wish on a star with all your might and you experience a complete turn around, does that mean that star-wishing works?

If it doesn't work, does that mean you didn't wish or believe hard enough?

KK, Tom Cruise could say the same thing about Scientology-- look at how well his life works. Are you as successful as him? Oprah could say the same thing about "the secret"-- are you as successful as her? What about the great Christians who have terrible lives or have terrible things happen to them--are you more worthy than them?

To me it sounds like religion steals credit for whatever good happens in peoples' lives and "lack of faith" gets the blame when the "magic" doesn't work as advertised... and then believers are sent on a tailspin thanking Jesus or whatever magic they've been indoctrinated to believe in... lest the goodies stop coming their way.

[Hokulele]

Hi Hokulele, this is Christian dudes wife. He's not here right now and I won't answer for him but I can shed a little light on this subject. <snip>


If you won't answer for him, why did you answer for him?

[MattusMaximus]

I think it's a wonder you grew up sane. Good on you. :)

M.


It wasn't easy. It took me quite some time to get over it all and "find my happy place." But I'm all better now :)

[joobz]

If you won't answer for him, why did you answer for him?
Well, I don't want to answer for KK and will let her answer you, but I think the answer has to do with physics.

at some point.

[kurious_kathy]

You are starting with what you believe to be an inerrant conclusion and then looking for confirmation of the conclusion. The title of this thread is "The Truth of All Other Religions vs. Christianity". How is God's revelation any different from Allah's revelation or Vishnu's revelation? The type of revelation you refer to happens all over the world with different gods. If we cannot trust the revelation of others, how can we trust your's or even our own?





I acknowledge this as a generalisation, but your above post reminded me of a statement I once heard. As far as I know, there is no supporting scientific evidence that this is the case, but I found the comment intriguing: "Born-again Christians almost always have an incredible amount of guilt over something they've done in the past".

I don't mean to be intrusive, and you don't have to reply to this part of my post, but it seems to me that this applies to you.
I think the thread title is backwards. Anyways Jesus spoke in parabells for a reason, not everyone will get it. But the promise in scripture is the elect will not be deceived by false gods. All other religions distort the one true God who we know through accepting his son. If you can't accept Christ then you will never know. I promise if you do accept Christ and come to a true saving faith he will spiritually reveal the truth of scripture to you. I don't know how to explain it other than it is quite divine. The revelation of coming to know Christ is truth.

And back to the other followers of false gods, some have come out of that to Christ. Even Muslims are having divine revelations of Christ and unfortunately many of them have been killed by their own family members. Check out the fruit of what people believe. Do you really think if Allah was God he would command everyone that is Christian or Jew be put to death. That's called murder and that's what Satan does. "Satan has been a liar and murderer from the start, and unfortunately many are deceived by his lies."

Also my idea of heaven is not getting with a bunch of virgins, that's wickedness of mans heart exposed. As for some of the other misticism beliefs, I was once very New Age and Jesus showed me not everything spiritual is of the truth, there is way too much spiritual deception in this world so it's good to be aware, most of it is not of God and the only way it seems anyone truly comes to know is when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which is for all true believers in Christ. It truly is a divine gift and intervention which takes faith before you can know. I hope and pray you will come to know Christ, he is mans only hope! He is the only way to our Heavenly Father! And I'll end with this.Jesus said many times for us to watch out that no one will deceive you for many have come in the name of god but have deceived many.

[PBTree]

HI RF, it's been a long time. My husband is at his inductive Bible study class right now but I wanted to ask you something about what you are questioning? Have you viewed the DNA verses the Book of Mormon documentary yet? Joseph Smith followers are deceived and DNA is the proof. Their DNA shows they are of native indian descent, not jewsih descent. If you haven't seen this yet I would be more than happy to mail you my copy if you are interested? Just let me know, blessings Kathy

I have asked this before KK but what the heck, I will ask it again.

How in anyone's name, do you study the bible? Surely they are only doing this to learn it off by heart.

CD can't be studying it to learn any facts because without the author being present to verify and/or clarify, the book is only so many words (terrible and extreme in some cases) written quite some time ago.

It would probably be just as useful to study "Lord of the Rings".
:)

[Robert Oz]

I think the thread title is backwards.


Of course you do.


And back to the other followers of false gods, some have come out of that to Christ. Even Muslims are having divine revelations of Christ and unfortunately many of them have been killed by their own family members.


This point does nothing for your argument. Conversions happen in all directions. Muslims become Christians, Christians become Muslims, Christians and Muslims become atheists, atheists become Muslims and Christians. This is not evidence of truth.


Do you really think if Allah was God he would command everyone that is Christian or Jew be put to death. That's called murder and that's what Satan does. "Satan has been a liar and murderer from the start, and unfortunately many are deceived by his lies."


Your God commanded the Hebrews to slaughter every man, woman and child of several nations. He also commanded the deaths of witches, disobedient children and people of other faiths. The Bible could easily be interpreted to justify the atrocities you attribute to Islam.


I was once very New Age and Jesus showed me not everything spiritual is of the truth, there is way too much spiritual deception in this world so it's good to be aware, most of it is not of God and the only way it seems anyone truly comes to know is when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which is for all true believers in Christ. It truly is a divine gift and intervention which takes faith before you can know.


So, you merely traded one fairy tale for another.

Are you a Pentecostal Christian? Does the experience you keep referring to involve speaking in tongues and writhing on the floor?

[PBTree]

I think the thread title is backwards. Anyways Jesus spoke in parabells for a reason, not everyone will get it. But the promise in scripture is the elect will not be deceived by false gods. All other religions distort the one true God who we know through accepting his son. If you can't accept Christ then you will never know. I promise if you do accept Christ and come to a true saving faith he will spiritually reveal the truth of scripture to you. I don't know how to explain it other than it is quite divine. The revelation of coming to know Christ is truth.

And back to the other followers of false gods, some have come out of that to Christ. Even Muslims are having divine revelations of Christ and unfortunately many of them have been killed by their own family members. Check out the fruit of what people believe. Do you really think if Allah was God he would command everyone that is Christian or Jew be put to death. That's called murder and that's what Satan does. "Satan has been a liar and murderer from the start, and unfortunately many are deceived by his lies."

Also my idea of heaven is not getting with a bunch of virgins, that's wickedness of mans heart exposed. As for some of the other misticism beliefs, I was once very New Age and Jesus showed me not everything spiritual is of the truth, there is way too much spiritual deception in this world so it's good to be aware, most of it is not of God and the only way it seems anyone truly comes to know is when they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which is for all true believers in Christ. It truly is a divine gift and intervention which takes faith before you can know. I hope and pray you will come to know Christ, he is mans only hope! He is the only way to our Heavenly Father! And I'll end with this.Jesus said many times for us to watch out that no one will deceive you for many have come in the name of god but have deceived many.


Ah we are back to the old "those other followers of false gods" again.

As asked previously what makes yours more true than anyone elses. There are a lot more gods in this world than just yours and their followers all say exactly the same thing. Muslim believers are so sure theirs is the only one, they blow themselves and non-believers up.

Should I believe them or you? All of you can't be right, otherwise we will have to go back to the old Roman times and have a god for everything.

:)

[KingMerv00]

Hi Robert Oz, this is Christian dudes wife. I figure this is why we are taught faith is a gift from God...

And apparently every other god as well.

[arthwollipot]

To ask the question a different way, is there any personal experience that anybody on this forum could imagine that would convince them that any religion was 'TRUE'?To answer for myself (since I can't answer for anyone else), that scene from Bruce Almighty with the fingers always comes to mind. But seriously, no. There is no personal experience that would convince me. I'd always subconsciously interpret any experience naturalisticallly.

All other religions distort the one true God who we know through accepting his son.And we come back to the point of the thread - how do you know this? Do you not realise that people of other religions have exactly the same conviction that you do regarding the truth of their religion?

[plumjam]

To answer for myself (since I can't answer for anyone else), that scene from Bruce Almighty with the fingers always comes to mind. But seriously, no. There is no personal experience that would convince me. I'd always subconsciously interpret any experience naturalisticallly.



Dr Wolli, I wish more people here were as honest as yourself.
What you're saying is that you have your own Faith, which is in the universal applicability of Naturalism. As you say, no experience you can imagine would really be able to affect this faith. So it's effectively beyond correction or revision. Literally a prejudice.
This is a common complaint materialists make about religionists.
It's been a repeating theme of mine on this board that the same very often applies in the opposite direction.. i.e. that materialists (naturalists if you prefer) are typically as faith-based as non-materialists. It's just that often they don't realise it.
In fact, it's made more difficult for them to realise it because it's typically a part of their faith that their faith is not faith-based.. and when you point it out it can drive them nuts :p
Anyway, good on you.

[H'ethetheth]

Hi Robert Oz, this is Christian dudes wife. I figure this is why we are taught faith is a gift from God, not of ourselves so no one can boast. When we as fallen creatures take God at His Word that's when he reveals himself to us as true believers. Oh but that I wish I could help all become believers, but it takes faith my friend then you will know and the truth that sets us sinners free. I can't explain it much better than that. It's a heart thing more than a head knowledge thing if you ask my opinion.

I just know from my own painful trun around that a life without God, left to myself was pretty much self explosive as a sinner ruled by my sin. It does take us away from what we need, HIM! He will show you the way out of darkness if you'll seek him with all your heart, and trust That he is who he says he is. Jesus is how we come to know God, only through Christ!Kurios Kathy,
I apprecaite your response, but can you honestly not see that this is an utterly unsatisfying answer?
In order to be sure that the Christian God is the true God, you must first take the Christian God at His word?
You may have noticed that this only works in a world where no one lies. Since you agree that there is pobably someone out there who is a pretty convincing deceiver, perhaps several of them, maybe you shouldn't be so sure of yourself.

Let's take another few examples and see if you still agree.

In order to be sure that Larry is really a guy named Larry, you must first take Larry at his word.
In order to be sure your car salesman is truely selling you the best possible car, you must first take him at his word.
In order to be sure that Larry is the true God, you must first take Larry at his word.
In order to be sure that Satan is actually not a bad Guy at all, just a bit lonely, you must first take Satan at his word.

If I may paraphrase, I believe Morbo said it best:

Critical thinking does not work that way!

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Dr Wolli, I wish more people here were as honest as yourself.
What you're saying is that you have your own Faith, which is in the universal applicability of Naturalism. As you say, no experience you can imagine would really be able to affect this faith. So it's effectively beyond correction or revision. Literally a prejudice.
This is a common complaint materialists make about religionists.
It's been a repeating theme of mine on this board that the same very often applies in the opposite direction.. i.e. that materialists (naturalists if you prefer) are typically as faith-based as non-materialists. It's just that often they don't realise it.
In fact, it's made more difficult for them to realise it because it's typically a part of their faith that their faith is not faith-based.. and when you point it out it can drive them nuts :p
Anyway, good on you.


The old "athiesm or materialism is a religion" argument does absolutely nothing to further the debates at hand; namely do gods exist and is materialism correct? Assume both are religions. Does that mean gods exist? Does it prove that the world is immaterial? Nope and Nope. So what does change if you prove both are religions? Nothing.

Now that that's out of the way; you drastically misinterpreted what arthwollipot said. WHat he did not say was that there is nothing capable of convincing him he is wrong but in fact said that he's taking the natural position of the skeptic and default presupposition of naturalism. That is, all things have a natural explanation and/or scientific explanation and are not inherently supernatural and that statement is considered likely until sufficient evidence is brought forward. His statement was not a rejection of evidence but a demand for further evidence.

[shuttlt]

The old "athiesm or materialism is a religion" argument does absolutely nothing to further the debates at hand; namely do gods exist and is materialism correct? Assume both are religions. Does that mean gods exist? Does it prove that the world is immaterial? Nope and Nope. So what does change if you prove both are religions? Nothing.

Now that that's out of the way; you drastically misinterpreted what arthwollipot said. WHat he did not say was that there is nothing capable of convincing him he is wrong but in fact said that he's taking the natural position of the skeptic and default presupposition of naturalism. That is, all things have a natural explanation and/or scientific explanation and are not inherently supernatural and that statement is considered likely until sufficient evidence is brought forward. His statement was not a rejection of evidence but a demand for further evidence.
Perhaps that was worth highlighting, even if only to point out an important difference in basic assumption between Christian Dude, Kurious Kathy and most everyone else in the discussion. For myself, I'm not sure there is no 'personal experience' that would convince me, but it would have to be pretty darned convincing.

[Moochie]

When one forfeits one's ability to think critically, ties it all up in a neat little bundle with pretty ribbons and hands it to their pastor or priest, all that's left is an ability to mindlessly blather inanities taught at Sunday School, without a whit of understanding. McReligion.


M.

[Wally]

When one forfeits one's ability to think critically, ties it all up in a neat little bundle with pretty ribbons and hands it to their pastor or priest, all that's left is an ability to mindlessly blather inanities taught at Sunday School, without a whit of understanding. McReligion.


M.


Would you like tithes with that ?:duck:

[Lanzy]

Sooo, KK, if I truly believe in Jesus and pray really really hard, I will then believe in Jesus?

Can't I just stop at step 1? I mean what's the praying for?

[Henners]

When one forfeits one's ability to think critically, ties it all up in a neat little bundle with pretty ribbons and hands it to their pastor or priest, all that's left is an ability to mindlessly blather inanities taught at Sunday School, without a whit of understanding. McReligion.


M.


...and can I get you a God-Lite with that?

[wolfgirl]

Here are my commitments to you all. I will not use mystical, esoteric, vague or ambiguous answers to deflect a question and avoid a solid answer. I will do my best to stay away from the metaphysical as much as possible, but, you must understand, the metaphysical (supernatural) can not be separated from the Christian experience or belief system. It is an intricate part of Christianity, it is the pinnacle of the Christian experience; if it does not exist, all of Christian faith is in vain. (open door for you guys) I ask that you respect that it is part of my experience and I do not know how to completely separate it from my thought processes. My commitment is that I will offer real, straight forward, clear answers and arguments to the topic being discussed. If I do not know an answer to any specific question in a topic, I will clearly state so.Christian Dude, although I completely, totally, entirely and whole-heartedly disagree with everything you believe in, I must acknowledge that you have, as far as I can see, lived up to what you said above. Your arguments are presented in a well-thought-out manner, and you are articulate and well-spoken. You haven't resorted to insults or threats. You remain calm and reasonable in the face of an awful lot of people who very strongly disagree with you.

That's why it came as such a shock to me to learn that kurious_kathy is your wife. We have our share of xian fundies that come here and preach at us, but I think I speak for many in saying that she has been one of the least-respected ones ever to appear here. She offers no true arguments, other than "God said so." (Admittedly, I don't think your arguments really amount to much more than that, either, but at least you try to explain yourself.) She usually just quotes scripture at us (seemingly unable to comprehend that to those of us who don't believe in the bible, scripture means no more than The Iliad, another really old book) and then ignores any questions she is uncomfortable with. If pressed, she doesn't seem able to think for herself, but rather says, "I'll ask my husband" or "I'll ask my pastor." She insults others and tells them they're going to hell for disagreeing with her. And she does it all with the most appalling spelling, grammar and sentence structure, that leads one to believe she is only barely literate.

I apologize if you find this post insulting, but jeez! Maybe you can explain to her that we don't hate all xians. But those that act like her give you all a bad name.

[plumjam]

The old "athiesm or materialism is a religion" argument does absolutely nothing to further the debates at hand; namely do gods exist and is materialism correct? Assume both are religions. Does that mean gods exist? Does it prove that the world is immaterial? Nope and Nope. So what does change if you prove both are religions? Nothing.
In regard to this particular thread what it does is add naturalism/materialism to the group of All Other Religions, which are being compared with Christianity. Given that most of the respondents are naturalists/materialists, that is not insignificant.
The debate at hand, as you put it, is not whether Gods exist or whether materialism is correct. Rather it's to see how some branches of Christianity can justify their position of claiming exclusive, or at least superior, access to Truth.

Now that that's out of the way; you drastically misinterpreted what arthwollipot said. WHat he did not say was that there is nothing capable of convincing him he is wrong but in fact said that he's taking the natural position of the skeptic and default presupposition of naturalism. That is, all things have a natural explanation and/or scientific explanation and are not inherently supernatural and that statement is considered likely until sufficient evidence is brought forward. His statement was not a rejection of evidence but a demand for further evidence.

No. Read this again.

But seriously, no. There is no personal experience that would convince me. I'd always subconsciously interpret any experience naturalisticallly.
That's entirely unequivocal. Dr Wolli has very strong faith in Naturalism as the Truth. If there is no personal experience that can change your mind on something then you are committed to faith. (Remember that all the experience open to you is only personal experience... (unless you're a supernaturalist ;) ))

[Robert Oz]

No. Read this again.

But seriously, no. There is no personal experience that would convince me. I'd always subconsciously interpret any experience naturalisticallly.


That's entirely unequivocal. Dr Wolli has very strong faith in Naturalism as the Truth. If there is no personal experience that can change your mind on something then you are committed to faith. (Remember that all the experience open to you is only personal experience... (unless you're a supernaturalist ;) ))


plumjam,

I think the key here is the italicised words in arthwollipot's statement: "personal experience". This is a reasonable position to take since anyone can go mad, have hallucinations, etc.

The difference between arthwollipot's position and Christian Dudes' and kurios_kathy's is the following:

Although a personal experience would not convince arthwollipot of God's existence; objective evidence, independent of personal experience, evidence through the scientific method that eliminates personal beliefs, biases and experiences would convince him.

The same cannot be said for Christian Dude and kurios_kathy, because if objective evidence were to finally disprove the existence of God (which I don't think will ever happen) they will put it down to Satan's intervention.

[MattusMaximus]

Question for the religious believers here (I apologize if this is OT)...

How would you distinguish a revelation/epiphany from a supernatural God from an encounter with a super-intelligent & advanced, though completely natural, alien being?

I'm very interested in any responses.

[MattusMaximus]

The same cannot be said for Christian Dude and kurios_kathy, because if objective evidence were to finally disprove the existence of God (which I don't think will ever happen) they will put it down to Satan's intervention.


But wouldn't said evidence also disprove the existence of Satan?

[Darth Rotor]

The old "athiesm or materialism is a religion" argument

No, he did not say religion, he said faith, and there is a difference. (though perhaps small)
does absolutely nothing to further the debates at hand; namely do gods exist and is materialism correct? Assume both are religions.
Uh, no, you aren't reading what he wrote, you are pigeonholing it into a prefab argument.

No need to. Plum will fence with you from his own context.

Does that mean gods exist? Does it prove that the world is immaterial? Nope and Nope. So what does change if you prove both are religions? Nothing.
Does this post show that you like talking to yourself?
Now that that's out of the way; you drastically misinterpreted what arthwollipot said.
Irony, your name is Fhtagn. :D

[Darth Rotor]

Question for the religious believers here (I apologize if this is OT)...

How would you distinguish a revelation/epiphany from a supernatural God from an encounter with a super-intelligent & advanced, though completely natural, alien being?

I'm very interested in any responses.
I'll let you know once I have had both. Until then, the hypothetical will remain in suspension.

[fromdownunder]

Perhaps that was worth highlighting, even if only to point out an important difference in basic assumption between Christian Dude, Kurious Kathy and most everyone else in the discussion. For myself, I'm not sure there is no 'personal experience' that would convince me, but it would have to be pretty darned convincing.

I think that this is one of the key issues. If a god exists, or if the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God exists and is all or even some of what is claimed for Him/Her/It, then this god(s), which ever one it is would know exactly which buttons of mine It would have to press to gain my acceptance of It's existance.

Thus, three options as far as I can see:

1. It does not exist.
2. It does not want me to be a believer.
3. It does not want me YET, is biding it's time, and will let me know later.

I can't think of a fourth option.

Norm

[Silentknight]

Question for the religious believers here (I apologize if this is OT)...

How would you distinguish a revelation/epiphany from a supernatural God from an encounter with a super-intelligent & advanced, though completely natural, alien being?

I'm very interested in any responses.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to answer it regardless.

I may reject belief in worshiped beings called gods, but that does not mean I'm closed off to the possibility that there is more to the universe than we can currently understand. There may very well be something out there far beyond what we know, and in fact, I almost guarantee you that there is, given that we have only explored an infinitessimal fraction of the universe. If I were to one day encounter a powerful being beyond my comprehension, I believe the proper approach would be to learn as much as I could about it or possibly even from it, not get down on my knees and start sending up prayers and worship. I would stand on my own two feet and shake hands (paws, appendages, whatever) rather than prostrate myself before it. It would be exceedingly arrogant to assume that anything we come across must conform to human conventions or exist for our sake.

[plumjam]

plumjam,

I think the key here is the italicised words in arthwollipot's statement: "personal experience". This is a reasonable position to take since anyone can go mad, have hallucinations, etc.

The difference between arthwollipot's position and Christian Dudes' and kurios_kathy's is the following:

Although a personal experience would not convince arthwollipot of God's existence; objective evidence, independent of personal experience, evidence through the scientific method that eliminates personal beliefs, biases and experiences would convince him.


Please explain to me how you get to "objective evidence", as you say, 'independent of personal experience'.
Like I already said, all experience is personal experience (the only get-out clause here is possibly in some aspects of the supernatural.. in which some direct shared experiences are reported, as it were, transpersonally. But then that get-out clause won't be available to materialists/naturalists.)

To put it in another way, if someone hallucinates the process of a scientific experiment do they have a valid claim to portray that as a real experiment?

[articulett]

I just wish a believer could give me a good reason to take their beliefs more seriously than believers who use similar reasoning to endorse a belief they don't share. KK doesn't believe in reincarnation, for example-- why should I take her beliefs more seriously than she takes someone who believes in reincarnation?

Do believers understand that to the nonbeliever, they sound just as "wrong" as believers in psychics or Scientologists or rain dancers?-- just as vague, delusional, and confirmation biased? Why should the skeptic take them more seriously? Why do they see that others can be fooled, but are so sure they cannot? It just all sounds so arrogant... like each believer is so sure that they are in on some "divine truth" even though they have no more evidence than all the believers of things they, themselves, might mock.

How can people be proud of that? How can they think that's humble or an asset or honest? If your belief is true, why do you care whether anyone else believes or not? Why shouldn't the evidence for god be on par with other entities known to exist? Or evidence that the earth is a sphere? Why is the evidence for each religion identical to evidence for myths and delusions?

When believers try to convince me, I always think they are really trying to convince themselves. And if there is nothing that would change their mind, then how is that different than being brainwashed by a cult? Does that mean nothing can deprogram anyone who is "sold" on a false faith?

[joobz]

Please explain to me how you get to "objective evidence", as you say, 'independent of personal experience'.
Like I already said, all experience is personal experience (the only get-out clause here is possibly in some aspects of the supernatural.. in which some direct shared experiences are reported, as it were, transpersonally. But then that get-out clause won't be available to materialists/naturalists.)

To put it in another way, if someone hallucinates the process of a scientific experiment do they have a valid claim to portray that as a real experiment?


So you mean that what we call "objective evidence" is nothing more than a "reproducible shared delusion".

Well, I'm going to trust that the delusion that my car is going to take me to work tomorrow and not the delusion that angels will hoist me off to the office.

Not all delusions are created equal.

[Robert Oz]

Please explain to me how you get to "objective evidence", as you say, 'independent of personal experience'.
Like I already said, all experience is personal experience (the only get-out clause here is possibly in some aspects of the supernatural.. in which some direct shared experiences are reported, as it were, transpersonally. But then that get-out clause won't be available to materialists/naturalists.)

To put it in another way, if someone hallucinates the process of a scientific experiment do they have a valid claim to portray that as a real experiment?


You're heading into "The Matrix" territory. Yes, everything may be a hallucination, including the results from our scientific experiments. But beliefs must be based on evidence and probability. Otherwise, we couldn't function.

Having said that, if I have a vision of Jesus Christ and have a conversation with him, I might consider I am hallucinating. If, however, we all see Jesus Christ, and we can take samples to scientifically corroborate that the person standing in front of us is over 2,000 years old and still walks, talks and breaths, then either Jesus Christ exists or we are in "The Matrix".

Evidence is the closest we can get to understanding the world around us and anecdotes about spiritual revelations just don't cut it.

[arthwollipot]

Dr Wolli, I wish more people here were as honest as yourself.
What you're saying is that you have your own Faith, which is in the universal applicability of Naturalism. As you say, no experience you can imagine would really be able to affect this faith. So it's effectively beyond correction or revision. Literally a prejudice.No.

This is a common complaint materialists make about religionists.
It's been a repeating theme of mine on this board that the same very often applies in the opposite direction.. i.e. that materialists (naturalists if you prefer) are typically as faith-based as non-materialists. It's just that often they don't realise it.
In fact, it's made more difficult for them to realise it because it's typically a part of their faith that their faith is not faith-based.. and when you point it out it can drive them nuts :p
Anyway, good on you.No. You're so totally wrong, and here's the reason:

...you drastically misinterpreted what arthwollipot said. WHat he did not say was that there is nothing capable of convincing him he is wrong but in fact said that he's taking the natural position of the skeptic and default presupposition of naturalism. That is, all things have a natural explanation and/or scientific explanation and are not inherently supernatural and that statement is considered likely until sufficient evidence is brought forward. His statement was not a rejection of evidence but a demand for further evidence.KF has interpreted my statement correctly. I will adopt a default working assumption, if you like, but that is far from having the kind of faith that religion requires.

In regard to this particular thread what it does is add naturalism/materialism to the group of All Other Religions, which are being compared with Christianity. Given that most of the respondents are naturalists/materialists, that is not insignificant.That is so not what it does.

The debate at hand, as you put it, is not whether Gods exist or whether materialism is correct. Rather it's to see how some branches of Christianity can justify their position of claiming exclusive, or at least superior, access to Truth.Not just branches of Christianity - all other religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i and Wicca. I will accept any one of them, if they can conclusively and objectively show me that they are the One True Faith, and all others are wrong. I don't believe that any of them are capable of doing that.

That's entirely unequivocal. Dr Wolli has very strong faith in Naturalism as the Truth. If there is no personal experience that can change your mind on something then you are committed to faith. (Remember that all the experience open to you is only personal experience... (unless you're a supernaturalist ;) ))No, read that again. And how about you let me say what I think and feel?

And by the way, I'm not sure where the "Dr" bit came from, but it's wearing a bit thin. It was amusing for a little while, but now not so much. I am not a doctor of anything.

I think the key here is the italicised words in arthwollipot's statement: "personal experience". This is a reasonable position to take since anyone can go mad, have hallucinations, etc.Thank you.

The difference between arthwollipot's position and Christian Dudes' and kurios_kathy's is the following:

Although a personal experience would not convince arthwollipot of God's existence; objective evidence, independent of personal experience, evidence through the scientific method that eliminates personal beliefs, biases and experiences would convince him.Yes. I'd say "could" convince me, but whatever.

The same cannot be said for Christian Dude and kurios_kathy, because if objective evidence were to finally disprove the existence of God (which I don't think will ever happen) they will put it down to Satan's intervention.Indeed. Since CD and KK put more stock in subjective experience than I do, they ought to be much easier to convince - a decent dose of psychedelic drugs would do it, for example. Problem is, a strong part of their meme is extreme stubbornness once you have settled on your particular belief system. You have your "personal experience" and nothing and no-one can tell you any differently. End of story. Because you know what you know and no-one else does.

That's why I dismiss personal experience as any guide to the truth. If I didn't, then I'd still be a Pentacostal.

[Skeptic Ginger]

With all due respect, kurious_kathy, your claim, "The tecniques people come up with for dating rocks and dinasours is faulty, it is not accruate and there are many scientists out there sharing this info with people to help them see what is being taught in our schools as truth is not actually the case" is completely false.

[arthwollipot]

...as the tiniest amount of research on the net will confirm.

[SezMe]

That's why it came as such a shock to me to learn that kurious_kathy is your wife. We have our share of xian fundies that come here and preach at us, but I think I speak for many in saying that she has been one of the least-respected ones ever to appear here. She offers no true arguments, other than "God said so." (Admittedly, I don't think your arguments really amount to much more than that, either, but at least you try to explain yourself.) She usually just quotes scripture at us (seemingly unable to comprehend that to those of us who don't believe in the bible, scripture means no more than The Iliad, another really old book) and then ignores any questions she is uncomfortable with. If pressed, she doesn't seem able to think for herself, but rather says, "I'll ask my husband" or "I'll ask my pastor." She insults others and tells them they're going to hell for disagreeing with her. And she does it all with the most appalling spelling, grammar and sentence structure, that leads one to believe she is only barely literate.

I apologize if you find this post insulting, but jeez! Maybe you can explain to her that we don't hate all xians. But those that act like her give you all a bad name.
I want to second this. I found kk's appearance in this thread to be disappointing and, quite frankly, jarring. She has never offered any thoughtful response to other posts beyond - paraphrasing - "god told me so", "the bible says", etc. Nothing that a JREFer looking for a good dialog could really sink his/her teeth into.

So CD, it has been several days since your last response. Could you please step back in and begin to follow up on your initial post which was very reasonable and gave the promise of an interesting discussion. A number of interesting questions have been posed and you can trigger an interesting discussion by responding or by posting your own overarching approach to the issue that we can react to.

And kk, please either engage in the spirit of the thread or bow out.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

In regard to this particular thread what it does is add naturalism/materialism to the group of All Other Religions, which are being compared with Christianity. Given that most of the respondents are naturalists/materialists, that is not insignificant.
The debate at hand, as you put it, is not whether Gods exist or whether materialism is correct. Rather it's to see how some branches of Christianity can justify their position of claiming exclusive, or at least superior, access to Truth.

Wrong. It is insignificant, if we drop materialism/atheism (by the way I don't recall mentioning naturalism in that statment of mine) down to the level of a religion the only thing that changes is that we're now referring to these two as religions. The truth of those three is still debatable whether or not you want to strawman it as a religion. That being said I don't believe anything you mentioned can be considered faith or religious in nature.

That's extremely incorrect, the debate is on the truth of whether or not gods exist; specifically in this debate it is the truth of the gods of the other faiths versus "the God" of Christianity. Since the "Truth" of a religion is measured based on the commandments of it's god the existance of said gods is the center of every religious debate.

That's entirely unequivocal. Dr Wolli has very strong faith in Naturalism as the Truth. If there is no personal experience that can change your mind on something then you are committed to faith. (Remember that all the experience open to you is only personal experience... (unless you're a supernaturalist ;) ))

Personal experiences and evidence are not one in the same, that's logic 101. Solely subjective personal experiences, IMO, are meaningless without reason to back them up, seeing may be believing but seeing is not fact. arthwollipot never stated that no "reason" or "evidence" will be unable to convince him otherwise but rather than no personal experience will be able to convince him otherwise. That is because, as I stated, he like so many other naturalists are taking a presupposition that all things have natural/scientific explanations and greater evidence is needed to prove supernatural experiences.

No, he did not say religion, he said faith, and there is a difference. (though perhaps small)

Uh, no, you aren't reading what he wrote, you are pigeonholing it into a prefab argument.

No need to. Plum will fence with you from his own context.


Does this post show that you like talking to yourself?

Irony, your name is Fhtagn. :D

For a second I thought you might have something to add to this little exchange.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Please explain to me how you get to "objective evidence", as you say, 'independent of personal experience'.
Like I already said, all experience is personal experience (the only get-out clause here is possibly in some aspects of the supernatural.. in which some direct shared experiences are reported, as it were, transpersonally. But then that get-out clause won't be available to materialists/naturalists.)

If you want to get technical about it we can't even be 100% certain that we're having the same conversation right now. However, latching onto the presupposition that we aren't capable of having the same experience, unless done so supernaturally, is to put it bluntly wishful thinking. Even if three or four people have a similiar supernatural experience miles apart from one another there is no way to be 100% certain they all had the exact same experience, let alone if they had an experience at all. If four people see someone start up their car and drive it away then we'd give them the benefit of the doubt as this is a common experience we all see daily. If four people say they saw this person's car start-up on it's own and drive off then they have a much greater burden of proof in order to prove their experience as true. A personal experience on it's own is evidence of nothing, supernatural or otherwise, but requires reason to back it up. We still can't be 100% certain that this person did get in his car and drive off, however I find it more likely than his car started up on it's own and drove off. Everything is proven within reason, 'nuff said.

To put it in another way, if someone hallucinates the process of a scientific experiment do they have a valid claim to portray that as a real experiment?

This sounds like a loaded question but whatever. I don't imagine that anyone will hallucinate a scientific experiment and then report it as true, I study biochemistry and I wouldn't. Now if they hallucinate a scientific experiment than reproduce the results of the experiment and it works than that's fine. But on it's own then no they don't have a valid claim without hard data.

[plumjam]

So you mean that what we call "objective evidence" is nothing more than a "reproducible shared delusion".
Evidence doesn't have to be reproducible e.g. historical evidence.
And yes, if it is shared then how much sense does it make to call some experience a delusion?

Well, I'm going to trust that the delusion that my car is going to take me to work tomorrow and not the delusion that angels will hoist me off to the office.
If you drove to work and in the office your colleagues were drinking coffee and chatting with a host of angels.. delusion?

[plumjam]

No.

No. You're so totally wrong, and here's the reason:

KF has interpreted my statement correctly. I will adopt a default working assumption, if you like, but that is far from having the kind of faith that religion requires.

That is so not what it does.

Not just branches of Christianity - all other religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i and Wicca. I will accept any one of them, if they can conclusively and objectively show me that they are the One True Faith, and all others are wrong. I don't believe that any of them are capable of doing that.

No, read that again. And how about you let me say what I think and feel?

And by the way, I'm not sure where the "Dr" bit came from, but it's wearing a bit thin. It was amusing for a little while, but now not so much. I am not a doctor of anything.

Thank you.

Yes. I'd say "could" convince me, but whatever.

Indeed. Since CD and KK put more stock in subjective experience than I do, they ought to be much easier to convince - a decent dose of psychedelic drugs would do it, for example. Problem is, a strong part of their meme is extreme stubbornness once you have settled on your particular belief system. You have your "personal experience" and nothing and no-one can tell you any differently. End of story. Because you know what you know and no-one else does.

That's why I dismiss personal experience as any guide to the truth. If I didn't, then I'd still be a Pentacostal.

What you said was not 'adopting a default working assumption'. What you said was that there was no possible personal experience which could sway you from Naturalism.
That isn't adopting a working position which can change as the evidence comes in. It's choosing a prejudice which rests on faith. The kind of faith that some religious people have,.. and for which they are routinely criticised in places like this forum.
If that's not what you meant to convey then, sorry, but you miswrote, in the kind of way Hillary misspoke. :p

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

What you said was not 'adopting a default working assumption'. What you said was that there was no possible personal experience which could sway you from Naturalism.
That isn't adopting a working position which can change as the evidence comes in. It's choosing a prejudice which rests on faith. The kind of faith that some religious people have,.. and for which they are routinely criticised in places like this forum.
If that's not what you meant to convey then, sorry, but you miswrote, in the kind of way Hillary misspoke. :p

You still fail because you refuse to understand that personal experience, reason, and evidence are not all the same thing.

[Egg]

I have a 12 inch ruler. I can be confident of the existence of everything that I can measure with that ruler. I get measurements when I apply this to furniture, plants and people and can say with a high degree of confidence that these things exist. If I can't measure something with the ruler, I can be confident that it doesn't exist. All real things can be measured with the ruler. Something that cannot be measured with my ruler, I can call supernatural and say by definition that it doesn't exist.

It appears to me that I hear sound coming from the CD player. However, since this sound cannot be measured by my ruler, I am unable to distinguish between the sound and a hallucination. I can therefore safely dismiss the existence of the sound. Should at some point in the future, sound become measurable by my ruler, I will change my mind about its existence.

[chillzero]

I just know from my own painful trun around that a life without God, left to myself was pretty much self explosive as a sinner ruled by my sin. It does take us away from what we need, HIM! He will show you the way out of darkness if you'll seek him with all your heart, and trust That he is who he says he is. Jesus is how we come to know God, only through Christ!

Are you unable to determine what is right from what is wrong, without some ancient book telling you what punishment awaits for one choice over the other?
When you now reject 'sin', is it because you recognise it as a sin and the wrong thing to do, or is it because some ancient book has dictated to you that it is a sin for which you will be punished?
Do you understand the reasoning why a 'sin' is labelled as one, or do you just accept that it is because 'god' tells you so?
If you understand why something is a 'sin', why can you not continue to make that determination on your own - why would you let it "rule" you?

[Mashuna]

What you said was not 'adopting a default working assumption'. What you said was that there was no possible personal experience which could sway you from Naturalism.
That isn't adopting a working position which can change as the evidence comes in. It's choosing a prejudice which rests on faith. The kind of faith that some religious people have,.. and for which they are routinely criticised in places like this forum.
If that's not what you meant to convey then, sorry, but you miswrote, in the kind of way Hillary misspoke. :p

Only if one adopts your definition of personal experience. Otherwise what Arthwollipot said makes sense.

[Mashuna]

If you drove to work and in the office your colleagues were drinking coffee and chatting with a host of angels.. delusion?

This month? Halloween party.

[shuttlt]

I have a 12 inch ruler. I can be confident of the existence of everything that I can measure with that ruler. I get measurements when I apply this to furniture, plants and people and can say with a high degree of confidence that these things exist. If I can't measure something with the ruler, I can be confident that it doesn't exist. All real things can be measured with the ruler. Something that cannot be measured with my ruler, I can call supernatural and say by definition that it doesn't exist.

It appears to me that I hear sound coming from the CD player. However, since this sound cannot be measured by my ruler, I am unable to distinguish between the sound and a hallucination. I can therefore safely dismiss the existence of the sound. Should at some point in the future, sound become measurable by my ruler, I will change my mind about its existence.

Can you measure your ruler with your ruler, or do you employ a meta-ruler?

[Moochie]

...and can I get you a God-Lite with that?

Only if it's served by Sarah Palin, otherwise thenks, but no thenks. :)


M.

[Moochie]

I think that this is one of the key issues. If a god exists, or if the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God exists and is all or even some of what is claimed for Him/Her/It, then this god(s), which ever one it is would know exactly which buttons of mine It would have to press to gain my acceptance of It's existance.

Thus, three options as far as I can see:

1. It does not exist.
2. It does not want me to be a believer.
3. It does not want me YET, is biding it's time, and will let me know later.

I can't think of a fourth option.

Norm


4. On Planet X, ...


M.

[Moochie]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to answer it regardless.

I may reject belief in worshiped beings called gods, but that does not mean I'm closed off to the possibility that there is more to the universe than we can currently understand. There may very well be something out there far beyond what we know, and in fact, I almost guarantee you that there is, given that we have only explored an infinitessimal fraction of the universe. If I were to one day encounter a powerful being beyond my comprehension, I believe the proper approach would be to learn as much as I could about it or possibly even from it, not get down on my knees and start sending up prayers and worship. I would stand on my own two feet and shake hands (paws, appendages, whatever) rather than prostrate myself before it. It would be exceedingly arrogant to assume that anything we come across must conform to human conventions or exist for our sake.

Yes, the whole notion of "worshipping" something that can't be known in the way we know anything leaves me speechless. It's almost obscene.


M.

[Moochie]

<snip>

When believers try to convince me, I always think they are really trying to convince themselves. And if there is nothing that would change their mind, then how is that different than being brainwashed by a cult? Does that mean nothing can deprogram anyone who is "sold" on a false faith?


I think this is a key phrase in the "learning god" process. Presenting to a young person a bunch of fables as truth, with no supporting evidence whatever, needs constant reinforcement, reinforcement which is perhaps partly achieved by telling the child all the nasty stuff the god will do if he/she doesn't toe the line. Pretty soon the child's imagination will take over. The child is kept away from anything that might contradict the official teaching until such a time as it is evident that the child is no longer interested in questioning what he/she has been taught. Thus another human has become a dweller in the twilight zone.


M.

[Nursefoxfire]

I think that this is one of the key issues. If a god exists, or if the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God exists and is all or even some of what is claimed for Him/Her/It, then this god(s), which ever one it is would know exactly which buttons of mine It would have to press to gain my acceptance of It's existance.

Thus, three options as far as I can see:

1. It does not exist.
2. It does not want me to be a believer.
3. It does not want me YET, is biding it's time, and will let me know later.

I can't think of a fourth option.

Norm

My fundy family would add a 4th option:

4. It DOES want you, but is waiting for the scales to fall from your eyes, and for you to renounce your love of wicked ways, and the allure of the Devil. It has already let you know this in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. You're just choosing to ignore the signs.

(wow, throw some typos in there and I could be channeling Krazy_kathy!...wait, that's not her name, what was it again?)

[Moochie]

...as the tiniest amount of research on the net will confirm.


But that would mean stepping out of her comfort zone and into Satan's (aka the real) world. In this way religion acts as a sort of condom for the mind.


M.

[arthwollipot]

What you said was not 'adopting a default working assumption'. What you said was that there was no possible personal experience which could sway you from Naturalism.
That isn't adopting a working position which can change as the evidence comes in. It's choosing a prejudice which rests on faith. The kind of faith that some religious people have,.. and for which they are routinely criticised in places like this forum.
If that's not what you meant to convey then, sorry, but you miswrote, in the kind of way Hillary misspoke. :pCan you honestly say that a personal experience has precisely the same effect as objective, repeatable evidence? Come on Plumjam. You're a bright lad.

A personal experience is like an epiphany. Most Christians of my acquaintance report having felt "the presence of God" in their lives at some point or another. Heck, I felt it myself - or thought I did - when I was a churchgoer. A personal experince is not objective, and it is not repeatable.

Let me state right here and now. If I were to see objective and repeatable evidence for any non-physical phenomenon, I would abandon naturalism in a shot. A personal experience is not sufficient evidence.

It doesn't seem as though anyone else was confused by what I wrote. I wonder why you were so easily able to misinterpret my words?

[Robert Oz]

It doesn't seem as though anyone else was confused by what I wrote. I wonder why you were so easily able to misinterpret my words?


Because, misinterpreting words is what the religious are good at.

[articulett]

How else can one convince oneself that barbaric and banal bronze age parables and platitudes are, actually wisdom, moral guidance, and divine truths from the invisible creator of the universe?

[MattusMaximus]

I want to second this. I found kk's appearance in this thread to be disappointing and, quite frankly, jarring. She has never offered any thoughtful response to other posts beyond - paraphrasing - "god told me so", "the bible says", etc. Nothing that a JREFer looking for a good dialog could really sink his/her teeth into.


Plumjam, CD, and KK are all wrong.

I know this because God told me so. Therefore, I am right and they are wrong - end of story.

To PJ, CD, and KK - prove me wrong, I dare you.

PS: This religious solipsism (read: PJ's "personal experience") game sure is fun... anyone can play! :D

[H'ethetheth]

Can you honestly say that a personal experience has precisely the same effect as objective, repeatable evidence? Come on Plumjam. You're a bright lad.

A personal experience is like an epiphany. Most Christians of my acquaintance report having felt "the presence of God" in their lives at some point or another. Heck, I felt it myself - or thought I did - when I was a churchgoer. A personal experince is not objective, and it is not repeatable.

Let me state right here and now. If I were to see objective and repeatable evidence for any non-physical phenomenon, I would abandon naturalism in a shot. A personal experience is not sufficient evidence.

It doesn't seem as though anyone else was confused by what I wrote. I wonder why you were so easily able to misinterpret my words?Actually I had some trouble figuring out what you meant exactly. I read it the same way Plumjam did, except I wasn't sure what you meant by emphasising "personal experience".

[Christian Dude]

[Snip]
There are typically 3 things most religions have in common.

1) A set of moral rules or code of conduct for how to live your life.
2) The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity.
3) Some kind of promise of an afterlife. Oh but the details...

While this is true, these are not the important factors. Even atheists have sets 1 & 2 as well. What is important are the differences. Every religion is exclusive at its core. They all say theirs is the right way to view God, or Gods, and how to live life. That makes them exclusive in their core doctrines. That is where the truth comes out, in the differences.

Wait, wait. I have several more conditions I'd like to add to what I said previously. Before I consider converting, mainstream Christianity must first clean up its act. This means putting an end to the child abuse, the religious violence, the homophobia, the misogynism, the corrpution, and the misinformation campaigns in Africa. This means it must allow people to decide for themselves and stop preaching itself into their private lives, the laws of the land, the education system, or scientific fields where faith has no business. This also means that it must start going out of its way more to help people in need, and stop spending so much money on itself to build gaudy churches or to buy the finest dresses and gold jewelry for its clergy. In other words, Christianity needs to start actually listening to Jesus...

Oops, I guess that kind of breaks the deal right there.

SK, why would you judge a religion by the abuses perpetrated by counterfeits using the name of a religion? I do no know if you have read the New Testament or not, but clearly Jesus’, all the Apostle’s, and the other writers of the New Testament’s teachings on child abuse, religious violence, misogynism and corruption are plainly against these, and strongly condemn those who do such things. Jesus said it would be better for a person if a mill stone was hung around their neck and they were dumped into the sea than what they will face if they hurt a child.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, while it is true that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin, it is clear that only the sin is to be hated, as all sin is to be hated, but the person is to be loved. The same grace and love offered to a person who’s sin is stealing is also to be offered to a person who’s sin is homosexuality. True Christians are not afraid of homosexuals, they love them, but, they are bold to tell them that to abandon that sin would be the best for them, and encourage them to do so, just as they do with whatever sin issue a person, Christian or not, is dealing with.

I am not familiar with you reference to misinformation campaigns in Africa. If people are lying to people, and the people doing the lying are calling them selves Christians, and these lies oppress people, don’t believe they’re Christians, cause they’re not.

Since this is closely related, I would like to know the position of the Christians when it comes to religion/God belief in general versus non-belief: Is a person better off being an atheist, or are they better off as a believer in a "false" religion, like a Muslim, Jew or Hindu? Or are they equivalent? Also, is it safer being a monotheist or a polytheist? How about henotheism for that matter, which means you believe in the existence of other gods, but believe the God of the Bible is supreme? Thanks.

The first part answer is: they are equivalent. The worse position is to have once held Christian beliefs, then to reject Christianity. It’s not like Islam, where you are under a death penalty, but, in a sense you could say it’s worse because when you stand before God on judgment day you have to answer to Him why you once said you believed Him and then you rejected Him.

The second part answer is: none of those positions is any safer than the other. You can’t logically believe in the existence of other gods and believe the God of the Bible is supreme, they are mutually exclusive because the God of the Bible says, in His Bible, that there are no other gods but Him. Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD Himself is God; there is none other besides Him.”

Well I'm far from an expert, but I can repeat what I was told when I was a church-goer. That'll at least give you one perspective.

Any activity that you do that is not an act of worshipping Jesus Christ is by that very fact aiding Satan's cause in the world.
What a bunch of horse pucky. Worshipping Jesus is great and a huge part of a Christian’s life, but saying that playing Softball aids Satan’s cause is crap from Satan if you ask me.

So essentially, if you're not a Christian (and in fact the "right" kind of Christian) then you are be default a satanist. It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Hindu, atheist or whatever. They're all the same.

As I said, this is only what I was told when I went to church. YMMV.
arthwollipot, I apologize on behalf of Jesus. I am sorry you were unfortunate to have had to endure such a place. It sounds like Satan ran the place, not Jesus. I think Satan loves to do stuff like that to turn people off to Jesus’ people. My definition of the “right” kind of Christian is one that follows the Bible and does not follow men’s added traditions, and other stuff they invent and add to what the Bible says. You find true Christians in all sorts of different denominational and nondenominational churches that have not added to, or corrupted scripture. Unfortunately, plenty of “so called” churches have invented all sorts of strange and stupid stuff, and added that stuff on to or even corrupted the Bible. True churches (groups of Christians) are all about love and grace, living a pure life that glorifies Jesus, telling the world about Jesus and what He taught in His Word.

A fake church is a place where they use their so called faith as a weapon to acquire power over people, to control people or to fleece people. Satan runs those places, not Jesus.

Let me kick off with a question then:

What do you mean when you say that the holy spirit proves the truth of the Bible to someone? How did that work or feel in your case? What exactly happens on such an occasion?
In other words: Exactly how did you yourself become convinced?

You may be as mystical as you like, but I'd like it to be as specific as possible.

Thanks.
H'ethetheth, I call it the witness of the Holy Spirit. It is not an emotional experience or feeling, it really is not about feelings at all. It is about truth hitting you square in the face, truth that becomes impossible to deny. Although it is not truth about anything material, anything you can create an experiment to measure, or facts you can observe necessarily, (here’s the mystical part) it is spiritual truth. It is the truth that sin is real, and that the way to deal with sin is found in the Bible put there for us by the God who created us. Once the Holy Spirit does His supernatural work and shows us sin is real, you then look around at the world and see a world filled with sin sickness. You then can’t believe you didn’t see it so clearly before.

The world’s problem is not ignorance, lack of education, bad circumstances, bad conditions, lack of opportunity. Human nature is not generally good. The problem is human nature us generally bad and we all, each and every one of us, choose our own messed up will over God’s will. We sin. Once the Holy Spirit shows you that, you are desperate to learn how to deal with it. That’s when He shows you the Bible is true and the word of God. There is no emotional feelings, no magical experience, no Holly Wood version supernatural amazing stuff, just a revelation of truth. And that, revelation from God, is real supernaturalism. A flood of emotions that come out of regret and repentance can come after that. Then emotions of love for God. But the moment of revelation is not about that stuff, it is about an undeniable knowledge of the truth.

So, in this post, let me finish with this. It is the differences in the world’s religions that count, not where they have points of commonality. One of the biggest differences of Christianity against all other religions is that our physical bodies are temples for the God who created us to dwell in for all eternity. He is perfect, sinless, holy. No sin can be in His presence when God reveals his full glory. Sin is destroyed by the holy glory of God. So, for Him to indwell us for all eternity, for us to be in his presence for all eternity, for us to be able to experience God’s full glory, our sin must be removed as if we never had sinned. Our sin, when we receive Christ as our savior, is ultimately removed from us and placed on Jesus when He was on the cross. Isaiah 53:4-6 says, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” God the Father crushed our sin when it was placed on Jesus. If God would have crushed our sin while we still had it, we would not have survived physically or spiritually, we would be destroyed.

You know what, God does not crush the sin of the people who reject him. He does not destroy them, He respects their lives so much He just sends them to a place where they are completely and finally removed from His presence. That place is called Hell. The horrible thing is that when God’s love and grace are completely and forever removed from a person’s life, it is complete misery because all a person will be able to do is go over and over how they lost out on getting to be with God forever.

To be with God forever, to get to experience his full glory, to have Him indwell you, you have to have your sin crushed (destroyed, completely removed like you never had it), that is what God planned through Christ’s redemptive actions on the cross before anything was ever created. And that is a huge difference from any other religion.

[arthwollipot]

Actually I had some trouble figuring out what you meant exactly. I read it the same way Plumjam did, except I wasn't sure what you meant by emphasising "personal experience".Okay. At what point did it become clear?

What a bunch of horse pucky. Worshipping Jesus is great and a huge part of a Christian’s life, but saying that playing Softball aids Satan’s cause is crap from Satan if you ask me.So they are the wrong kind of Christian. Gotcha. Tell me, what's your opinion of Sarah Palin?

arthwollipot, I apologize on behalf of Jesus. I am sorry you were unfortunate to have had to endure such a place.Apology accepted.

It sounds like Satan ran the place, not Jesus. I think Satan loves to do stuff like that to turn people off to Jesus’ people. My definition of the “right” kind of Christian is one that follows the Bible and does not follow men’s added traditions, and other stuff they invent and add to what the Bible says. You find true Christians in all sorts of different denominational and nondenominational churches that have not added to, or corrupted scripture. Unfortunately, plenty of “so called” churches have invented all sorts of strange and stupid stuff, and added that stuff on to or even corrupted the Bible. True churches (groups of Christians) are all about love and grace, living a pure life that glorifies Jesus, telling the world about Jesus and what He taught in His Word.Strangely enough, that was their definition of the "right" kind of Christian too.

You may have wondered why Sarah Palin's name came up there. It's because the church I went to was an Assemblies of God - the same denomination as her.

You just called Sarah Palin a satanist.

[SezMe]

Thanks for your response. Sadly, it is filled with the No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotchman)fallacy as well as other thinking errors.

SK, why would you judge a religion by the abuses perpetrated by counterfeits using the name of a religion?

Scotsman, Version 1.0. You're asserting that anyone who abuses religion is a "counterfeit". How convenient. Basically you're asserting if someone is not a good guy, he is not a christian. Can you not see the emptiness of that assertion?

True Christians are not afraid of homosexuals, they love them, but, they are bold to tell them that to abandon that sin would be the best for them, and encourage them to do so, just as they do with whatever sin issue a person, Christian or not, is dealing with.

Scotsman, Version 2.0. If you are a true christian, your stance regarding homosexuals is the same as CD's. If not, well, hey, you're just not a christian. Can you not see how hollow this is?

If people are lying to people, and the people doing the lying are calling them selves Christians, and these lies oppress people, don’t believe they’re Christians, cause they’re not.

Scotsman, Version 3.0. If people lie, they are not christians. But how do we know if they are lying? Of course, it is obvious. If they don't agree with CD's interpretation of christianity, they're liars.


A fake church is a place where they use their so called faith as a weapon to acquire power over people, to control people or to fleece people. Satan runs those places, not Jesus.

Scotsman, Version 4.0. If people do not conform to CD's version of chrisianity, they are "fake". Are you seeing a pattern here, CD?

[Laughingmonk]

@Christian Dude:

I cannot deny how well your post was written. As a former christian myself, I believe that you mean what you say. However, i think a few statements were not as well thought out as others:

The problem is human nature us generally bad and we all, each and every one of us, choose our own messed up will over God’s will. We sin.

I prefer to look at human nature as exactly that: human. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

I know this is anecdotal, but I have personally known amazing people who did awesome things, without any sort of God involved. I have also known religious people who have committed reprehensible acts.


The world’s problem is not ignorance, lack of education, bad circumstances, bad conditions, lack of opportunity.

That is a profoundly ignorant, and arrogant, statement to make. Study international issues more. Especially Africa.


When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, while it is true that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin, it is clear that only the sin is to be hated, as all sin is to be hated, but the person is to be loved. The same grace and love offered to a person who’s sin is stealing is also to be offered to a person who’s sin is homosexuality. True Christians are not afraid of homosexuals, they love them, but, they are bold to tell them that to abandon that sin would be the best for them, and encourage them to do so, just as they do with whatever sin issue a person, Christian or not, is dealing with.

What is wrong with homosexuality? I haven't engaged in homosexual activity myself, so I am honestly wondering what the issue is here. If both people accept, is there someone being wronged here? Really? Why are many Christians obsessed with this?

I don't care what god has to say about it. I want to know what YOU think. I want to know why YOU think homosexuality is a sin.

That is all for now.

[chillzero]

It is the truth that sin is real, and that the way to deal with sin is found in the Bible put there for us by the God who created us. Once the Holy Spirit does His supernatural work and shows us sin is real, you then look around at the world and see a world filled with sin sickness. You then can’t believe you didn’t see it so clearly before.

The world’s problem is not ignorance, lack of education, bad circumstances, bad conditions, lack of opportunity. Human nature is not generally good. The problem is human nature us generally bad and we all, each and every one of us, choose our own messed up will over God’s will. We sin. Once the Holy Spirit shows you that, you are desperate to learn how to deal with it. That’s when He shows you the Bible is true and the word of God.

Christian Dude,
I asked your wife some questions earlier, that she has not yet responded to. I'd like to address the same questions to you.

Are you unable to determine what is right from what is wrong, without some ancient book telling you what punishment awaits for one choice over the other?
When you now reject 'sin', is it because you recognise it as a sin and the wrong thing to do, or is it because some ancient book has dictated to you that it is a sin for which you will be punished?
Do you understand the reasoning why a 'sin' is labelled as one, or do you just accept that it is because 'god' tells you so?
If you understand why something is a 'sin', why can you not continue to make that determination on your own - why would you let it "rule" you?

[H'ethetheth]

Okay. At what point did it become clear?
After you clarified it :)

[Blackadder]

Christian Dude, ...................

That's why it came as such a shock to me to learn that kurious_kathy is your wife. We have our share of xian fundies that.....................


deleted

[H'ethetheth]

H'ethetheth, I call it the witness of the Holy Spirit. It is not an emotional experience or feeling, it really is not about feelings at all. It is about truth hitting you square in the face, truth that becomes impossible to deny. Although it is not truth about anything material, anything you can create an experiment to measure, or facts you can observe necessarily, (here’s the mystical part) it is spiritual truth. It is the truth that sin is real, and that the way to deal with sin is found in the Bible put there for us by the God who created us. Once the Holy Spirit does His supernatural work and shows us sin is real, you then look around at the world and see a world filled with sin sickness. You then can’t believe you didn’t see it so clearly before.
So this revealed truth is a "spiritual truth"; An unmeasurable, objectively unverifiable and clearly unfalsifiable kind of truth, and the truth of the Bible is such a truth.
To me this conveys that truth means something completely different to you than it means to me. If we are to continue this discussion in a way any useful way we must either agree on a definition of 'truth', or I can just take your definition of 'spiritual truth' at face value and conclude that spiritual truths are not true for everyone in any meaningful way.

Let me clarify that somewhat: In my mind, truth is only accepted when a logical deduction forces me to conclude that something is true, based on premises that I already held true before. Furthermore, there is always the awareness that the premises that I held true might be overthrown by other observations and logical conclusions; everything I hold true is provisional to some extent.
If the holy spirit were to just splice an idea into my mind without a complete rationale behind it, I would start questioning it immediately after I found out I had this idea.
Something comparable sometimes happens when I stumble upon a rare idea that I've held true since childhood but never thought about since. When that happens, I immediately and reflexively try to find out why I don't know the reasons to believe that. When it turns out I don't have reasons I understand, it's no longer necessarily true.
Of course there might be a rationale behind the truth of the Bible, but since this thread asks for it, and you have not supplied it, I'll assume there isn't a rationale until I see one.

And then there's this question that really needs to be asked: How can you be certain that this is not your mind or brain playing tricks on you?


To be with God forever, to get to experience his full glory, to have Him indwell you, you have to have your sin crushed (destroyed, completely removed like you never had it), that is what God planned through Christ’s redemptive actions on the cross before anything was ever created. And that is a huge difference from any other religion....but we have not established that this is necessarily true, of course.

[Ladewig]

The world’s problem is not ignorance, lack of education, bad circumstances, bad conditions, lack of opportunity. Human nature is not generally good. The problem is human nature us generally bad and we all, each and every one of us, choose our own messed up will over God’s will.

Like others on this board, I reject the idea that human nature is all bad. I see a mix of good and bad in different proportions. I see no reason that a semi-human sacrifice is necessary make us somehow more worthy.

You know what, God does not crush the sin of the people who reject him. He does not destroy them,

How's chances of you explaining this truth to Kurious Kathy? Her posts on the California wildfires indicates that she thinks otherwise.

[Christian Dude]

Okay. At what point did it become clear?

So they are the wrong kind of Christian. Gotcha. Tell me, what's your opinion of Sarah Palin?

Apology accepted.

Strangely enough, that was their definition of the "right" kind of Christian too.

You may have wondered why Sarah Palin's name came up there. It's because the church I went to was an Assemblies of God - the same denomination as her.

You just called Sarah Palin a satanist.

I don't know anything about Sara Palin's personal faith, from what I have heard her say in some speaches, I think she gets her morality from the Bible, so on priciple I think she has the correct foundation for her morality.

Many people say one thing and do another. So, how did the act? Did they live out what they said they stood for and believed? If they did not, just dismiss them.

I did not call Sara Palin a satanist, I never said that phony Christians are satanists, I just said they are phony. Is Sara a phony Christian? I don't know, I do not have enough info to make a call.

[Foster Zygote]

...the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin...
The Bible also clearly states that eating shellfish is a sin. Yet in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 it states that a girl who is found to not be a virgin should be killed by the men of her city.

I am not familiar with you reference to misinformation campaigns in Africa. If people are lying to people, and the people doing the lying are calling them selves Christians, and these lies oppress people, don’t believe they’re Christians, cause they’re not.
You may want to look up the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

The first part answer is: they are equivalent. The worse position is to have once held Christian beliefs, then to reject Christianity. It’s not like Islam, where you are under a death penalty, but, in a sense you could say it’s worse because when you stand before God on judgment day you have to answer to Him why you once said you believed Him and then you rejected Him.
And I would say "Because you hid yourself from me".

H'ethetheth, I call it the witness of the Holy Spirit. It is not an emotional experience or feeling, it really is not about feelings at all. It is about truth hitting you square in the face, truth that becomes impossible to deny.
Like the truth that Humans and Chimpanzees both contain exactly the same random mutations in the unused portions of their DNA, indicating that these mutations occurred in a breeding population that contained the common ancestor of both species?

Although it is not truth about anything material, anything you can create an experiment to measure, or facts you can observe necessarily, (here’s the mystical part) it is spiritual truth. It is the truth that sin is real, and that the way to deal with sin is found in the Bible put there for us by the God who created us. Once the Holy Spirit does His supernatural work and shows us sin is real, you then look around at the world and see a world filled with sin sickness. You then can’t believe you didn’t see it so clearly before.
Yet, if you yourself lived in a Hindu community it is almost certain that you would have found the spiritual truth of Hinduism. If you were raised among Sikhs you would likely have a revelation of the truth of Sikh beliefs. Were you raised in a Muslim community you would certainly come to "just know" that Mohamed was God's final prophet.

The whole point of this thread was for you to lay out a logical theory as to why your Christian experience of revealed truth is any more valid than the experience of someone from any other religion. They all say the same sort of thing that you are saying. If all we have in the end is a bunch of people who claim to just know in their hearts that their beliefs are true, then we are right back where we started and you have failed to demonstrate anything of substance. People offering mutually exclusive claims of truth sans evidence cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong.

The world’s problem is not ignorance, lack of education, bad circumstances, bad conditions, lack of opportunity.
That's easy for you, and rather arrogant of you, to say with your food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, plumbing, electricity, transportation, security of law, entertainment, etc. Compared to most people in the world, you and I are stinking rich. We don't have to watch our children starve to death with flies in their eyes as local warlords send their illiterate goons into our villages to kill or evict our friends and families.

Human nature is not generally good. The problem is human nature us generally bad and we all, each and every one of us, choose our own messed up will over God’s will. We sin. Once the Holy Spirit shows you that, you are desperate to learn how to deal with it.
You mentioned to Arthwollipot that some religious authorities use their power to control their followers. Well one of the most effective tools of this sort of manipulation that I have seen is to convince the followers that they are bad, evil, worthless. If you fill them with guilt and break down their self esteem you can remake them in your own image. Sure, humans are capable of great evil, but they are also capable of great good. We need to accept that it is up to us to make the world a better place, because magical beings or benevolent aliens aren't going to do it for us.

That’s when He shows you the Bible is true and the word of God.
Yeah, that or the Koran, or the Baghavad Ghita, or...

There is no emotional feelings, no magical experience, no Holly Wood version supernatural amazing stuff, just a revelation of truth. And that, revelation from God, is real supernaturalism. A flood of emotions that come out of regret and repentance can come after that. Then emotions of love for God. But the moment of revelation is not about that stuff, it is about an undeniable knowledge of the truth.
A truth for which you offer nothing more than the same subjective experience offered by those of other religions that you claim to be false.

[wolfgirl]

You know what, God does not crush the sin of the people who reject him. He does not destroy them, He respects their lives so much He just sends them to a place where they are completely and finally removed from His presence. That place is called Hell. The horrible thing is that when God’s love and grace are completely and forever removed from a person’s life, it is complete misery because all a person will be able to do is go over and over how they lost out on getting to be with God forever.

To be with God forever, to get to experience his full glory, to have Him indwell you, you have to have your sin crushed (destroyed, completely removed like you never had it), that is what God planned through Christ’s redemptive actions on the cross before anything was ever created. And that is a huge difference from any other religion.I don't get this. I'm living "without God" right now, and I'm perfectly happy.

Though I don't believe we go anywhere after we die, if I did and it was just someplace without God, I'd be like, "Huh, just like home."

I suppose I might think, "Hmm, I thought I would just be dead now and not in some other place, so I guess I was wrong about something. But since there's no lake of fire, I think I'll be just fine. Hey, where's George Carlin? I want to party with him."

You see, my life is not so empty and meaningless that I need an imaginary friend to make me happy.

[Christian Dude]

The Bible also clearly states that eating shellfish is a sin. Yet in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 it states that a girl who is found to not be a virgin should be killed by the men of her city.
That is in the Levitical law. The Levitical law was only for the ancient Jews and only for that time. It is not a sin for us to eat shrimp because we are not under that law. But, because scripture does explain what sin is in the New Testament, we can clearly communicate what sin is and that it will have negative consequences in our lives. Here is some of what the New Testament’s definition of sin is: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Then Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” All these things, and things like these(and such Like), have negative and painful consequences attached to them. The ultimate consequence is permanent separation from our Creator God.

In the book of Galatians we learn that the law was never meant to save people, it was meant to be a tutor. Galatians 3:21 says, “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.” And in Galatians 3:24 it says, “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” We also learn in Galatians that sin is a work of the flesh. Sin is sin whether there is a law or not, we learn that in Romans. Although we are not bound by the Levitical law the ancient Jews were bound by and it is not a sin not to practice that law, sin is still sin, and homosexuality is a sin.

[snip]
Yet, if you yourself lived in a Hindu community it is almost certain that you would have found the spiritual truth of Hinduism. If you were raised among Sikhs you would likely have a revelation of the truth of Sikh beliefs. Were you raised in a Muslim community you would certainly come to "just know" that Mohamed was God's final prophet.
I was raised in a secular humanistic community, so why don’t I “just know” evolution and atheism are the truth?

The whole point of this thread was for you to lay out a logical theory as to why your Christian experience of revealed truth is any more valid than the experience of someone from any other religion. They all say the same sort of thing that you are saying. If all we have in the end is a bunch of people who claim to just know in their hearts that their beliefs are true, then we are right back where we started and you have failed to demonstrate anything of substance. People offering mutually exclusive claims of truth sans evidence cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong.
I agree with your statement FZ, even the part were you state “but they can all be wrong”. I picked a few of the questions and comments to get started in the discussion in this thread. I will offer more as I post more in this thread.


That's easy for you, and rather arrogant of you, to say with your food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, plumbing, electricity, transportation, security of law, entertainment, etc. Compared to most people in the world, you and I are stinking rich. We don't have to watch our children starve to death with flies in their eyes as local warlords send their illiterate goons into our villages to kill or evict our friends and families.
FZ, you don’t know my personal experience in life, what I have been through and suffered. I am in whole hearted agreement with you about the vast majority of people that live in the US are tremendously rich compared to the rest of the world. People suffer at the hands of evil people and atrocities are committed against them, but because I might have it easy or safe in comparison does not mean I am arrogant because it is my personal belief, based on my understanding of the human condition from scripture, that the problem is human nature and not the conditions in person’s life that makes people sinners.


You mentioned to Arthwollipot that some religious authorities use their power to control their followers. Well one of the most effective tools of this sort of manipulation that I have seen is to convince the followers that they are bad, evil, worthless. If you fill them with guilt and break down their self esteem you can remake them in your own image. Sure, humans are capable of great evil, but they are also capable of great good. We need to accept that it is up to us to make the world a better place, because magical beings or benevolent aliens aren't going to do it for us.
What if it is true that human nature is bad? What do we have to teach our children? To hit people or not to hit people? To share things with people or not share things with people? To bite other kids or not bite other kids? I can go on but you should be able to follow my point. Without being taught otherwise, we will put our personal wants and desires above all else, even to the point of violent actions to get what we want. Why we have to teach our kids good behavior is because if we didn’t, they would turn out monsters. Why do you think that is? Our sin nature is my answer.


A truth for which you offer nothing more than the same subjective experience offered by those of other religions that you claim to be false.
Well, let's see what we can unfold over some time spent on this subject.

Thanks and see you a little later,
CD

[Moochie]

<snip>

Although we are not bound by the Levitical law the ancient Jews were bound by and it is not a sin not to practice that law, sin is still sin, and homosexuality is a sin.

And you know with utmost certainty that this wasn't written by a crotchety old homophobe, or worse, a crotchety old closet queen?


M.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

So anything in the Old Testament is not valid? Therefore the 10 Commandments don't matter? I dont get it. But the New Testament is where all the "truth" is? Some stuff in the Bible matters and some of it does not?

There is so much that does not make sense about the bible and the "big man upstairs. I just finished an Astronomy class for college and I was quite bothered by one thing. Galileo believed in the heliocentric view of the solar system. Which now everyone knows is true. He was not allowed to say this because it went against the geocentric view of the church. If the bible was right or the church could talk to god, wouldnt they know that everything in the solar system orbits the sun. god could just say "hey guys, Galileo and Copernicus are right. The earth is not the center of the solar system."

[Egg]

That is in the Levitical law. The Levitical law was only for the ancient Jews and only for that time. It is not a sin for us to eat shrimp because we are not under that law. But, because scripture does explain what sin is in the New Testament, we can clearly communicate what sin is and that it will have negative consequences in our lives. Here is some of what the New Testament’s definition of sin is: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”


I don't think the New Testament is as clear as you suggest on the issue of homosexuality. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality (and if it was so important you'd think he might have mentioned something). In some translations we seem to have Paul bringing it up, but looking at the original Greek, the exact meaning of what Paul is referring to is not nearly as clear as the translation (NIV?) which you've given here is.

I looks to probably be referring to catamites or male prostitutes. What is pretty clear is that the term used is very unlikely to be referring to the kind of relationship we might refer to when talking about "homosexuality" in terms of being in a loving, committed relationship with someone of the same gender.

[Wally]

I don't think the New Testament is as clear as you suggest on the issue of homosexuality. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality (and if it was so important you'd think he might have mentioned something). In some translations we seem to have Paul bringing it up, but looking at the original Greek, the exact meaning of what Paul is referring to is not nearly as clear as the translation (NIV?) which you've given here is.

I looks to probably be referring to catamites or male prostitutes. What is pretty clear is that the term used is very unlikely to be referring to the kind of relationship we might refer to when talking about "homosexuality" in terms of being in a loving, committed relationship with someone of the same gender.

But one thing does come through, there is no prohibition of hot, girl on girl action.:blush:

[Hokulele]

I don't think the New Testament is as clear as you suggest on the issue of homosexuality. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality (and if it was so important you'd think he might have mentioned something). In some translations we seem to have Paul bringing it up, but looking at the original Greek, the exact meaning of what Paul is referring to is not nearly as clear as the translation (NIV?) which you've given here is.

I looks to probably be referring to catamites or male prostitutes. What is pretty clear is that the term used is very unlikely to be referring to the kind of relationship we might refer to when talking about "homosexuality" in terms of being in a loving, committed relationship with someone of the same gender.


This is my biggest pet peeve with biblical literalists (or at least, those who claim to be). Which translation do they use and why? Don't even get me started on the New Living Translation (NLT) many American fundamentalists use.

Most of the issues in the New Testament can be traced to various translations of Paul's letters (misogyny, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc.). Although Paul was arguably the most important cause of the spread of early Christianity, it would have been interesting to see how modern Christianity would have looked had his letters been omitted from the NT.

[wolfgirl]

I was raised in a secular humanistic community, so why don’t I “just know” evolution and atheism are the truth?Rather than "community," I think you should rather think in terms of "culture" or "society." The point was that, overwhelmingly, people end up following the religion of the greater society in which they live. I'm assuming, but please correct me if I'm wrong, that you grew up in a Western country with a predominantly xian religion. If that is the case, then that is the religion to which you were most exposed. That is the religion you were most able to easily learn about. Had you been born in India or China, you would have been exposed to different religions, even if your particular family, or "community," did not practice that religion. And that is the religion to which you most likely would have turned when you chose to accept a religion into your life.

The point of all this is that we are, to some extent, dependent on the randomness of where we happen to be born for what religion we will end up following. So the fact that you think yours is so obviously "right" is more a function of the fact that you grew up hearing about it and learning about it and being exposed to it than it is of its "rightness." Those who grew up hearing about and learning about and exposed to the Hindu religion are just as likely to "know" that their religion is "right." And they will feel every bit as strongly as you do about yours. Which proves exactly nothing about either religion.

[plumjam]

Can you honestly say that a personal experience has precisely the same effect as objective, repeatable evidence?
Well, I'll say it again. How can you get to objective (actually only intersubjective, for objective you'd have to be omniscient) repeatable evidence (evidence does not have to be repeatable to be acknowledged to be supporting the existence of something real) except via personal experience?
I realise it might seem like a pernickety point to make, but actually it goes to a major part of the difference between how materialists and non-materialists look at things. The materialist version does not hold up under philosophical scrutiny. The non-materialist version is philosophically much more accurate.

Come on Plumjam. You're a bright lad.
This statement holds up a great deal better under the old philosophical scrutiny ;)

A personal experience is like an epiphany. Most Christians of my acquaintance report having felt "the presence of God" in their lives at some point or another. Heck, I felt it myself - or thought I did - when I was a churchgoer. A personal experince is not objective, and it is not repeatable.
Seems to me that when you say 'personal experience', what you are really saying is an experience not mediated via the 5 senses. If you're taking that tack then you'd have trouble allowing the validity of the epiphanies (feeling the presence of truth/beauty etc..) of people like logicians, mathematicians, composers of music, moral philosophers, writers of law etc..
If so we'd have to chuck out all logic, maths, music, morality and law. Because they are all based primarily on your definition of personal experience.
Probably you won't want to chuck these out. But you will want to chuck out truth discerned not via the 5 senses when it comes to the area of religion?
Why so?
I assume because religion just has no place in your world view.. while those others have to (otherwise it'd be a pretty silly-looking position to take)

Let me state right here and now. If I were to see objective and repeatable evidence for any non-physical phenomenon, I would abandon naturalism in a shot. A personal experience is not sufficient evidence.
Try the laws which govern the physical world. The laws themselves are not able to be perceived via the 5 senses, their existence is rather inferred via their supposed effects.
You don't see the laws, but you are forced to infer their existence. And no, laws are not physical/material things, otherwise we'd be forced to conclude that with every new bit of legislation we were changing the physics of reality.

It doesn't seem as though anyone else was confused by what I wrote. I wonder why you were so easily able to misinterpret my words?
Well this is a forum made up of at least 90% materialists, so that's no surprise.

[Egg]

This is my biggest pet peeve with biblical literalists (or at least, those who claim to be). Which translation do they use and why? Don't even get me started on the New Living Translation (NLT) many American fundamentalists use.

Most of the issues in the New Testament can be traced to various translations of Paul's letters (misogyny, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc.). Although Paul was arguably the most important cause of the spread of early Christianity, it would have been interesting to see how modern Christianity would have looked had his letters been omitted from the NT.

Yep, doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. If God is behind the Bible being inerrant, at which point is human free will and fallibility allowed into the process? If there's fallibility in the translation into modern languages, why not in the copying of documents in the 1st - 3rd centuries or why not in the selection process of what is deemed "scripture"?

I'm particularly baffled by the KJV literalists who seem to think God speaks in 17th century English for some reason. :eggwideyed:

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well, I'll say it again. How can you get to objective (actually only intersubjective, for objective you'd have to be omniscient) repeatable evidence (evidence does not have to be repeatable to be acknowledged to be supporting the existence of something real) except via personal experience?
I realise it might seem like a pernickety point to make, but actually it goes to a major part of the difference between how materialists and non-materialists look at things. The materialist version does not hold up under philosophical scrutiny. The non-materialist version is philosophically much more accurate.

Materialism and Naturalism are not perfect philosophies; I'll be the first to admit that. However, I will continue to give them far more credence than other explanations until it can be proven, or considered philosophically valid, to give greater preference to supernatural explanations as a means of examining natural phenomenon. The same applies with non-materialism.

The problem you are, still, making is that you're automatically equating personal experience with evidence. Even if our personal experiences are required when observing evidence that does not automatically make personal experience evidence. To reiterate, if I see a giant brontosaurus walking down Main Street and no one else sees it my personal experience is not evidence of the continued existence of brontosauruses. Even then if multiple people see it, even the entire city see it, and we still are not able to find any clear evidence of a brontosaurus other than the personal experience of those individuals then their personal experiences still aren't evidence of a brontosaurus. And if you want to get all technical about it we can't even be 100% sure that they all saw a brontosaurus and reported seeing one even if our personal experiences say they did.

Seems to me that when you say 'personal experience', what you are really saying is an experience not mediated via the 5 senses. If you're taking that tack then you'd have trouble allowing the validity of the epiphanies (feeling the presence of truth/beauty etc..) of people like logicians, mathematicians, composers of music, moral philosophers, writers of law etc..
If so we'd have to chuck out all logic, maths, music, morality and law. Because they are all based primarily on your definition of personal experience.
Probably you won't want to chuck these out. But you will want to chuck out truth discerned not via the 5 senses when it comes to the area of religion?
Why so?
I assume because religion just has no place in your world view.. while those others have to (otherwise it'd be a pretty silly-looking position to take)

Are you a Calvinist? It’s just that whenever I see Calvinists discuss materialism and/or naturalism they always seem all-to-eager to strawman anyone who falls in line with those philosophies with wanting to chuck out reason in favor of blind and automatic interpretation of anything sensed as being “absolute truth”. Any materialist or naturalist worth their salt will inform you that humans are rationalizing animals and that the ability to rationalize and reason is a fundamental portion of human understanding. That being said I think I’ll jump up again and say that you’re misinterpreting arthowillipot again. I interpret the term, as do most other naturalists I know, “personal experience” as being an umbrella term for experiences that are unverifiable or unreliable when it comes to attaining greater understanding, whatever it is we may be trying to understand better in those cases. A personal experience, as I’ve said before, does not automatically measure up as being evidence even if a personal experience can view evidence. Hence, I don’t interpret arthowillipot’s statements as meaning he wishes to toss out all concepts attained without use of the 5 senses. And I make that statement despite the fact that I find it amusing that all the things you mentioned involved first experiencing them with the 5 senses then rationalizing them later.

Two examples I’ve given, which I’d love to hear you tackle, involved a group of friends reporting that their friend’s car started up on its own and drove off; something out of the ordinary. The flip-side of that example was those same friend’s reporting that another friend of theirs getting in that car and driving it off. I ask which sounds more plausible and which one has the greater burden of proof? Every naturalist/materialist, particularly scientific naturalism/materialism, I know of interprets things as being proven within reason and don’t concern themselves with things such as “absolute truth” when we’re discussing things that don’t involve math and the like.

I’m not certain about arthowillipot but I toss out so-called truth attained via religion because of its very nature. It really depends on what we’re talking about here. Subjects such as morality, culture, and the law certainly can line up with my own and hence I wouldn’t toss them out as meaningless, even if I could see why others would. But I disagree with religion about the existence of gods, prophecies, etc because of something else entirely. Namely that I simply ask for further evidence to prove the existence of these things. And since experiences involving gods are outside of my own experience, as I’ve never had a religious experience, and I’m aware of logical and scientific arguments which put a few wholes in instantly assuming these experiences are absolute truth I’m not likely to give much credence to these experiences. It hardly has anything to do with religious fervor as you’ve so kindly strawmanned in the past.

Try the laws which govern the physical world. The laws themselves are not able to be perceived via the 5 senses, their existence is rather inferred via their supposed effects.
You don't see the laws, but you are forced to infer their existence. And no, laws are not physical/material things, otherwise we'd be forced to conclude that with every new bit of legislation we were changing the physics of reality.

The laws themselves? No. But their effects certainly are perceivable by the 5 senses. Laws are something we reason out later; taking evidence attained by sensing them and reasoning them out later is not such an alien concept.

Well this is a forum made up of at least 90% materialists, so that's no surprise.

Actually that has more to do with not wanting to toss out strawman argument in replace of evidence, nothing to do with materialism.

[Egg]

If I see a giant brontosaurus walking down Main Street and no one else sees it my personal experience is not evidence of the continued existence of brontosauruses. Even then if multiple people see it, even the entire city see it, and we still are not able to find any clear evidence of a brontosaurus other than the personal experience of those individuals then their personal experiences still aren't evidence of a brontosaurus.

Would that be pretty good evidence for those who saw it?

[Silentknight]

While this is true, these are not the important factors. Even atheists have sets 1 & 2 as well. What is important are the differences. Every religion is exclusive at its core. They all say theirs is the right way to view God, or Gods, and how to live life. That makes them exclusive in their core doctrines. That is where the truth comes out, in the differences.
You missed my point though. I was saying that all religions touch on the truth at some points, using the similarities as examples to support my argument, but not so much on others. This is where the incompatible and usually exclusive claims about reality come in. If everyone is saying something different, then the themes are not universal or applicable to human nature in all cases, and therefore are less likely to be true than where they agree.

Also, atheism is not a religion, but we've been over this. The term for the moral philosophy that includes atheism as a subset is "secular humanism."

SK, why would you judge a religion by the abuses perpetrated by counterfeits using the name of a religion? I do no know if you have read the New Testament or not, but clearly Jesus’, all the Apostle’s, and the other writers of the New Testament’s teachings on child abuse, religious violence, misogynism and corruption are plainly against these, and strongly condemn those who do such things. Jesus said it would be better for a person if a mill stone was hung around their neck and they were dumped into the sea than what they will face if they hurt a child.
As it's been pointed out, this is the No True Scotsman fallacy. One cannot exclude undesirable individuals from a group solely for the sake of keeping that group's ranks pure. However that's a different issue. I actually was not trying to condemn Christianity in this particular instance, since I was referring more to my personal reasons for walking away from it all those years ago.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, while it is true that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin, it is clear that only the sin is to be hated, as all sin is to be hated, but the person is to be loved. The same grace and love offered to a person who’s sin is stealing is also to be offered to a person who’s sin is homosexuality. True Christians are not afraid of homosexuals, they love them, but, they are bold to tell them that to abandon that sin would be the best for them, and encourage them to do so, just as they do with whatever sin issue a person, Christian or not, is dealing with.
FYI, "Love the sinner and hate the sin," is not a Biblically based teaching. Throughout the Bible, there is no distinction made between the sinner and the sin committed, and the sinner is still punished severely.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/09/love-sinner-hate-sin.php (Biased site, but it has relevant scripture citations.)

Understand that I'm not trying to swamp you with debate points, especially since you've been more patient and less defensive than other conservative religionists.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Would that be pretty good evidence for those who saw it?

Maybe for some people but had it been me I'd probablly question what I saw.

[Egg]

Maybe for some people but had it been me I'd probablly question what I saw.

Sure. I wasn't suggesting it was conclusive. You've also got thousands of people confirming your observation. If you were one of these people and say you saw this thing every day for a few weeks, what evidence would be more convincing for you? Would you question what you saw so much, you wouldn't get out of the way if it was coming straight for you?

[Foster Zygote]

That is in the Levitical law. The Levitical law was only for the ancient Jews and only for that time. It is not a sin for us to eat shrimp because we are not under that law. But, because scripture does explain what sin is in the New Testament, we can clearly communicate what sin is and that it will have negative consequences in our lives. Here is some of what the New Testament’s definition of sin is: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Then Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” All these things, and things like these(and such Like), have negative and painful consequences attached to them. The ultimate consequence is permanent separation from our Creator God.

In the book of Galatians we learn that the law was never meant to save people, it was meant to be a tutor. Galatians 3:21 says, “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.” And in Galatians 3:24 it says, “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” We also learn in Galatians that sin is a work of the flesh. Sin is sin whether there is a law or not, we learn that in Romans. Although we are not bound by the Levitical law the ancient Jews were bound by and it is not a sin not to practice that law, sin is still sin, and homosexuality is a sin.
So it was once perfectly acceptable, even required under the law, to murder a young woman for the "crime" of having sex, but now it is a sin? If so many things once commanded by God in the OT, such as murdering people for having consenting sex or slaughtering children, are now sinful, and other things that once counted as sin, like eating shrimp or wearing clothes made of mixed fibers, are now acceptable, then what is the value of the OT?

I was raised in a secular humanistic community, so why don’t I “just know” evolution and atheism are the truth?
The same reason you don't "just know" that the half life of cesium is 30.17 years. Rather than "religious revelation", evolution and atheism are based on evidence. The former on positive evidence and the latter on the lack of evidence. You have already demonstrated that your knowledge of evolutionary biology is quite thin, despite your claims to a well rounded understanding of the fundamentals. So I am guessing that your secular humanism was something you simply accepted through familiarity. However, I'd be willing to bet that Christianity is something that you were much more familiar with than any other religion.

I agree with your statement FZ, even the part were you state “but they can all be wrong”. I picked a few of the questions and comments to get started in the discussion in this thread. I will offer more as I post more in this thread.
Then you see that there is no more reason for anyone to accept your testimonials and claims than those of someone of another religion? How can your god then choose to punish those who fail to choose him?

FZ, you don’t know my personal experience in life, what I have been through and suffered. I am in whole hearted agreement with you about the vast majority of people that live in the US are tremendously rich compared to the rest of the world. People suffer at the hands of evil people and atrocities are committed against them, but because I might have it easy or safe in comparison does not mean I am arrogant because it is my personal belief, based on my understanding of the human condition from scripture, that the problem is human nature and not the conditions in person’s life that makes people sinners.
Then, for you, there is no reason to attempt to improve the lives of our fellow human beings because nothing will change. Making sure that every human being has the right to nutrition, shelter, security, health care, and education would be a waste of our time because the lack of those things is not the cause of suffering in most of the world.

What if it is true that human nature is bad? What do we have to teach our children? To hit people or not to hit people? To share things with people or not share things with people? To bite other kids or not bite other kids? I can go on but you should be able to follow my point. Without being taught otherwise, we will put our personal wants and desires above all else, even to the point of violent actions to get what we want. Why we have to teach our kids good behavior is because if we didn’t, they would turn out monsters. Why do you think that is? Our sin nature is my answer.
Children often learn violence and selfishness just as they do compassion and generosity. The fact that humans are capable of poor behavior is not evidence that poor behavior is our "natural state".

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Sure. I wasn't suggesting it was conclusive. You've also got thousands of people confirming your observation. If you were one of these people and say you saw this thing every day for a few weeks, what evidence would be more convincing for you? Would you question what you saw so much, you wouldn't get out of the way if it was coming straight for you?

Obviously I would get out of the way, in the case that it turned out to be real. But if no trace of the beast was found after the fact than I would begin to question what I saw. Most of our conclusions are reached after an event has occured, we take an experience reached through our senses and rationalize or reason with it. That's the point I was making.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sure. I wasn't suggesting it was conclusive. You've also got thousands of people confirming your observation. If you were one of these people and say you saw this thing every day for a few weeks, what evidence would be more convincing for you? Would you question what you saw so much, you wouldn't get out of the way if it was coming straight for you?


Brontosaurus feces, tracks, cars crushed in a line as it walked through town.

The whole idea of inter-subjective experience that we trust is that we have separate lines of evidence that converge on one or a limited number of answers. That is how science works.

Take for example the Fatima experience. Many people in a single day reported seeing a dancing sun. Does that mean that the sun literally danced in the sky? Why did no one else see it anywhere else in the world? Why does the earth continue to exist? Would not a sun actually dancing in the sky mean something about either the sun or the earth that would have dire consequences? Wouldn't mass delusion based on suggestion provide a better explanation?

We don't simply rely solely on the evidence of our eyes for good reason -- sometimes we are wrong. The same is true for the evidence of our feelings -- who among us does not feel love, feel the need for forgiveness for something in our lives? Having a feeling does not make an experience, even an experience potentially shared in some sense by many in a personal way, true. Without other evidence to support strongly in a synergistic fashion the same idea, we tend to suspect such information.

[Robert Oz]

That is in the Levitical law. The Levitical law was only for the ancient Jews and only for that time. It is not a sin for us to eat shrimp because we are not under that law. But, because scripture does explain what sin is in the New Testament, we can clearly communicate what sin is and that it will have negative consequences in our lives.


Christian Dude,

Why does an omniscient God change his mind about what is and isn't a sin? Why was eating shrimp a sin at one point and is not any longer? Why was it once appropriate to kill a woman who you discovered was not a virgin back then, but now killing her would be a sin?

How can an omniscient God change his mind about anything? He is meant to be all-knowing.

The "revelation of truth" is not evidence of the truth of Christianity any more than it is the truth of Islam or the truth of Judaism. You can't all be right and it's quite possible you are all wrong.

[Egg]

Brontosaurus feces, tracks, cars crushed in a line as it walked through town.

The whole idea of inter-subjective experience that we trust is that we have separate lines of evidence that converge on one or a limited number of answers. That is how science works.

I'm aware how science works. I was more interested in the personal perspective on it. It's not likely to be you who gets to test the faeces and once some authority has come to pick the dinosaur up, the only information you're likely to get is second hand media reports. Is that more convincing than seeing it for yourself?


Take for example the Fatima experience. Many people in a single day reported seeing a dancing sun. Does that mean that the sun literally danced in the sky? Why did no one else see it anywhere else in the world? Why does the earth continue to exist? Would not a sun actually dancing in the sky mean something about either the sun or the earth that would have dire consequences? Wouldn't mass delusion based on suggestion provide a better explanation?

Yes, a better explanation than the sun actually dancing. Unless such a mass delusion could be shown in repeatable tests, just being a better explanation doesn't really cut it.


We don't simply rely solely on the evidence of our eyes for good reason -- sometimes we are wrong. The same is true for the evidence of our feelings -- who among us does not feel love, feel the need for forgiveness for something in our lives? Having a feeling does not make an experience, even an experience potentially shared in some sense by many in a personal way, true. Without other evidence to support strongly in a synergistic fashion the same idea, we tend to suspect such information.
We rely solely on the evidence of our eyes all the time in day to day life - at least I do. Granted, any of our senses has a possibility of misleading us and our memories can fail us, but unless we want to head into solipsism, isn't that what we all use to base our judgement of what is probably true on, whether that's in crossing the road or reading scientific journals?

It seems to me that the suspicion comes in when we sense something we didn't expect, and our expectations are based on previous experiences, what we've been taught and our philosophy. Some of that covers the synergistic supporting evidence you're talking about, but not necessarily in an ordered scientific fashion. Being skeptical of everything really isn't very practical so it comes down to how we choose what to be skeptical of.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Being skeptical of everything really isn't very practical so it comes down to how we choose what to be skeptical of.

Exactly, which is what I pointed out to plumjam earlier about supernaturalism v. naturalism. I made a point regarding four individuals stating two differant scenarios. One in each a person starts up his car and drives off and another in which the car starts up on its own and drives off. You see neither and the only evidence available is that a car clearly did once sit in that exact same spot. Which are you more likely to give the benefit of the doubt? If you're like me, and I can't make any assumptions that you are, then you'd pick the former as it's an oft seen occurance and not in the least out of the ordinary. The latter has a much higher burden of proof and is less likely to be true, IMO.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm aware how science works. I was more interested in the personal perspective on it. It's not likely to be you who gets to test the faeces and once some authority has come to pick the dinosaur up, the only information you're likely to get is second hand media reports. Is that more convincing than seeing it for yourself?

Everyone is more likely to believe corroborating evidence one sees oneself. But we are discussing personal experience without corroborating evidence here and the difference between evidence with independent corroboration vs. evidence that may consist in several personal accounts.

If a reliable source -- defined by my previous experience of being able to trust them because in the past they have provided useful information -- corroborates the data and that fits with my previous experience and what I have seen with my eyes, then, yes, I am willing to accept it.


Yes, a better explanation than the sun actually dancing. Unless such a mass delusion could be shown in repeatable tests, just being a better explanation doesn't really cut it.

The repeatable evidence is not that several groups have seen the sun jump in the sky but that there are previous examples of mass delusions. And many well documented episodes of individual delusions. And our common experience of being fooled, even by our eyes.


We rely solely on the evidence of our eyes all the time in day to day life - at least I do. Granted, any of our senses has a possibility of misleading us and our memories can fail us, but unless we want to head into solipsism, isn't that what we all use to base our judgement of what is probably true on, whether that's in crossing the road or reading scientific journals?

We aren't discussing common experience but the uncommon. If the evidence of our eyes contradicts what we see on a regular basis, then we are less inclined to believe it. Couple this with the issue that we have all been fooled in the past, and we are more inclined to believe error or fraud in the absence of strong corroborating info.


It seems to me that the suspicion comes in when we sense something we didn't expect, and our expectations are based on previous experiences, what we've been taught and our philosophy. Some of that covers the synergistic supporting evidence you're talking about, but not necessarily in an ordered scientific fashion. Being skeptical of everything really isn't very practical so it comes down to how we choose what to be skeptical of.


Yes, of course. But it isn't just based on expectation, since we are all capable of reformulating those expectations based on new evidence.

So, let's take an example......Suppose we see a pyramid suddenly emerging from the ground right in front of the two of us. As part of the sensory experience, the pyramid rises and expands, but that's pretty much it. It expands to include us and then vanishes. That's a pretty unexpected occurrence, and I think we would both be correct in assuming a hologram or some other natural explanation. Possibly a shared delusion.

Now, assume a pyramid arises out of the ground, but this time we smell stone and earth; we see the earth being overturned as the pyramid rises into the air; we hear the roar as the thing begins to tower above us; we feel the earth shaking beneath our feet. That's a pretty unexpected occurrence, but I'm betting there's a freakin' pyramid rising out of the ground now, and I'm getting out of the way of the thing. I have no idea why it is happening, but I would think that is real as opposed to the mere phantasm that I saw as light and color previously.

We do not reject data simply because it is unexpected. Something may be completely unexpected, but if it is accompanied by other data that speak to its veracity, then we are more likely to accept it as reality.

Now, when it comes to peculiar human experiences, like religious revelations, etc., (and to use another example where this issue comes into play) we know that we are prone to certain ways of thinking and towards certain types of interpretations. That is why every religious person must deal with the "masters of suspicion" (Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx); and we know that similar experiences in different cultural contexts are interpreted within those different cultures to mean different things (take near-death experiences as an example). Our conclusion is that what is held in common -- our common humanity -- is the most likely cause of the experience with the cultural context providing the differing means of interpretation. Since the cultural context often supplies the ontological possibilities, it simply is not the case that we can rely on this sort of information for any clear ontological information. If we had clear corroborating data across cultures for the same meanings -- as though it were clear that people were experiencing the same thing -- that would provide much stronger data to support an ontological claim of another realm of existence. As it is, though, all we typically see is a superficially similar report that can be recreated in part by creating cerebral oligemia in a centrifuge.

[articulett]

Yes, a better explanation than the sun actually dancing. Unless such a mass delusion could be shown in repeatable tests, just being a better explanation doesn't really cut it.



To this skeptic a "better explanation" always cuts it over a supernatural explanation. IN fact, "no explanation" cuts it over a supernatural explanation. When you are positing an explanation that defies all we know about the world and relies on subjective evidence and the known ways people can be fooled, then you really should be treated as delusional, mislead, or as having a "belief" or "opinion" on a subject rather than actual objective knowledge or truth.

When you are positing an invisible, immeasurable, conscious entity as an explanation for anything, you are and should be treated identically to anyone claiming psychic powers, divine prophesy, "inner knowingness", or communion with the dead. You are positing an explanation indistinguishable from known delusional folks-- schizophrenics, drug users, cult members, etc. You should be treated the same way you treat Scientologists or schizophrenics or people who really truly believe they've been probed by aliens. Faith, feelings, and belief are not a means of knowing objective truths.

[fromdownunder]

My fundy family would add a 4th option:

4. It DOES want you, but is waiting for the scales to fall from your eyes, and for you to renounce your love of wicked ways, and the allure of the Devil. It has already let you know this in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. You're just choosing to ignore the signs.

(wow, throw some typos in there and I could be channeling Krazy_kathy!...wait, that's not her name, what was it again?)

Yet many fundies are also quite happy to also say that they know God, because he personally came to them (or Jesus did, or through Jesus) and they had a real personal experience which convinced them of the truth. There were no subtle hints, no slow revelation, it was BANG! WOW! God is real, he proved it and now I believe. Of course before this event, some of them even claim to have been the Big Bad, and Jesus (God) personally chose them for salvation.

So I would put this one under my Point No. 2 - That a god exists but does not want me, because on this basis, it certainly wanted somebody else badly enough (according to them) to push the right buttons on that person and convince them of Its existance, but did not (or has not yet) done the same for me.

And if they have been believers all of their lives, then they are no different to anybody who was raised in particular circumstances, and simply come to believe in whatever is accepted as the norm, and parrots it out to passers by, e.g. "do you want to supersize that?".

Norm

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hey, Arti's back! Great to see you again.


Egg,

Sorry, I don't mean to sound too dismissive, so I apologize if that is how the post above sounds. You do bring up a good point, and it does get to the heart of the matter; but we must always keep in mind that there is how our minds work and there is probable truth.

So, here's the long answer, based on my own personal experience. There is a reason why I think this issue important, and here it is......

Yes, people tend to accept the evidence of their eyes and the interpretation that first strikes them from their personal history. All of us do; we are designed to do that. But that is the source of many errors, and why we need scientific investigation. This problem arises in medicine all the time, and it happens in a few specific ways.

I'm pretty sub-specialized. I just do epilepsy. A large part of my job consists in figuring out who has it and who doesn't. There are plenty of physician misdiagnoses and patient misdiagnoses -- and it works both ways, with both groups occasionally over and under interpreting symptoms. I have revised my own diagnoses on several occasions based on new evidence.

With that out of the way, here's how the problem works.......Joe six pack comes into the office and it is clear that he has had two seizures in the past six months, his EEG shows generalized epileptiform activity, and he has a strong family history of primary generalized epilepsy. He's estranged from most of his family but is very close to a sister in law who also happens to have seizures following a freak stroke-in-the-young when she smoked and took birth control pills in college. She is taking Neurontin and for some reason it works well for her. I tell Joe six pack that he needs to use one of the drugs that works for primary generalized epilepsy, but he insists on using Neurontin because it works so well for Sissy Belinda. When I can't talk him out of it, he walks out with his new medicine and twodays later decides that he can now drive though he's been given strict instructions not to (hey, Sissy Belinda is like new with that medicine, so I will be too), and proceeds to kill a family of five when he has his third seizure.

From his point of view he has seizures, she has seizures and Neurontin is the magic drug that works. That is what he knows from his world; it is what he has experience with. But he would be wrong, unless he is one of those weird folks who actually respond to Neurontin even though they have primary generalized epilepsy.

Second common issue is with psychogenic seizures. Some people accept the diagnosis and some don't. Their experience is that they shake all over and seem to have all the other stuff that they think goes with epilepsy and doctors have told them for years that they have epilepsy, but the data speaks another story. We can tell people what the data shows -- information that is independent of their particular intepretation of the world -- but they may or may not accept it. "Who is this Bozo and why should I trust him over that E.R. doctor that told me I really do have seizures?", they ask themselves. "No, I see the evidence before my eyes -- I shake, I lose consciousness, etc. -- it must be seizures. I don't have to believe that guy's opinion."

[articulett]

So I would put this one under my Point No. 2 - That a god exists but does not want me, because on this basis, it certainly wanted somebody else badly enough (according to them) to push the right buttons on that person and convince them of Its existance, but did not (or has not yet) done the same for me.


Norm

Don't feel bad, Norm, ... god doesn't want me to know him either.

Neither does Allah, Thor, Xenu, or any dead person. Not a single fairy has made themselves known to me either. On the bright side, the devil and demons avoid me as well.

All invisible entities shun me. They do not wish me to know them. :(

[Robert Oz]

Christian Dude,

With all due respect, we seem to be running in circles here and, so far, the question of why your experiences with Christianity are any different than experiences by people of other religions remains unanswered. This is the purpose and title of the thread.

Based on what you have posted so far, your belief system is based on faith and faith alone. Your "knowledge" of the truth of Chrisitanity is no different than the "knowledge" of the truth of Islam or "knowledge" of the truth of Judaism or "knowledge" of the truth of <insert religion here>.

Your revelations are no different to revelations happening every day, all over the world, with different religions. You can't just say, mine are genuine and authentic experiences and everyone else is either deluded or being influenced by Satan.

Your morals and holy book are similar to the morality and holy books of other religions.

Unless you can do better, your assertion in a previous thread that "you know Christianity to be true and all other religions to be false" needs to be changed to "you have faith that Christianity is true and all other religions to be false". Otherwise, you are lying to yourself.

[Christian Dude]

Robert, I know what you are saying, I will work out what I will present as facts over some time. I just got started in this thread and I want to take some time here. But I am really tired right now so I am not going to post more tonight.

Thanks,
CD

[Hokulele]

I'm particularly baffled by the KJV literalists who seem to think God speaks in 17th century English for some reason. :eggwideyed:


Everything sounds more impressive when recited with a British accent.

[Robert Oz]

Robert, I know what you are saying, I will work out what I will present as facts over some time. I just got started in this thread and I want to take some time here. But I am really tired right now so I am not going to post more tonight.

Thanks,
CD


I sincerely look forward to reading more.

[MattusMaximus]

I was raised in a secular humanistic community, so why don’t I “just know” evolution and atheism are the truth?



A point of clarification...

Evolution is a scientific concept.
Atheism is a philosophical position.

There are people who both believe in God and accept evolution.
There are people who are atheists and do not accept evolution.

I know, because I've met both kinds of people.

[articulett]

Yes... evolution is like gravity and the nature of the cosmos and atomic theory. You learn about these things in school. If you don't know them, you are just ignorant. They are true rather you "believe in" them or understand them or not.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It's akin to your lack of belief in Scientology or your lack of belief in fairies. It is not taught. You don't teach people "not to believe in" things for which there is no evidence. You did not need to "learn" to not believe in magic. You do need to learn to base your beliefs on reason, however.

Religion is about faith-- indoctrinating people to "believe in" things. A secular society is not an atheist society--it's a society where no religion can force it's will on any nonbeliever of that religion. And, as far as I know, there are no "secular humanist" societies to be "raised in". Humanism is a philosophy in which one can be raised, but I presume Christian Dude was raised in the same sort of society all of us were raised in-- a society where it was seen as "ennobling" to "believe in" an invisible guy you call "god". In fact, such faith was seen as "salvation worthy" and those without it were thought to "lack morals". That seems to be the dominant paradigm in most places in the world. God takes credit for all that is good and "lack of faith" gets blamed for all evil. People who question the concept of god are seen as "arrogant" while those who claim to have accessed "divine truths" are seen as humble in an irony that is fitting of George Orwell's term: doublethink.

That is the society I was raised in. I thought my way out of it. Surely, that is the same society Christian Dude was raised in. He was clearly thought that faith is good and lack of faith is bad. He clearly has come to "believe in" something that he was "indoctrinated" to "believe in"-- not something he gathered evidence for after looking at all possible invisible entities and beliefs one could have.

[arthwollipot]

I did not call Sara Palin a satanist, I never said that phony Christians are satanists, I just said they are phony. Is Sara a phony Christian? I don't know, I do not have enough info to make a call.Well, you did say

What a bunch of horse pucky. Worshipping Jesus is great and a huge part of a Christian’s life, but saying that playing Softball aids Satan’s cause is crap from Satan if you ask me.so I'll grant you that. However, you also said that

It sounds like Satan ran the place, not Jesus.which suggests to me that any worship they were doing was of Satan, not of Jesus.

And to answer your question, yes. They practiced exactly what they preached.

[arthwollipot]

I'm still yet to see an explanation for why one variety of Christianity is correct and all other possible religions are false which isn't "because I said so".

[Mashuna]

I'm still yet to see an explanation for why one variety of Christianity is correct and all other possible religions are false which isn't "because I said so".

What other possible answer could there be?

[arthwollipot]

Well, I'll say it again. How can you get to objective (actually only intersubjective, for objective you'd have to be omniscient) repeatable evidence (evidence does not have to be repeatable to be acknowledged to be supporting the existence of something real) except via personal experience?You're fast descending into solipsism, Plumjam. There be dragons.

I realise it might seem like a pernickety point to make, but actually it goes to a major part of the difference between how materialists and non-materialists look at things. The materialist version does not hold up under philosophical scrutiny. The non-materialist version is philosophically much more accurate.I completely and totally disagree. Under your philosophy, where subjective evidence is more important than objective, every human being creates their own reality. Otherwise, how do you reconcile when two people have two contradictory subjective experiences?

Like I said, that way lies solipsism. You're essentially saying that non-materialists are solipsists, who create their own reality.

The materialist, however, realises that when different people report the same thing, then that thing actually exists. For example, high schools across the world have run an electric current through water and collected the gases they produce. The larger volume of gas goes "pop" when exposed to a flame, while the smaller volume re-ignites a smouldering taper. You can do this yourself. This reflects the actual reality that water is made up of two parts hydrogen for every part of oxygen. Sure, your perception of the experiment is subjective, which is why it is so important to have multiple independent groups do the experiment. If they all report the same thing, then we can be pretty sure that that thing really and truly exists.

This statement holds up a great deal better under the old philosophical scrutiny ;):nope:

Seems to me that when you say 'personal experience', what you are really saying is an experience not mediated via the 5 senses. If you're taking that tack then you'd have trouble allowing the validity of the epiphanies (feeling the presence of truth/beauty etc..) of people like logicians, mathematicians, composers of music, moral philosophers, writers of law etc..Nope. A subjective experience could be a visual or an auditory hallucination, just as an example. The thing that makes it objective is verification from others.

If so we'd have to chuck out all logic, maths, music, morality and law. Because they are all based primarily on your definition of personal experience.No, on your interpretation of my definition of personal experience. That interpretation would be wrong, and there's absolutely no reason to throw out or discard what you refer to as "epiphanies".

Probably you won't want to chuck these out. But you will want to chuck out truth discerned not via the 5 senses when it comes to the area of religion?
Why so?
I assume because religion just has no place in your world view.. while those others have to (otherwise it'd be a pretty silly-looking position to take)Let me be clear, because I haven't been clear on this point up until now, and I can see that it's a sticking point.

I am not claiming that all subjective experiences are invalid. That, as you rightly point out, would be stupid. However, subjective experiences that cannot be independently verified are suspect for that very reason. And by "independently verified" I mean by someone who has no vested interest in verifying it. In fact, it is even better if it is verified by someone who tries their damndest to disprove it.

Thank you for pressing me on that point, because it is important.

[arthwollipot]

What other possible answer could there be?Oh, I don't know. I was holding out for some kind of... you know, evidence.

[RandFan]

HI RF, it's been a long time. My husband is at his inductive Bible study class right now but I wanted to ask you something about what you are questioning? Have you viewed the DNA verses the Book of Mormon documentary yet? Joseph Smith followers are deceived and DNA is the proof. Their DNA shows they are of native indian descent, not jewsih descent. If you haven't seen this yet I would be more than happy to mail you my copy if you are interested? Just let me know, blessings KathyHi KK,

I guess you missed the sticky thread in this forum where I debated a Mormon. I pointed out all of the evidence to him.

Kathy, you are using critical thinking to expose Mormonism but you are not willing to use critical thinking when it comes to turning water into wine, feeding a multitude with a few fish, walking on water, raising people from the dead, etc.

The problem Kathy is that Mormons play the very same trick you do. With god all things are possible. God can make native American DNA look any way he wants to confound his enemies. God is a god of faith. Not science. Mormonism doesn't need to explain Native American DNA anymore than you need to explain how Lazarus can be raised from the dead.

It's magic.

[kurious_kathy]

Christian Dude,

With all due respect, we seem to be running in circles here and, so far, the question of why your experiences with Christianity are any different than experiences by people of other religions remains unanswered. This is the purpose and title of the thread.

Based on what you have posted so far, your belief system is based on faith and faith alone. Your "knowledge" of the truth of Chrisitanity is no different than the "knowledge" of the truth of Islam or "knowledge" of the truth of Judaism or "knowledge" of the truth of <insert religion here>.

Your revelations are no different to revelations happening every day, all over the world, with different religions. You can't just say, mine are genuine and authentic experiences and everyone else is either deluded or being influenced by Satan.

Your morals and holy book are similar to the morality and holy books of other religions.

Unless you can do better, your assertion in a previous thread that "you know Christianity to be true and all other religions to be false" needs to be changed to "you have faith that Christianity is true and all other religions to be false". Otherwise, you are lying to yourself.
No I am a witness to the truth also and the Bible has stood the test of time. The other so called holy books are not God inspired and you can see that by the fruit they have bore. The Bible is documented and known to be absolute proven historically and beyond.

Everyman must search for God on his own, but I myself know without a doubt what the Bible promises is true, God will reward you if you seek him with all your heart. (That's the one true God who we know through Jesus) People don't hear fromm Allah like they hear from Jesus because Allah is not the way we know the father, only through Christ. You will know if you come to believe too. I will ask you to challenge your intellectual mind to reach beyond yourself and try faith. Jesus said if we don't change and become like little children we cannot enter the kingdom either, why do you think he said that?

[Hokulele]

People don't hear fromm Allah like they hear from Jesus ...


So you assume. Once again, you are speaking for someone other than yourself with no justification.

I will ask you to challenge your intellectual mind to reach beyond and try faith.


Like hell I will.


Irony intended.

Jesus said if we don't change and become like little children we cannot enter the kingdom either, why do you think he said that?


Because children are instructed to do what they are told without question until they are old enough to understand the world around them. Adults, however, are encouraged to think for themselves.

[paximperium]

No I am a witness to the truth to and the Bible has stood the test of time.
No it hasn't. Who wrote the Gospels?

The other so called holy books are not God inspired.
Says you.


The Bible is documented and known to be absolute proven historically and beyond.
Really? Show evidence for the Exodus.


Everyman must search for God on his own, but I know what the Bible promises is true he will reward you if you seek with all your heart.
How do you know it is true?


People don't hear fromm Allah like they hear from Jesus because Alah is not the way we know the father, only through Christ.
You do realize that Allah is YHWH(Yahweh or Jehovah), the same god you and Jews worship don't you?


You will know if you come to believe too. I will ask you to challenge your intellectual mind to reach beyond and try faith.
Why would I try a delusional, inconsistent and useless system called faith when I have something called reason that has actually done something for the world?


Jesus said if we don't change and become like little children we cannot enter the kingdom either, why do you think he said that?
Why would I care what an imaginary person said?

[kurious_kathy]

Hi KK,

I guess you missed the sticky thread in this forum where I debated a Mormon. I pointed out all of the evidence to him.

Kathy, you are using critical thinking to expose Mormonism but you are not willing to use critical thinking when it comes to turning water into wine, feeding a multitude with a few fish, walking on water, raising people from the dead, etc.

The problem Kathy is that Mormons play the very same trick you do. With god all things are possible. God can make native American DNA look any way he wants to confound his enemies. God is a god of faith. Not science. Mormonism doesn't need to explain Native American DNA anymore than you need to explain how Lazarus can be raised from the dead.

It's magic.I don't let my critical thinking control me like others do because I have found a life of faith and I like it much better. That does not mean I cannot think things through or try to explain them well, it just means I don't need to. The road I am traveling on now is much simpler and I have found rest in the arms of the savior. You may think of trying it again, a life of true saving faith in Christ is freedom from what the world says man must become. God wants better than that for us. To know God we must become like little children who take him at his word. You said you tried that before as a missionary, what kind of missionary?

[Flo]

I don't let my critical thinking control me like others do because I have found a life of faith and I like it much better. That does not mean I cannot think things through or try to explain them well, it just means I don't need to. The road I am traveling on now is much simpler and I have found rest in the arms of the savior. You may think of trying it again, a life of true saving faith in Christ is freedom from what the world says man must become.

I've heard exactly the same argument from drug or alcohol users ... It is beyond sad ...

[kurious_kathy]

So you assume. Once again, you are speaking for someone other than yourself with no justification.




Like hell I will.


Irony intended.




Because children are instructed to do what they are told without question until they are old enough to understand the world around them. Adults, however, are encouraged to think for themselves.
Many Muslims have converted to Christianity after meeting the risen Christ and I believe their testimony. I have faith and believe what they say is true and the fruit is their lives changed. Yes some even died at the hand of their families for coverting to Christianity, but they will be in heaven and their murderers will more than likely not be unless Jesus decides to save and forgive them too, which we just never know.

Most unbelievers just choose to discount a believers testimony of Christ which is just sorry to say,"Cold Blooded!" We aren't lieing when we tell you our redeemer lives, WE KNOW! AND THAT'S THE IRONY OF IT ALL, UNLEsS YOU ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE AND HUMBLE YOURSELF LIKE WE HAVE BEFORE A HOLY GOD YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW HOW TRULY WONDERFUL AND LOVING OUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS.

[Hokulele]

Many Muslims have converted to Christianity after meeting the risen Christ and I believe their testimony. I have faith and believe what they say is true and the fruit is their lives changed. Yes some even died at the hand of their families for coverting to Christianity, but they will be in heaven and their murderers will more than likely not be unless Jesus decides to save and forgive them too, which we just never know.


And yet you still believe Obama is a Muslim.

*Shakes head*

Most unbelievers just choose to discount a believers testimony of Christ which is just sorry to say,"Cold Blooded!" We aren't lieing when we tell you our redeemer lives, WE KNOW! AND THAT'S THE IRONY OF IT ALL, UNLEsS YOU ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE AND HUMBLE YOURSELF LIKE WE HAVE BEFORE A HOLY GOD YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW HOW TRULY WONDERFUL AND LOVING OUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS.


Inside voice, please.

[chillzero]

hmmm...

I really hate to quote myself, but I have asked both Kurious Kathy and Christian Dude these questions, and so far no response. I'd really like to know.

Are you unable to determine what is right from what is wrong, without some ancient book telling you what punishment awaits for one choice over the other?
When you now reject 'sin', is it because you recognise it as a sin and the wrong thing to do, or is it because some ancient book has dictated to you that it is a sin for which you will be punished?
Do you understand the reasoning why a 'sin' is labelled as one, or do you just accept that it is because 'god' tells you so?
If you understand why something is a 'sin', why can you not continue to make that determination on your own - why would you let it "rule" you?

[Ladewig]

We aren't lieing when we tell you our redeemer lives, WE KNOW! AND THAT'S THE IRONY OF IT ALL, UNLEsS YOU ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE AND HUMBLE YOURSELF LIKE WE HAVE BEFORE A HOLY GOD YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW HOW TRULY WONDERFUL AND LOVING OUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that Muslims say the very same things that you are saying and that they are just as sincere, just as passionate, and just as zealous as you are?

[Lanzy]

KK

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Listen to that little nagging voice that says your belief system is NOT different from any other. The 'others' are wrong. Is mine wrong too?

[Moochie]

<snip>

Second common issue is with psychogenic seizures.


I would think that "psychogenic" implies a whole different order of problems that individual may have. Would a physician dismiss people presenting with such symptoms?


M.

[Moochie]

Don't feel bad, Norm, ... god doesn't want me to know him either.

Neither does Allah, Thor, Xenu, or any dead person. Not a single fairy has made themselves known to me either. On the bright side, the devil and demons avoid me as well.

All invisible entities shun me. They do not wish me to know them. :(


Open up your heart and let the sun, shine, in.


Providing, of course, you have paid-up health insurance.


M.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would think that "psychogenic" implies a whole different order of problems that individual may have. Would a physician dismiss people presenting with such symptoms?


M.


Yes, it does. What do you mean by dismiss? The problem I was trying to address with that example concerned accepting the diagnosis vs. deciding that one's own personal experience outweighs 'objective' evidence.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of docs out there who do dismiss such people as either "faking it", which is almost never the case, or merely "crazy". Neither approach helps the person. The big issue is that people need the help they need -- in this case, counselling -- and not the "help" they don't need -- in this case, drugs that can kill their liver, bones, white blood cells, etc. if they insist on a diagnosis of epilepsy.

We need to deal with realities.

[Foster Zygote]

No I am a witness to the truth also and the Bible has stood the test of time. The other so called holy books are not God inspired and you can see that by the fruit they have bore. The Bible is documented and known to be absolute proven historically and beyond.
To Pax's request for evidence of the Exodus I would like to add a request for evidence of the Noachian Flood, the extermination of the Canaanites, or even the existence of Jesus.

Everyman must search for God on his own, but I myself know without a doubt what the Bible promises is true, God will reward you if you seek him with all your heart. (That's the one true God who we know through Jesus)
Yet others make the same claim about their differing religions. Many claim to know without a doubt that Islam is true, or that Hinduism is true, or that Scientology is true. They are just as adamant that you are wrong.

People don't hear fromm Allah like they hear from Jesus because Allah is not the way we know the father, only through Christ.
"People don't hear from Jesus like they hear from Allah because Jesus is not the way we know the father."

You will know if you come to believe too.
If I just believe in Christ then I will believe in Christ. But if you just believe in the Parameshwara then you will believe in the Parameshwara.

I will ask you to challenge your intellectual mind to reach beyond yourself and try faith.
I have tried faith. I rejected it because it does not lead to real answers, it only tells us what we want to hear. There is no consistency in its answers.

Jesus said if we don't change and become like little children we cannot enter the kingdom either,...
If I become like a child I can believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa again.

...why do you think he said that?
Because the author of that line wanted people to believe in something that is equivalent to the Easter Bunny or Santa.

[kurious_kathy]

And yet you still believe Obama is a Muslim.

*Shakes head*




Inside voice, please.
Yes I am sorry I do suspect Obama of being capable of concealing that. I do not believe he cares as much as he says he does about trying to help people. In fact I do not think he can do much of anything he says to help us economically. His involvement with Acorn is criminal and I do not want someone in office that has given me doubts to his character and integrity. He is not someone I trust so I can questioon what else he may be hiding. Just imagine what could happen to this country if an undercover Muslim did get in the President seat?? And even if he is not he supports many who are and I do not see that as oaky with so many radicals who just want to convert or kill us.

And as for my inner voice?? Are you questionig my reason about Obama or other things I believe? I draw a lot of my conclusions on what I believe are good and right ethics and morals in the eyes of God first and then others. And on that note we have strayed a bit off the thread topic so if you would like to continue this topic on what inner voice we subsribe to I think it's a whole different thread discussion.

[triadboy]

"Coming up on the Fox Network....Barack Obama - Undercover Muslim!"

[Moochie]

Yes, it does. What do you mean by dismiss? The problem I was trying to address with that example concerned accepting the diagnosis vs. deciding that one's own personal experience outweighs 'objective' evidence.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of docs out there who do dismiss such people as either "faking it", which is almost never the case, or merely "crazy". Neither approach helps the person. The big issue is that people need the help they need -- in this case, counselling -- and not the "help" they don't need -- in this case, drugs that can kill their liver, bones, white blood cells, etc. if they insist on a diagnosis of epilepsy.

We need to deal with realities.

Quite.


M.

[Moochie]

Yes I am sorry I do suspect Obama of being capable of concealing that. I do not believe he cares as much as he says he does about trying to help people. In fact I do not think he can do much of anything he says to help us economically. His involvement with Acorn is criminal and I do not want someone in office that has given me doubts to his character and integrity. He is not someone I trust so I can questioon what else he may be hiding. Just imagine what could happen to this country if an undercover Muslim did get in the President seat?? And even if he is not he supports many who are and I do not see that as oaky with so many radicals who just want to convert or kill us.

And as for my inner voice?? Are you questionig my reason about Obama or other things I believe? I draw a lot of my conclusions on what I believe are good and right ethics and morals in the eyes of God first and then others. And on that note we have strayed a bit off the thread topic so if you would like to continue this topic on what inner voice we subsribe to I think it's a whole different thread discussion.

Kathy, in the event that Mr. Obama wins and becomes president, what will you do? Pray? Leave the country? Do you believe God is a Republican?

Would that "inner voice" be Fox News?

Sorry for the slight derail.


M.

[Foster Zygote]

Many Muslims have converted to Christianity after meeting the risen Christ and I believe their testimony. I have faith and believe what they say is true and the fruit is their lives changed. Yes some even died at the hand of their families for coverting to Christianity, but they will be in heaven and their murderers will more than likely not be unless Jesus decides to save and forgive them too, which we just never know.
Many Christians have converted to Islam. I've met a few Christians who have converted to Judaism.

Most unbelievers just choose to discount a believers testimony of Christ which is just sorry to say,"Cold Blooded!" We aren't lieing when we tell you our redeemer lives, WE KNOW! AND THAT'S THE IRONY OF IT ALL, UNLEsS YOU ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE AND HUMBLE YOURSELF LIKE WE HAVE BEFORE A HOLY GOD YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW HOW TRULY WONDERFUL AND LOVING OUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS.
Kathy, we aren't calling you a liar. We know that you really believe what you say. What we are calling you is "deluded". You refuse to accept that the experiences you have had are common to people all over the world and that those people fit familiar cultural elements to those experiences. For you it was Christianity, but for others it is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. etc. etc. You say "I know in my heart that I am right and they are wrong". But so many others of differing religious faiths say exactly the same thing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

His involvement with Acorn is criminal


You've just made a very strong statement. If you have an ounce of integrity you will either withdraw it or back this up with evidence. How is his involvement with ACORN criminal --e specially since ACORN itself, as an institution, has committed no actual wrong aside from hiring some jerks who tried to fleece the organization? Keep in mind that ACORN turned these people in.

I really don't care if you drink the FOX coolaid, but statements like that require strong evidence.

[kurious_kathy]

KK

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Listen to that little nagging voice that says your belief system is NOT different from any other. The 'others' are wrong. Is mine wrong too?You made me chuckle with the first sentence as my mother has always used that statement. I love and miss my mom who still just lives too far for me to go see as often as I would like.

And back to those nagging voices, the only ones nagging at me are the ones that do not see God as he truly is. There are way too many spiritually deceived people in this world and after what our creator did to get me out of darkness I cannot help but share the truth I know with others. Does that mean I will be stoned to death like the prophets of old? I do kind of know what they must have gone through. Just call me MS Jonah who did not want to go talk to the people God told him to go save, he went but it was a forced issue. If I don't call out his name(Jesus), even the rocks will cry out! Jesus lives you guys (or gals), it's all true! What would it take to convince you the truth of Chrisitanity is Christ himself?

And on that note I must ask each one of you if you have ever read or studied the teachings of Jesus??

[kurious_kathy]

You've just made a very strong statement. If you have an ounce of integrity you will either withdraw it or back this up with evidence. How is his involvement with ACORN criminal --e specially since ACORN itself, as an institution, has committed no actual wrong aside from hiring some jerks who tried to fleece the organization? Keep in mind that ACORN turned these people in.

I really don't care if you drink the FOX coolaid, but statements like that require strong evidence. They have found these people out to be registering voters illegally and you say I need to retract my conclusion? The whole banking industry is in ruin partly because of loans they had a big part in giving out and you say I'm wrong?? Sorry I have seen enough evidence to make this bold statement and I hope that Acorn has fixed their issues. I am not convinced yet that it was only a handful of employees causing the trouble. I would suggest we both endevour a bit more into that ordeal, but I'm already convinced by the evidence that is out there that we have to question that whole organizations integrity and the people behind it. Sorry that offends you but lets just not stray off the main thread topic anymore.

[joobz]

And back to those nagging voices, the only ones nagging at me are the ones that do not see God as he truly is.
translation: "I'm rubber, you're glue."


Does that mean I will be stoned to death like the prophets of old?
Where did this come from? Do you honestly believe that christians are persecuted in the USA?


And on that note I must ask each one of you if you have ever read or studied the teachings of Jesus??
Yes.
Some of it is good. Some of it is bad.

[joobz]

They have found these people out to be registering voters illegally and you say I need to retract my conclusion?
Yes. The point is Obama had no involvement in the wrong doings.


The whole banking industry is in ruin partly because of loans they had a big part in giving out and you say I'm wrong??
And this is related to ACORN how?


Sorry I have seen enough evidence to make this bold statement. I would suggest you endevour a bit more yourself into that ordeal, I'm already convinced by the evidence that is out there. Sorry that offends you but lets just not stray off the main thread topic anymore.
You haven't presented evidence but horribly disjointed, ill conceived thoughts. that's not an argument. It's brain salad.

[Ichneumonwasp]

They have found these people out to be registering voters illegally and you say I need to retract my conclusion? The whole banking industry is in ruin partly because of loans they had a big part in giving out and you say I'm wrong?? Sorry I have seen enough evidence to make this bold statement and I hope that Acorn has fixed their issues. I am not convinced yet that it was only a handful of employees causing the trouble. I would suggest we both endevour a bit more into that ordeal, but I'm already convinced by the evidence that is out there that we have to question that whole organizations integrity and the people behind it. Sorry that offends you but lets just not stray off the main thread topic anymore.


Who is "they" and what do "they" have to do with Obama? You just essentially called him a criminal, when what actually happened is that some people that ACORN hired were inappropriately trying to fill in extra names on registration roles. It was the individual employees that made the errors. When ACORN found out, they turned the people in. Obama had nothing to do with what happened in this scenario, and his "affiliation" with ACORN is tenuous at best.

So, yes, either retract your assertion or demonstrate that you have little to no integrity.

It is statements like yours that drive people like me away from Christianity. What we see is your hate and nothing of your supposed love.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes I am sorry I do suspect Obama of being capable of concealing that.
Kathy, do you have any evidence that Obama is a practicing Muslim?

If, one day, a Muslim, who believed in freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, who saw his role as a citizen of the US as being to work for the betterment of the lives of all US citizens, and who denounced and condemned the actions of radical religious terrorists, pledging to protect Americans and the rest of the world from their violence, was to run for the Executive Office of the Federal Government, Would you be opposed to him simply because of his religion?

If my brother-in-law's father-in-law was to come to your house for a visit would you be nervous, fearful and suspicious because he is a Muslim, even though he is married to a Greek Orthodox woman and has a grand party each holiday season for the whole extended family that even includes a Christmas tree with dollar bills on it for the children?

I do not believe he cares as much as he says he does about trying to help people.
Any evidence to back this up?

In fact I do not think he can do much of anything he says to help us economically.
Why not? Do you have any economic reasons you can offer, or are you simply parroting what others in your Christian community have said?

His involvement with Acorn is criminal and I do not want someone in office that has given me doubts to his character and integrity.
Then you certainly don't want McCain in the White House either. Back in the '80s he was involved with the Contras. He even donated money to their cause. You do know that the Contras made it a habit of murdering civilians, yes? You really should look up the lists of crimes reported by Christian human rights organizations who witnessed the Contras in action.

He is not someone I trust so I can questioon what else he may be hiding. Just imagine what could happen to this country if an undercover Muslim did get in the President seat??
Or a Bond super-villain with a death-ray, or an evil alien body-snatcher, or the Anti-Christ, or...

And even if he is not he supports many who are and I do not see that as oaky with so many radicals who just want to convert or kill us.
Who are these many radicals that he supports?

And as for my inner voice?? Are you questionig my reason about Obama or other things I believe?
Absolutely!

I draw a lot of my conclusions on what I believe are good and right ethics and morals in the eyes of God first and then others.
Your conclusions certainly aren't drawn from your reasoning ability or your understanding of the issues at hand.

And on that note we have strayed a bit off the thread topic so if you would like to continue this topic on what inner voice we subsribe to I think it's a whole different thread discussion.
Yes, please explain why your inner voice is more valid as evidence than the inner voice of someone of a different religion.

[Hokulele]

Heh, what will KK do when she learns about the Keating 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five)?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Egg, a few further thoughts.......................

I have been pondering the discussion over types of evidence, and there is an issue that I think deserves better coverage. It concerns approaches toward evidence. To make a long story very short (so that everyone can disregard this long post) it amounts to: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; and we prefer the simpler explanation.

As we've previously discussed, we recognize different types of evidence.

One type includes personal experience without any additional corroborating evidence. The experience can be somatosensory (something crawling on my skin), special sensory (vision, audition, etc.), or purely mental/feeling. The simple cases involve a single sensory modality. Contrasting examples would include seeing a deer running into the woods at a distance and St. Theresa’s experience of the divine as “blue”. Both are primarily visual experiences (though St. Theresa’s was admittedly more complex since it included a rush of emotional responses) occurring to a single person.

We do not dismiss experiences simply because they involve a single viewer. I could be wrong about that deer, but it’s October and deer are plentiful this time of year. We’ve all had similar experiences, so it is easy to accept that as reality, whether or not there is any extra evidence to support it. We would also accept another’s report of seeing a deer for the same reasons, so we needn’t be the viewer. In part, this is because it is a common experience, but, in large part, it is also because the experience is trivial. Accepting its truth carries no other significant consequences.

St. Theresa’s experience, on the other hand, is out of the ordinary, so we are less inclined to accept it; but the fact that it is out of the ordinary is not the sole issue. If I see a tiger running into the woods, I would certainly be surprised, but I might be inclined to accept the truth of it, particularly if it fits a story (that a tiger recently escaped from our local zoo). I would also like to see additional data – tiger tracks or hearing its roar – but that would be enough to convince me that a tiger really ran into the woods. St. Theresa’s experience is of another order, however. If we accept the reality of that experience, it means that we must also accept a different reality from the one that we experience. Tigers exist in our trivial experience of the world; God being “blue” does not. In fact, I don’t know anyone else who has had that particular experience. I suppose we could speak of differing levels of “out of the ordinary”, or we could speak of differing ontological consequences.

With St. Theresa, in the absence of any additional corroborating evidence, we are more inclined to view her experience as hallucination created by her brain in an ecstatic state rather than a revelation of an alternate ontological realm. An entire branch of literature has explored this issue in great detail, and I needn't repeat the analysis here.

Then there are pure sensory experiences, such as the visual phenomena at Fatima, reportedly seen by many at the same time. In this situation, the experience is inter-subjective, but there is no other corroborating evidence. In general, others sharing an experience lend credence to its reality, but there are exceptions. Multiple witnesses of a tiger running into the woods are more likely to be correct; but multiple witnesses of a phenomenon that beggars the laws of physics do not rise to the occasion. Inter-subjective pure sensory experience is sufficient for explanations that fit our model of the world (because we already have so very much evidence that we can trust that model of the world). But because we know that individuals, and even groups of people, can be fooled, particularly with visual information (just ask any magician), we cannot accept the report of a visual experience (even inter-subjective) without some level of doubt if it violates common experience otherwise.

This, again, is not merely an issue of its being out of the ordinary, but involves the nature of the consequences if the experience is true.

So, to the real underlying point………………both religious explanations and scientific explanations concern ‘uncovering’ or revelation. Religious explanations posit a world-behind-this-world and view the sensory data superficially (for want of a better term). Religious/dualist explanations accept the sensory data at face value and explain that sensory data as revealing the existence of a different ontological realm than the one that we see in our day-to-day lives. Scientific explanations reveal ‘truth’ in a different manner. They do not necessarily posit that there is no world-behind-this-world, but seek the simplest explanation based on the rules we see in this life, in this world. It isn’t that science says – there is only one substance and it is material and we will only accept that explanation – but, rather, can we explain this phenomenon based on the rules we see around us? St. Theresa? – well, we have plenty of examples of sensory hallucinations frequently in association with ecstatic experience. Fatima? – well, we have plenty of evidence of shared delusions, especially in association with religious experience.

Religious (and certain types of philosophical) explanations do not really explain a phenomenon; they don’t seek to get to its heart as it is. Instead, they are based on projections of what the phenomenon might mean if we think we cannot explain it in terms of the rules we see in this place. So, we create the idea of an alternate reality that can explain it – a world-behind-this-world – to provide a context for the phenomenon. Scientific explanations are more hard-minded, if you will, because they do try to explain phenomena using the ‘rules of the game’ and only the rules of the game. That type of revelation requires more work, so many shun it. If there are phenomena that we cannot explain by any of the ‘rules of the game’, then we must consider that there are other rules that we have not accounted for, and this would necessarily include the possibility of a world-behind-this-world. When people ask for convincing evidence, that is what they want. The evidence we have here and now does not fit those criteria.

[wolfgirl]

They have found these people out to be registering voters illegally and you say I need to retract my conclusion? The whole banking industry is in ruin partly because of loans they had a big part in giving out and you say I'm wrong?? Sorry I have seen enough evidence to make this bold statement and I hope that Acorn has fixed their issues. I am not convinced yet that it was only a handful of employees causing the trouble. I would suggest we both endevour a bit more into that ordeal, but I'm already convinced by the evidence that is out there that we have to question that whole organizations integrity and the people behind it. Sorry that offends you but lets just not stray off the main thread topic anymore.It doesn't offend me. It's just that it's slander.

No matter how many times people tell you the facts about so many of these things (facts you could find yourself if you just took the time to really research them and not just watch Fox News), you continue to repeat the exact same things that have just been debunked as though you didn't hear a word.

Here's what happened (hey, I feel like Adrian Monk!):

Acorn hired people to collect voter registrations. Many of these people were homeless and desperately in need of money or otherwise of possibly dubious character. Some of these people turned in phony registration forms in order to collect their pay, as they were paid per registration. As soon as Acorn found out about the phony registrations, they reported it to the authorities. They did. Themselves. They weren't hiding anything. And Barack Obama had nothing to do with it.

So again, your statement that "his involvement with Acorn was criminal" is absolutely, totally, completely, 100% untrue. Yet you refuse to retract this statement.

You see, this is why nobody listens to you or believes you. You either flat-out lie or you're just too stupid to know that you're wrong. Either way...

[wolfgirl]

And as for my inner voice?? Are you questionig my reason about Obama or other things I believe? I draw a lot of my conclusions on what I believe are good and right ethics and morals in the eyes of God first and then others. And on that note we have strayed a bit off the thread topic so if you would like to continue this topic on what inner voice we subsribe to I think it's a whole different thread discussion.Ummm...Hokulele meant "use your inside voice" because you were YELLING AT US!

[plumjam]

Ichneumonwasp, I'm interested in the way you employ the notion of 'shared delusion'. If a large number of people witness via their senses, and similarly report, a particular phenomenon, then on what grounds would one be justified in classifying this as a shared delusion rather than valid evidence?
The only answer I can currently think of is because the phenomenon in question does not fit into your current world view, and thus in order to retain the world view the phenomenon has to be dismissed. In order to dismiss it, rather nebulous notions such as 'shared delusions' or 'mass hysteria' are introduced.
But what exactly are shared delusions? How do they work? Has there been any interesting, persuasive work done to establish that shared delusions do indeed exist?

I would also ask you to ponder on the naturalist mantra of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. It is actually an anti-scientific prejudice.
Anti-scientific because it introduces a subjective notion into the process. Who gets to decide what is ordinary/extraordinary?
Science, they say, is supposed to be an unbiased disinterested investigation of what is the case in the physical world. I realise that that is often not the case, but to add the 'extraordinary claims..' mantra into the mix is just making things worse by introducing what is nothing more than an appeal to prejudice.
By allowing investigators to raise as far as they like the bar of evidence (this is what the highly subjective notion of extraordinary evidence allows), what you have done is allowed them to preserve, against all attacks, their current (if history is anything to go by) most probably fallacious world view.
Thus the mantra is a force for the retardation of progress in knowledge.
Anyone who uses it with a straight face should be roundly spanked.

[wolfgirl]

Yes, this is off-topic, but you won't answer this question in the appropriate thread where I and others have tried to address it..)And even if he is not he supports many who arePlease provide names and specifics of these "many" terrorists and evil-doers who Obama supports. In the other thread, you said you couldn't pronounce their names. That's okay here, though, because you don't have to pronounce them, you just have to type them. So far, I think you've mentioned Ayers, which has been addressed ad nauseum, so I won't even bother, and Raila Odinga (whom you didn't name because you couldn't be bothered to actually look up any facts, but just called him "Obama's cousin in Kenya" with no evidence). You have nothing else. If you do, please present it to us. And tell us why, if there are so many of these connections, the only one McCain and Palin bring up is Ayers. If they had more, don't you think they'd be using them?Just imagine what could happen to this country if an undercover Muslim did get in the President seat??Could it really be much worse than what's already happened to this country with a crazy xian fundy in the President's seat? (Okay, I'm kidding...but only just barelyand I do not see that as oaky with so many radicals who just want to convert or kill us.You mean like the xian radicals (like you) who want to convert all non-xians (like us and everyone else in the world who's of another religion)? Oh, but that's okay, I forgot. You're right and they're wrong, so it's all good.

[Ladewig]

And on that note I must ask each one of you if you have ever read or studied the teachings of Jesus??

I have. Large numbers of posters on this site have as well.

What would it take to convince you the truth of Chrisitanity is Christ himself?

What would it take? That's easy. I just need to meet some Christians who can look at a tree and cast it into the ocean simply by saying "Tree, be plucked up by the root in the name of Jesus and be cast into the ocean." That's from Luke chapter 17.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

I am still looking for an answer to this question:
Why is it so hard for you to grasp the idea that Muslims say the very same things about their faith and their scriptures as you say about yours and that they are just as sincere, just as passionate, and just as zealous as you are?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ichneumonwasp, I'm interested in the way you employ the notion of 'shared delusion'. If a large number of people witness via their senses, and similarly report, a particular phenomenon, then on what grounds would one be justified in classifying this as a shared delusion rather than valid evidence?
The only answer I can currently think of is because the phenomenon in question does not fit into your current world view, and thus in order to retain the world view the phenomenon has to be dismissed. In order to dismiss it, rather nebulous notions such as 'shared delusions' or 'mass hysteria' are introduced.
But what exactly are shared delusions? How do they work? Has there been any interesting, persuasive work done to establish that shared delusions do indeed exist?

I would also ask you to ponder on the naturalist mantra of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. It is actually an anti-scientific prejudice.
Anti-scientific because it introduces a subjective notion into the process. Who gets to decide what is ordinary/extraordinary?
Science, they say, is supposed to be an unbiased disinterested investigation of what is the case in the physical world. I realise that that is often not the case, but to add the 'extraordinary claims..' mantra into the mix is just making things worse by introducing what is nothing more than an appeal to prejudice.
By allowing investigators to raise as far as they like the bar of evidence, what you have done is allowed them to preserve, against all attacks, their current (if history is anything to go by) most probably fallacious world view.
Thus the mantra is a force for the retardation of progress in knowledge.
Anyone who uses it with a straight face should be roundly spanked.


You seem to assume that perception is a naive task (I don't mean that as a dig, but as a statement about how perception occurs).

If a group of naive perceivers, with no prompting, see something in concert, then nearly everyone will accept their eye-witness testimony. They may interpret what they see differently, but they will accept that they saw something together.

However, in Fatima, the crowd was primed to see a miracle and people do not appear to have seen something in concert. Rather, from the reports that I have read, the idea that the sun was jumping in the sky spread through the crowd and people then began to see what they reported as a miracle. Many of the reports also appear to have been re-creations after the event without clear evidence that the people saw anything strange initially. (And, keep in mind, that this does not even concern the issue of what they say they saw as being real -- the sun jumping in the sky means that either the sun moved very quickly or the earth moved very quickly, and both of those possibilities would have dire consequences for life on earth, yet nothing changed for us here.) Whatever was reportedly seen did not happen in reality. When something does not happen in reality but is perceived we call it a hallucination.

The same was true in Salem, Mass. where a group of girls swore that they saw spirits swarming through the air.

It is not simply an issue of rejecting a phenomenon because it clashes with the story we tell about the world (though an interpretation that clashes with common sense requires significant evidence, as it should, for us to accept it). Few dismiss such claims out of hand without any consideration. Instead, we seek alternate explanations that still work within the "rules of the game". As I said, if no such explanation can be found, then we are left with the definite possibility that our worldview is wrong. The evidence decides that, not "us". And, as I said, I haven't seen or heard of such evidence yet. Do you have some?

As to "what is extraordinary?", many people already agree on that notion -- that which we do not experience or cannot experience regularly. We do not hear the voice of God regularly; we do not see apparitions regularly; we do not experience alien abductions regularly; we do not know of vast government consiparcies to down our own buildings as a matter of course. Is there an absolute line in the sand? Of course, not. There never is for common word definitions. But that does not mean that it is not a useful concept.

As to the bar being high -- well, it needs to be high. We are too adept at fooling ourselves for it to be anywhere but high. Set the bar too low and we are left believing all sorts of weird things -- mad gassers running about Indiana; aliens responsible for crop circles in the UK; witches cursing young men in central Africa, Britney Spears...........

As to the issue of shared delusions, there is a wealth of information in the psychiatric literature. Just do a google search.

[SezMe]

The road I am traveling on now is much simpler ...
This is the only part of your drivel that I don't laugh at. I think it explains much.

[RandFan]

To know God we must become like little children...

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. --1 Corinthians 13:11

If there is a god I would like to think he wants me to use my intelect and reason to find the truth and not accept the word of humans.

I don't let my critical thinking control me like others do because I have found a life of faith and I like it much better. As do most Mormons.

That does not mean I cannot think things through or try to explain them well, it just means I don't need to.Same with most Mormons.

To know God we must become like little children who take him at his word. What is his word?

Bible
Koran
Bhagavad-Gita
Paganism
Sikh
Seventh Day Adventist
Book of Mormon
Jehova's Witness
You said you tried that before as a missionary, what kind of missionary?Momon missionary.

[SezMe]

Yes I am sorry I do suspect Obama of being capable of concealing that.
I wonder if you are aware that we have a Representative to the House from the state of Minnisota who is a muslim. His name is Keith Ellison and you can read his official web site (http://ellison.house.gov/) and his wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Maurice_Ellison). He is a mainstream politician doing what he can to make America a better country.

The thought that Obama would undermine the USA just because he is a muslim is beyond ludicrous.

[RandFan]

The thought that Obama would undermine the USA just because he is a muslim is beyond ludicrous.I couldn't agree more.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I wonder if you are aware that we have a Representative to the House from the state of Minnisota who is a muslim. His name is Keith Ellison and you can read his official web site (http://ellison.house.gov/) and his wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Maurice_Ellison). He is a mainstream politician doing what he can to make America a better country.

The thought that Obama would undermine the USA just because he is a muslim is beyond ludicrous.

Odin help us if he's an atheist!

[SezMe]

Odin help us if he's an atheist!
At the risk of causing KK to swoon, we have one of those too, Pete Stark.

He announced (http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html) his atheism in public no less. You can read more about him on his official web site (http://www.house.gov/stark/) or at his wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark).

O, the Diversity. The shame of it all. America is doomed, I tells ya. DOOMED.

[Silentknight]

Many Muslims have converted to Christianity after meeting the risen Christ and I believe their testimony. I have faith and believe what they say is true and the fruit is their lives changed. Yes some even died at the hand of their families for coverting to Christianity, but they will be in heaven and their murderers will more than likely not be unless Jesus decides to save and forgive them too, which we just never know. (all caps rant omitted)
Did you know that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the west? Did you know that one of the promises Islam makes to new converts is automatic forgiveness of past sins? What makes the promises of Christianity any more valid than theirs? Also, and this has already been said, but are you aware of the fact that "Allah" literally translates into "The God" and is the same God that Judaism and Christianity worship? In fact, Islam claims the same patriarch in Abraham, but disagrees on who his rightful heir was, for they believe it was Ishmael instead of Isaac.

Just imagine what could happen to this country if an undercover Muslim...

Then I stopped reading.

[Blodwin]

Did you know that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the west? Did you know that one of the promises Islam makes to new converts is automatic forgiveness of past sins?

Hahaha! I love it! Special introductory offer for new customers.

The reason that makes me chuckle is that I was recently having a conversation with a mildly Anglican friend and I was arguing that religious organisations are very much like commercial corporations in the way they market themselves. Their actions are all geared to maximise their profitability and growth and they don't really give a toss about their "customers" as individuals (e.g. Catholic AIDS victims). This is a classic example of a standard marketing ploy that I wasn't aware they used, but I should have guessed.

[Foster Zygote]

I couldn't agree more.

Many Protestants used to say the same crap about Kennedy being a Catholic. "Oh no! The Pope will be in charge of the country." I think Kennedy has been over-rated as a president, but he certainly didn't let his Catholicism unduly influence his execution of the duties of his office.

[Moochie]

Ichneumonwasp, I'm interested in the way you employ the notion of 'shared delusion'. If a large number of people witness via their senses, and similarly report, a particular phenomenon, then on what grounds would one be justified in classifying this as a shared delusion rather than valid evidence?
The only answer I can currently think of is because the phenomenon in question does not fit into your current world view, and thus in order to retain the world view the phenomenon has to be dismissed. In order to dismiss it, rather nebulous notions such as 'shared delusions' or 'mass hysteria' are introduced.
But what exactly are shared delusions? How do they work? Has there been any interesting, persuasive work done to establish that shared delusions do indeed exist?

I would also ask you to ponder on the naturalist mantra of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. It is actually an anti-scientific prejudice.
Anti-scientific because it introduces a subjective notion into the process. Who gets to decide what is ordinary/extraordinary?
Science, they say, is supposed to be an unbiased disinterested investigation of what is the case in the physical world. I realise that that is often not the case, but to add the 'extraordinary claims..' mantra into the mix is just making things worse by introducing what is nothing more than an appeal to prejudice.
By allowing investigators to raise as far as they like the bar of evidence (this is what the highly subjective notion of extraordinary evidence allows), what you have done is allowed them to preserve, against all attacks, their current (if history is anything to go by) most probably fallacious world view.
Thus the mantra is a force for the retardation of progress in knowledge.
Anyone who uses it with a straight face should be roundly spanked.

plumjam, check out folie à plusieurs (madness of many) at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

It's not a new concept, and while its usefulness can be debated, the phenomenon has been around a while.


M.

[articulett]

Anybody at a magic show participates in a shared delusion. We can all have a shared delusion. Watch the dot in the center of the picture below-- the colorful fluff will disappear. You can see it with your own eyes!

At one time humans shared the delusion that the earth was flat. A mirage is a shared delusion. Eyes, ears, and brains interpret-- they don't just "record the data as is".

even smart people are easy, easy to fool. Shared delusions are par for the course with humans.

K3pGmRkDZLI

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/esp.html

[RandFan]

K3pGmRkDZLI

So cool.

[Moochie]

Anybody at a magic show participates in a shared delusion. We can all have a shared delusion. Watch the dot in the center of the picture below-- the colorful fluff will disappear. You can see it with your own eyes!

At one time humans shared the delusion that the earth was flat. A mirage is a shared delusion. Eyes, ears, and brains interpret-- they don't just "record the data as is".

even smart people are easy, easy to fool. Shared delusions are par for the course with humans.

K3pGmRkDZLI

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/esp.html

What with that picture and the song, I'm in need of a strong drink. :eye-poppi


M.

[plumjam]

plumjam, check out folie à plusieurs (madness of many) at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

It's not a new concept, and while its usefulness can be debated, the phenomenon has been around a while.


M.

Funnily enough I did check that out yesterday.. or did I? Maybe you and I are suffering from the much more common folie a deux ;)
These folies/delusions seem to involve generalised mental states such as paranoia, rather than what was specifically the topic in question - shared (supposedly delusional) sense perceptions.
On that I couldn't really find anything of interest, so gave up.
It seems like the notion of generalised mental delusion is niftily appropriated by naturalists and implanted into the area of sense perception, in order to appear to be able to explain away supposed mass sensory delusions such as Fatima.
A bit naughty if you ask me.

[plumjam]

Arti, what you are talking about are the interpretations made regarding sensory perceptions. The subject I (we?) was/were addressing is the sensory perceptions themselves.

[articulett]

But all sensory perceptions are, in fact, interpretations. We "see" the fluff disappear... the fluff doesn't disappear. It's much more likely that people are misinterpreting data than that invisible beings are sending us cryptic messages to make us feel good or saved or special.

Lots of people truly believe they have been visited by aliens or ghosts or demons. They aren't lying. That doesn't mean they've actually been visited by aliens, demons, or ghosts, however. Same thing with "god" and Lady Fatima. Or rather, there is no evidence to say such visitations are any different.

[Silentknight]

Anybody at a magic show participates in a shared delusion. We can all have a shared delusion. Watch the dot in the center of the picture below-- the colorful fluff will disappear. You can see it with your own eyes!

I can't get it to work. :confused:

Augh! Now there's a colored fluff negative burned into my retinas! :covereyes

[plumjam]

But all sensory perceptions are, in fact, interpretations. We "see" the fluff disappear... the fluff doesn't disappear. It's much more likely that people are misinterpreting data than that invisible beings are sending us cryptic messages to make us feel good or saved or special.

Lots of people truly believe they have been visited by aliens or ghosts or demons. They aren't lying. That doesn't mean they've actually been visited by aliens, demons, or ghosts, however. Same thing with "god" and Lady Fatima. Or rather, there is no evidence to say such visitations are any different.

Well I think we're getting hung up on the word 'interpretation' here. There is the interpretation of sense data done pretty much automatically by the brain.. and then subsequently there is the higher-level interpretation of the interpretation the brain made of the sense data. So I can see the confusion.
What I was getting at was that the light hitting the retinas of the upwards of 30,000 people who witnessed the miracle of the sun at Fatima ..the fact that the light hit their retinas in the way it did, that is prior to, and independent of the latter, higher-level, kind of interpretation i.e. either 'that was the sun dancing miraculously around as confirmation of the visible sign promised by Our Lady' or 'that was some atmospheric trick of the light'.

[articulett]

I can't get it to work. :confused:

Augh! Now there's a colored fluff negative burned into my retinas! :covereyes

Xenu hates you.

[articulett]

Well I think we're getting hung up on the word 'interpretation' here. There is the interpretation of sense data done pretty much automatically by the brain.. and then subsequently there is the higher-level interpretation of the interpretation the brain made of the sense data. So I can see the confusion.
What I was getting at was that the light hitting the retinas of the upwards of 30,000 people who witnessed the miracle of the sun at Fatima ..the fact that the light hit their retinas in the way it did, that is prior to, and independent of the latter, higher-level, kind of interpretation i.e. either 'that was the sun dancing miraculously around as confirmation of the visible sign promised by Our Lady' or 'that was some atmospheric trick of the light'.

So you think that it's much more likely that an invisible ghost lady was sending a magical promised signal then something else more prosaic going on??!!??

That's just not very skeptical, I must say. I think it's a lot more rational to say, "I'm not sure" than to say, "I think it was magic, because no one has explained it sufficiently to me". To me, all who believe in the miracle fall in the latter category. Most skeptics would fall in the former. Not understanding something is not a good reason to plug in the magical story you want to be true.

Unless of course, "belief" is more important to you than what is actually going on. Believers just always strike me as people who would rather "believe in" a magic story than to find out the "truth" if the truth means they've been deceiving themselves. I don't mind that people are that way-- but I am much more interested in what is true for everyone no matter what they believe. I think faith makes people prone to see and hear what isn't there and miss the wonders that are.

Either invisible entities are communicating with humans or they are all delusions by humans. And, the evidence seems strongly to suggest the latter to me. People are just not as smart and rational as they imagine themselves to be in my experience though most seem ultra convinced that they cannot be fooled. But who knows... maybe one day there will be evidence for some magical something or other. I shan't hold my breath waiting for that day or imagine that something is evidence when it is not. And, yet, that's what all true believers" in all woo are doing, aren't they? I don't see any evidence of any invisible magic people communicating anything with anyone, and all believers in such things sound delusional to me. (And even if there were invisible people sending out signals, we have no way to tell such signals from delusions of such signals!!-- Humans are very good at fooling themselves in this area it seems.)

So, yes, Plumjam... I think you and Kurious Kathy are as delusional as you think Tom Cruise is... and for the same reasons. I don't think you are lying or bad-- I just think you are arrogant and irrational due to faith in whatever magical story you've come to believe in. That's the same as I think of Tom Cruise, by the way... the same as I think of those who promote the talents of Syvlia Browne. It's probably the same way you feel towards others who "believe in" wacky things you don't believe in. How else does one describe masses of people who "believe in" things that are just wrong? I also think the hijackers truly believed that they were doing gods' will and would be rewarded in paradise for doing so. But I don't believe there are any gods or any paradise. I think they are all delusions that humans are readily manipulated by.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well I think we're getting hung up on the word 'interpretation' here. There is the interpretation of sense data done pretty much automatically by the brain.. and then subsequently there is the higher-level interpretation of the interpretation the brain made of the sense data. So I can see the confusion.
What I was getting at was that the light hitting the retinas of the upwards of 30,000 people who witnessed the miracle of the sun at Fatima ..the fact that the light hit their retinas in the way it did, that is prior to, and independent of the latter, higher-level, kind of interpretation i.e. either 'that was the sun dancing miraculously around as confirmation of the visible sign promised by Our Lady' or 'that was some atmospheric trick of the light'.


Wait a second. Are you saying that you have evidence of how light hit the eyes of 30,000 people at Fatima? Are you really contending that there is evidence to prove that the sun actually jumped in the sky? Are you suggesting that the earth no longer exists? Or are you suggesting that only the people in Fatima saw this apparition?

Let's examine the possibilities here.......either the sun did jump and the earth doesn't exist; or the earth jumped and it still no longer exists; or there was a mass hallucination; or there was an illusion created by people primed to see a miracle and suggestion that the sun was dancing in the sky; or there were a few people who reported it and 30,000 people present who did not and weren't asked; or there was some sort of miracle that allows people to see something that strangely has no effect on anyone's life. Do you really think that God works by making the sun jump in the sky when he could relieve the suffering of billions?

[moon1969]

Christianity was influenced by paganism.

[TinfoilCat]

Christianity was influenced by paganism.

You sir, have been watching too much "Zeitgeist". :)

[Egg]

It is not simply an issue of rejecting a phenomenon because it clashes with the story we tell about the world (though an interpretation that clashes with common sense requires significant evidence, as it should, for us to accept it). Few dismiss such claims out of hand without any consideration. Instead, we seek alternate explanations that still work within the "rules of the game". As I said, if no such explanation can be found, then we are left with the definite possibility that our worldview is wrong. The evidence decides that, not "us". And, as I said, I haven't seen or heard of such evidence yet. Do you have some?

As to "what is extraordinary?", many people already agree on that notion -- that which we do not experience or cannot experience regularly. We do not hear the voice of God regularly; we do not see apparitions regularly; we do not experience alien abductions regularly; we do not know of vast government consiparcies to down our own buildings as a matter of course. Is there an absolute line in the sand? Of course, not. There never is for common word definitions. But that does not mean that it is not a useful concept.

As to the bar being high -- well, it needs to be high. We are too adept at fooling ourselves for it to be anywhere but high. Set the bar too low and we are left believing all sorts of weird things -- mad gassers running about Indiana; aliens responsible for crop circles in the UK; witches cursing young men in central Africa, Britney Spears...........

As to the issue of shared delusions, there is a wealth of information in the psychiatric literature. Just do a google search.

I think Plumjam makes a good point about "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". I think it does bring subjectivity into play. Someone who believes they live in a haunted house and is expecting ghosts might think there's nothing extraordinary about the notion of ghosts and so unexplained noises and swaying ceiling lights could be considered acceptable evidence to them, or, as an attempt to tie into the thread in some way, the vast majority of people are theistic, so a claim that spiritual experiences are just imaginary would be considered by most as extraordinary.

Also, what is "extraordinary evidence"? I could claim that monkeys fly when nobody's watching and say my extraordinary evidence is that I dreamed that I was told this on a pink telephone. That's pretty extraordinary evidence.

The particular danger is that some can take a dogmatic approach to the statement and use it to rule out things that don't fit into their worldview when there is no logical reason to do so. This was pretty much the point of my ruler story (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4124616&postcount=117) earlier in the thread.

My quibble with clarifying "extraordinary" as "that which we do not experience or cannot experience regularly" would be that there are many things we don't experience regularly which very few would require special evidence for.

You made an interesting point about how consequential something is for influencing the kind of evidence someone might expect. I think that certainly can ring true in day to day life, but as with your example with the deer sighting, in another context, that could mean feeding your hungry family and nothing would be more important. I would imagine the anecdotal evidence would be plenty to go on for that hunter.

I think we can probably make a statement which sort of covers the same thing, but reduces subjectivity. Perhaps talking in terms of "a claim that contradicts well established scientific theory" rather than something which can be interpreted as "that seems a bit odd to me". Of course it won't sound as snappy and it won't be as useful to those who want to put unrealistic expectations of evidence onto things that don't fit their worldview or gel with common sense.

All that said, the notion of shared hallucinations seems pretty extraordinary to me. It could even put into question many things we take for granted. I don't think it's quite the same phenomenon as influencing each other's paranoid delusions or known optical illusions. I had a bit of a Google, but can't find much related (except maybe this (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Blair)). Can you point me in the direction of any related studies?

[Moochie]

Funnily enough I did check that out yesterday.. or did I? Maybe you and I are suffering from the much more common folie a deux ;)
These folies/delusions seem to involve generalised mental states such as paranoia, rather than what was specifically the topic in question - shared (supposedly delusional) sense perceptions.
On that I couldn't really find anything of interest, so gave up.
It seems like the notion of generalised mental delusion is niftily appropriated by naturalists and implanted into the area of sense perception, in order to appear to be able to explain away supposed mass sensory delusions such as Fatima.
A bit naughty if you ask me.

Perhaps, but I can ultimately only speak for myself, and I've yet to participate in a mass "seeing" as purportedly occurred at Fatima, so I am left with the task of explaining to myself what might have occurred there as best I can. Being skeptical means I try to find more mundane explanations for what happened, something that will make sense in terms of what we know of the universe, rather than what we don't know. I don't doubt that the people experienced something, but I do doubt it was anything exceptional, except perhaps in a psychological sense.


M.

[paximperium]

I think Plumjam makes a good point about "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". I think it does bring subjectivity into play. Someone who believes they live in a haunted house and is expecting ghosts might think there's nothing extraordinary about the notion of ghosts and so unexplained noises and swaying ceiling lights could be considered acceptable evidence to them, or, as an attempt to tie into the thread in some way, the vast majority of people are theistic, so a claim that spiritual experiences are just imaginary would be considered by most as extraordinary.
<snip>
Also, what is "extraordinary evidence"? I could claim that monkeys fly when nobody's watching and say my extraordinary evidence is that I dreamed that I was told this on a pink telephone. That's pretty extraordinary evidence.
<snip>
My quibble with clarifying "extraordinary" as "that which we do not experience or cannot experience regularly" would be that there are many things we don't experience regularly which very few would require special evidence for.

"Extraordinary" evidence is evidence that is statistically outside the bounds of natural chance AND natural events AND can only be best explained by the supposedly claim. This is my criteria and it can be objective.

[plumjam]

Wait a second. Are you saying that you have evidence of how light hit the eyes of 30,000 people at Fatima? Are you really contending that there is evidence to prove that the sun actually jumped in the sky? Are you suggesting that the earth no longer exists? Or are you suggesting that only the people in Fatima saw this apparition?
What we have is an enormous amount of eyewitness testimony. Thousands of people saw pretty much the same thing. Not only the people in Fatima experienced it either. The inhabitants of a whole village 18km away saw the same thing. I have also read that other people experienced it up to a radius of about 30km. This would disqualify your contention that some cry going through the crowd influenced what people experienced. Nor is it the case that people were told the nature of the visible sign which would take place, it was merely that - a visible sign. There is, of course, the further problem of how 3 peasant children were able to exactly predict the time and location of such an unprecedented phenomenon.
Nor could it be argued that people were seeing what they want to see. Many people there - journalists from anticlerical newspapers, scientists, atheists, skeptics, professors etc.. - were there with the expectation, even the hope, that they would see nothing at all. Nor was the phenomenon entirely visual. Prior to the experience of the sun there was a heavy downpour, drenching both the spectators and the ground. After the visual phenomenon (which lasted 12 minutes) the witnesses reported that both their clothes and the ground suddenly dried.

Let's examine the possibilities here.......either the sun did jump and the earth doesn't exist; or the earth jumped and it still no longer exists; or there was a mass hallucination; or there was an illusion created by people primed to see a miracle and suggestion that the sun was dancing in the sky; or there were a few people who reported it and 30,000 people present who did not and weren't asked; or there was some sort of miracle that allows people to see something that strangely has no effect on anyone's life. Do you really think that God works by making the sun jump in the sky when he could relieve the suffering of billions?
It's good to examine possibilities and question assumptions. If it's the case that the eyewitnesses were not all lying in a massive conspiracy then it brings into question the naturalistic version of what reality is and how it works.

As an aside, what I find quite amusing is that it's a common complaint here that if God exists why doesn't he show this to us with some kind of sign via the senses?
Yet when very good evidence for such an event actually having happened is brought forward the reaction is to do anything possible to deny that it did. Then, of course, it's clearly a 'shared delusion' or 'mass hallucination' :D

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think Plumjam makes a good point about "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". I think it does bring subjectivity into play. Someone who believes they live in a haunted house and is expecting ghosts might think there's nothing extraordinary about the notion of ghosts and so unexplained noises and swaying ceiling lights could be considered acceptable evidence to them, or, as an attempt to tie into the thread in some way, the vast majority of people are theistic, so a claim that spiritual experiences are just imaginary would be considered by most as extraordinary.

Also, what is "extraordinary evidence"? I could claim that monkeys fly when nobody's watching and say my extraordinary evidence is that I dreamed that I was told this on a pink telephone. That's pretty extraordinary evidence.

The particular danger is that some can take a dogmatic approach to the statement and use it to rule out things that don't fit into their worldview when there is no logical reason to do so. This was pretty much the point of my ruler story (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4124616&postcount=117) earlier in the thread.

My quibble with clarifying "extraordinary" as "that which we do not experience or cannot experience regularly" would be that there are many things we don't experience regularly which very few would require special evidence for.

You made an interesting point about how consequential something is for influencing the kind of evidence someone might expect. I think that certainly can ring true in day to day life, but as with your example with the deer sighting, in another context, that could mean feeding your hungry family and nothing would be more important. I would imagine the anecdotal evidence would be plenty to go on for that hunter.

I think we can probably make a statement which sort of covers the same thing, but reduces subjectivity. Perhaps talking in terms of "a claim that contradicts well established scientific theory" rather than something which can be interpreted as "that seems a bit odd to me". Of course it won't sound as snappy and it won't be as useful to those who want to put unrealistic expectations of evidence onto things that don't fit their worldview or gel with common sense.

All that said, the notion of shared hallucinations seems pretty extraordinary to me. It could even put into question many things we take for granted. I don't think it's quite the same phenomenon as influencing each other's paranoid delusions or known optical illusions. I had a bit of a Google, but can't find much related (except maybe this (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Blair)). Can you point me in the direction of any related studies?


The issue about extraordinary evidence being needed to for extraordinary claims is that we (humans) do have a particular experience of the world. We have devised a model that explains the reality we see. That model plays by a certain set of rules. An extraordinary experience is one that violates those rules. That is the situation that requires extraordinary evidence.

So, let's examine your example of someone living in a haunted house. First, if we are to take this example seriously, we must assume that haunted houses are even likely. That requires that we have a model of the world that includes the supernatural. In that scenario nothing is extraordinary. The supernatural, by its very definition, does not play by the rules that we see around us. If the supernatural exists, then there are no rules of the game and explanation becomes -- well, God did it. Science ceases to exist.

If, on the other hand, we stick by our 'rules of the game' and try to explain the haunted house and find Mr. Dithers pulling strings, using magnets, projecting holograms -- and he would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you pesky kids -- then we reach an entirely different conclusion. This sort of approach, at least, means that science is possible. The other -- that there is a supernatural world behind this world and it's all dualism -- means that anything is possible and we can't really trust our own eyes, ever, because there are other factors at play that do not follow the rules.

The line that you and PJ are proposing is that it is impossible for a skeptic to overturn his/her worldview. But it isn't. Overturning a worldview, however, requires extraordinary evidence that cannot be explained in any other fashion.

Even with Fatima, no one is arguing that nothing happened, only that what did happen could easily be misinterpreted.

I'm not sure what to do with someone who tells me that they think it extraordinary that a group of people who have been told previously that the Virgin Mary was seen recently and that they should gather for something miraculous and end up seeing the sun jumping in the sky when they look directly at the sun for a while. I'm afraid I don't see anything miraculous (or even extraordinary) in that to begin with; and knowing how the human perceptual system is prone to certain types of errors, particularly when primed for them, should give anyone pause in believing that the truly miraculous occurred.

If you wish to push the monkey flying bit, then there is nothing to discuss, since that represents equivocation over the word extraordinary. You know already that extraordinary evidence means significant corroboration of independent lines of evidence that converge on a single answer. I don't think I need to belabor the point. Again, that is how science works.

I will repeat -- it is not the case that it is impossible for people to change their minds about their worldview; but it is and should be very difficult for this to happen. I wouldn't want folks running about deciding that they are monists one day, dualists another, Chthulu followers the next, etc. Pardigms don't fall easily; they should not fall easily. But it is also not the case that we dismiss evidence in order to make our worldview work. It is also not the case that mass delusions are extraordinary or that mass hallucinations are extraordinary. Magicians fool our eyes -- they fool the eyes of everyone watching -- because they take advantage of the way that human perception works. Just because I see a guy pull a rabbit out of a hat, however, does not mean that I must conclude that an immaterial rabbit has suddenly materialized in this guy's hat and that the law of consevation of energy has been breached.

I have asked for evidence that there is something behind this world. I have repeated more than once in this thread that I have yet to see such evidence. So, I will ask again, do you have such evidence? Why should I change my stance from monism to dualism or pluralism? And I will repeat my other challenge that I have offered before and for which no one has supplied an explanation -- how does dualism work? How do incommensurate substances interact?

[Ichneumonwasp]

What we have is an enormous amount of eyewitness testimony. Thousands of people saw pretty much the same thing. Not only the people in Fatima experienced it either. The inhabitants of a whole village 18km away saw the same thing. I have also read that other people experienced it up to a radius of about 30km. This would disqualify your contention that some cry going through the crowd influenced what people experienced. Nor is it the case that people were told the nature of the visible sign which would take place, it was merely that - a visible sign. There is, of course, the further problem of how 3 peasant children were able to exactly predict the time and location of such an unprecedented phenomenon.
Nor could it be argued that people were seeing what they want to see. Many people there - journalists from anticlerical newspapers, scientists, atheists, skeptics, professors etc.. - were there with the expectation, even the hope, that they would see nothing at all. Nor was the phenomenon entirely visual. Prior to the experience of the sun there was a heavy downpour, drenching both the spectators and the ground. After the visual phenomenon (which lasted 12 minutes) the witnesses reported that both their clothes and the ground suddenly dried.

No, thousands of people reported the same experience -- that is very different than "thousands of people saw the same thing" and has very different consequences. This event occurred in a particular circumstance. The people were already primed to see "a miracle" and there is a wealth of research examining how preconceptions shape particular types of perceptions. **Before going further it is not the case that priming can change all perceptions, but it certainly changes complex interpretations of perceptions**

There is no problem explaining how three children "predicted" the event. They primed the crowd for something miraculous. The crowd responded when they expected the miraculous.

Have you considered that atmospheric conditions, with people staring directly at the sun, could produce an appearance of the sun dancing? have you considered that the social pressure to see what others reported as seeing might alter others' reports? These people didn't lie about what they saw. I'm sure they truly believed what they report they saw. It does not follow, however, that the sun danced in the sky.

Look, we know the sun did not dance in the sky in reality. If it did, the earth no longer exists. Tell me, does the earth exist or not? I cannot believe a rational person, such as yourself, would argue that this event actually occurred as it was interpreted by some. Are you really this gullible?

It's good to examine possibilities and question assumptions. If it's the case that the eyewitnesses were not all lying in a massive conspiracy then it brings into question the naturalistic version of what reality is and how it works.

As an aside, what I find quite amusing is that it's a common complaint here that if God exists why doesn't he show this to us with some kind of sign via the senses?
Yet when very good evidence for such an event actually having happened is brought forward the reaction is to do anything possible to deny that it did. Then, of course, it's clearly a 'shared delusion' or 'mass hallucination' :D


What very good evidence? Do you mean that when an impressionable girl tells people that she has had a vision and that there is going to be a miracle, so come on out and see it -- followed by a visual experience that has numerous potential explanations -- is evidence that God exists?

Would you please expand on that, because I really don't see the connection? God is the God of visual illusions in small Portuguese towns?

[RandFan]

Yet when very good evidence for such an event actually having happened is brought forward the reaction is to do anything possible to deny that it did. Then, of course, it's clearly a 'shared delusion' or 'mass hallucination' I think you will find that most rationalists, you know, those folks that lean left, accept that there are prosaic answers to this event.

People who spend their lives looking for truth, folk like Joe Nickel, have looked at Fatima and have found that it is not credible.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/Fatima.htm

Now if some people among the 70 thousand weren't entirely convinced, would they express their scepticism, or would they repress it, with a suspcion that the fault must lie with them, and their faith, if all others are seeing it? Would they not just go along with it, in the fear of being branded weak of faith, and shunned socially, like the people in the child's story of "Emperor's new clothes"? And if they were to express it, which story would propagate and survive, and which would die out: "We saw the miracle of the Sun!" or "We just saw some coloured lights because we stared at the sun for too long."? Is there any doubt that the doubters, even if they dared to speak out, would not get their voices heard? Which story is more attractive then to media trying to sell their products to a mostly catholic population - a story of 70 thousand people standing in the field staring at the sun and getting visual distortions from it, or a genuine miracle, witnessed by 70 thousand onlookers?

[Ichneumonwasp]

There is a fundamental issue that I think you guys are missing, and I consider that my fault for not expressing it properly.

For someone to give up on a worldview requires either definite proof that worldview is wrong or a simple change because the person didn't really accept the worldview in the first place but was wishy washy about how the world works (meaning they do not consider the full logical implications of the worldview but are really only fair weather fans, so to speak, who think they might accept it but are closet dualists -- or whatever -- who don't really know their actual position).

So, to use the Fatima example (keep in mind that I brought this example into the discussion and I did so for a very particular reason) as evidence that monism is wrong and dualism is correct requires that you demonstrate that it is impossible for monistic explanations to work.

Now, from a strictly philosophical perspective, no one can argue that monism cannot explain this phenomenon logically, or, rather, that it is logically impossible for monism to provide an explanation. So, in the strict logical sense you've lost the bet already. But that sort of philosophical game isn't even interesting, so let it pass.

I don't particularly care whether or not you accept the explanation of mass delusion based on expectation, visual illusion from staring at the sun and atmospheric conditions at the time, and faulty memory based on "group think". It doesn't matter if you accept that as THE explanation. What you actually need to show is that such things as visual illusion based on atmospheric conditions, delusion based on expectation, and group think do not exist so that it is almost impossible that there is another likely explanation for the Fatima event in order to promote the idea that everyone needs to shift their worldview to dualism.

The whole point of this being a miracle is that people actually believed that the sun jumped in the sky, which, again means that either the sun moved or the earth moved in a funny way in its orbit. But others around the globe did not experience this 'miraculous event'. The reason I brought Fatima into this discussion is precisely because we do not consider pure visual phenomena, even if shared by thousands, without corroborating evidence as extraordinary evidence. The reason is because there are situations in which this sort of thing may occur -- this being a prime example -- where all the other evidence points to this being an illusion.

There is, of course, the further issue that the sun jumping in the sky isn't particularly impressive. I've seen the sun jump in the sky from atmospheric conditions and when I'm jogging. For some reason I do not interpret that as a miracle every time I encounter it.

Being skeptical of a skeptic's explanation does not promote your claim; it merely shows that you do not accept the possible explanations and prefer a different course. It does not mean that you have provided a compelling case for anyone to reject monism; and accusations that we just don't want to believe fall flat.

But then you are left with this dilemma............you endorse dualism. How does dualism work again?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

What we have is an enormous amount of eyewitness testimony. Thousands of people saw pretty much the same thing. Not only the people in Fatima experienced it either. The inhabitants of a whole village 18km away saw the same thing. I have also read that other people experienced it up to a radius of about 30km. This would disqualify your contention that some cry going through the crowd influenced what people experienced. Nor is it the case that people were told the nature of the visible sign which would take place, it was merely that - a visible sign. There is, of course, the further problem of how 3 peasant children were able to exactly predict the time and location of such an unprecedented phenomenon.

I’d like to see your argument that eye-witness testimony and those who testify are instantly good as their word. Rather I suspect we have instances of a natural phenomenon, not at all a dancing sun but something with a better explanation, and people simply embellished the story with fantastic new supernatural elements. The people in the surrounding villages and areas simply went along with the story, “see! The Emperor does have clothes and I can prove it because x amount of people say so!” Appeal to Popularity.

Nor could it be argued that people were seeing what they want to see. Many people there - journalists from anticlerical newspapers, scientists, atheists, skeptics, professors etc.. - were there with the expectation, even the hope, that they would see nothing at all. Nor was the phenomenon entirely visual. Prior to the experience of the sun there was a heavy downpour, drenching both the spectators and the ground. After the visual phenomenon (which lasted 12 minutes) the witnesses reported that both their clothes and the ground suddenly dried.

In all my study of the event I’ve never heard of a single anticlerical journalist, scientist, atheist, skeptic, professor, etc claim they witnessed the event; in fact, no observatory reports seeing the phenomenon. If such individuals were there I would need to see some credentials, otherwise I may suspect them of spreading disinformation. It’s not at all uncommon in events where emotions run high, remember the lady who went around claiming Charles Darwin renounced natural selection and embraced Christianity on his death bed?

It's good to examine possibilities and question assumptions. If it's the case that the eyewitnesses were not all lying in a massive conspiracy then it brings into question the naturalistic version of what reality is and how it works.

This is a false dilemma, as I’ve shown the only two options are not liars or people telling the truth. Rather I suspect we have liars coming from a lot of the outer areas, could also be that dissenting opinions regarding the event are buried or kept silent for fear of being perceived as heretics or unbelievers…bare in mind that the kids who led this whole little event had much of the population whipped up into a religious fervor weeks before. Rather I suspect a group of people witnessed an event, didn’t know a natural explanation for it, and simply embellished the details. As news of the event spread other individuals claims to have witnessed a similar event those individuals could be considered liars while the former are simply mistaken. But very nice strawman attempt at pushing the skeptical approach down to tiny one-dimensional cases of denial.

As an aside, what I find quite amusing is that it's a common complaint here that if God exists why doesn't he show this to us with some kind of sign via the senses?

If you consider something like this, which is so easily rationalized away, to be a sign then I suppose all atheists should modify the demand for a sign to something that can actually be verified. “The plural of anecdote is not evidence”…as I saw someone’s signature once say.

Yet when very good evidence for such an event actually having happened is brought forward the reaction is to do anything possible to deny that it did. Then, of course, it's clearly a 'shared delusion' or 'mass hallucination' :D

Emphasis mine. What exactly is the good evidence for an event like this? Since when has objective evidence came out for any of these events? Since when has anyone ever even been able to verify them? And why do they always occur in rural or third-world nations to peoples of low IQ, and poor understanding of the natural world?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sorry, I forgot to highlight this issue earlier.........why is it, when a similar sort of experience occurred in Puerto Rico in the 50's and where social scientists were present to examine the phenomenon, that the 'miraculous events' suddenly had very prosaic explanations in every instance? Why do we not speak of Puerto Rico, 1953 the same as we do of Fatima? Could it be that lack of evidence provides an open door for Fatima fantasy?

Secondly, do you guys, therefore, accept the testimony of the girls in Salem? Were Goody Good and John Proctor properly accused and rightfully executed as witches? If you do not accept their testimony, then how is it that you avoid special pleading for the Fatima event? If you do accept their testimony, then you really do believe in witches?

[Silentknight]

There are a couple of points I wanted to bring up, which I remember mentioning in an older discussion on the sun at Fatima.

First, it's a common psychological phenomenon to see movement in something if you want to see it. People who are visiting the morgue to identify a dead relative will often swear they've seen the relative move or twitch, even though this is impossible. If you're used to seeing someone alive and moving around, your brain can easily play tricks on you and make you think they're moving. The same would go for any stationary object.

Secondly, don't forget that we're talking about people who stared directly into the sun. Staring at the sun can not only cause permanent vision loss, it is also painful whether you do it accidentally or on purpose. The body's reflex to painful stimuli is to turn away from the source of the pain, so the same would go for staring at the sun. If you tried to stare at the sun and thus triggered this reflex, you'd have to constantly readjust your view. This, on top of the spots such a bright source of light will leave burned into your retina, could very easily make it look like the sun is dancing around.

Third, the number of eyewitnesses has nothing to do with whether or not a miracle really happened. If I were to add a couple more zeroes to the number of witnesses, would you be a hundred times more impressed? It's also strange that inflicting vision loss on people would be considered a miracle, let alone a means God chooses to communicate with us. I thought miracles were supposed to involve curing ailments or saving someone's life, not damaging the eyesight of gullible morons.

If you stare at the sun, then your eyes are going to get burned. This is the common factor based on how fragile human eyesight is. No miracles are necessary to explain it.

[articulett]

Here, Gord posted this: http://www.milkmiracle.com/

So why do Christians believe the Fatima miracle and not this one... or do they believe this one... ? What makes one more believable as a "miracle" from the divine than the other. If dualism were true, then both miracles are equally likely to be "evidence" for such, right?

Do you think of "other explanations" when it doesn't confirm to your indoctrination, but consider it "evidence of a miracle" when it does? If so, congratulations-- you are a human being experiencing confirmation bias to prove to yourself what you've come to believe is true!

View your miracle through the "milk miracle" lens and see how you sound to this skeptic. Believers in that miracle can make the same arguments as you. It doesn't make their miracle true.

The whole premise is absurd-- this idea that there are these invisible spirits with special powers running around doing tricks that defy physics to "reward" people who've managed to "believe in" them. It's so... silly.
If such entities existed and had such powers their displays are far from convincing or impressive-- and they are indistinguishable from the known ways humans fool each other and themselves. If they really wanted to reward "believers", I can think of much more worthwhile "tricks". To me, this is evidence of how very easy it is to trick people once you get them to believe that "faith" is ennobling and a good way to know "divine secrets".